Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-25

In nit-picking mode :- That release says "stockpile" - to me that means more long-term storage than in a "ready for use magazine" ...
Does that include "incendiaries" like phosphorous ?
Sadly, however, some "chemical" weapons are much easier to manufacture than others ...
[wasn't it saddam's regime that dropped barrels of chemicals on civilians, or was that assad ?]
 
Statement from somebody who might know what they are talking about

 
Statement from somebody who might know what they are talking about


Is this not akin to telling parents in Africa or India not to give their children contaminated water to drink, and when the genius is asked if they can provide clean water in the next 24 hours - before the child dies of dehydration - are told, 'ah, no, sorry...'?

The parent takes a gamble on the polluted water water because while the child may or may not die from the contamination, they absolutely will die without water.

As ever with crap options, have you got a better option?
 
Statement from somebody who might know what they are talking about


I don't see why Hun Sen's views should be lent any more weight than anyone else's on this thread. He's making the same points and the same counter-arguments apply.
 
In nit-picking mode :- That release says "stockpile" - to me that means more long-term storage than in a "ready for use magazine" ...
Does that include "incendiaries" like phosphorous ?
Sadly, however, some "chemical" weapons are much easier to manufacture than others ...
[wasn't it saddam's regime that dropped barrels of chemicals on civilians, or was that assad ?]
I don’t think anyone serious actually believes the US have destroyed their chemical weapons.
 
The commander of the Freedom of Russia Legion says his fighters are planning another cross-border raid into Russia and are seeking to capitalise on disarray inside the Kremlin following the mutiny by Yevgeny Prigozhin.

“There will be a further surprise in the next month or so,” Caesar, a spokesperson for the anti-Putin paramilitary group, said in an interview with the Observer in Kyiv. “It will be our third operation. After that there will be a fourth, and fifth. We have ambitious plans. We want to free all our territory.”

The legion, consisting of around 200 Russian military volunteers, carried out attacks in May and early June. It occupied border villages near the Russian city of Belgorod, skirmished with the Russian army, and took 10 Russian soldiers captive. Two members of the anti-Kremlin militia were killed, Caesar said.

He described the recent incursion near the town of Shebekino as a “local raid and reconnaissance operation”. Caesar, who moved to Ukraine when Moscow’s full-scale invasion began, said he packed his Russian passport. “The border guards ran away. There was no one to show it to,” he joked.
 
I don’t think anyone serious actually believes the US have destroyed their chemical weapons.
Why wouldn't they, though? They're expensive to keep around, don't give any capability that more modern weapons systems don't already provide, and provoke revulsion and horror in most of the world. If it cost nothing to keep them around, or they provided some sort of different capability, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But there simply isn't any logical reason for them to keep them. The generals long ago decided that using chemical weapons was an escalation akin to using tactical nuclear weapons, but without the effectiveness. They're an historic anomaly in any country that can afford modern weapons. (and that is their one great advantage - they're cheap to cook up, even if it costs a lot to store them)
 
Why wouldn't they, though? They're expensive to keep around, don't give any capability that more modern weapons systems don't already provide, and provoke revulsion and horror in most of the world. If it cost nothing to keep them around, or they provided some sort of different capability, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But there simply isn't any logical reason for them to keep them. The generals long ago decided that using chemical weapons was an escalation akin to using tactical nuclear weapons, but without the effectiveness. They're an historic anomaly in any country that can afford modern weapons. (and that is their one great advantage - they're cheap to cook up, even if it costs a lot to store them)
They like to keep their options open and have no problem with lying.
 
Back
Top Bottom