WMDS found?

May 21, 2004

As a retired Navy Gunner's Mate, weapons and ordnance were my forte for just over 20 years, so I think I may have a little more enlightenment as to the tracing of ammunition than the average citizen.

In the Navy, we had a system of tracking known as a NALC (Navy Ammunition Logistics Code). By looking at a 4 digit alphanumeric code and the lot number (or production number), I could tell you pretty much whatever you wanted to know about a particular piece of ammunition, be it a .22 caliber round, a pencil flare, or a 16" armor piercing round.

Similarly, other nations use tracking methods akin to this in keeping up with their own ammunition. Saddam turned over to the UN a listing of his "tracking list" and I believe this list is what the UN used in verifying compliance with it's resolutions.

If a particular lot number or "NALC" was discovered to be extant years AFTER this particular item was reportedly destroyed, it would certainly cause the remainder of that particular ammunition's status (at least for that particular lot) to be suspect, as rarely is ammuntion stored and/or shipped in single units (the norm is pallets of 25 rounds).

As far as range, unless a particular nation has access to such technologies as RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) ranges for various ordnance can be found on various web sites. A 5" gun, for example, has a maximum range of about 26,000 yards (13 miles), but is accurate only at about 10 miles. A 155mm gun (roughly 6 inch) would have a somewhat greater range, based on projectile weight and propellant load (which can vary based on weapons employment if the particular artillery piece used two-piece ammunition or bag ammunition [powder bags instead of metal cans for propellant]).

May 21, 2004

As to the bombmaker not knowing excuse me but that is a load of horse apples. They knew but didn't check as to the viability of the chemicals.

If this shell that they used had been fired from the french artillary peice it was designed for, the outcome would have been disasterous if it hit a populated area.

I believe that when they turned on the tube and tuned in al jazeera...THAT is when they found out what they had. Now they will go back to where they found it to get more

May 24, 2004

Ok the news media has an article on Fox, CNN etc about a WMD containing mustard gas and sarin being found? Do you think that this validates Bush's reason for going into Iraq?If you don't agree how many WMDS do you need to uncover before you would agree to it? or Nuclear weapons?

No, and here's why: We KNEW that the Iraqis had chemical weapons many years ago, we've seen the films of those poor dead Kurds they used them on. When President Bush said the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction the implication was that they had something new that they hadn't had before.....i.e. nuclear. That was how I took it anyway. To my knowledge, so far, no nuclear weapons have been found.

I used to be a Bush supporter but I am not now....don't know what category that puts me in at this point in so far as your criteria goes.

senerhu · May 25, 2004

No, and here's why: We KNEW that the Iraqis had chemical weapons many years ago, we've seen the films of those poor dead Kurds they used them on. When President Bush said the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction the implication was that they had something new that they hadn't had before.....i.e. nuclear. That was how I took it anyway. To my knowledge, so far, no nuclear weapons have been found.

I used to be a Bush supporter but I am not now....don't know what category that puts me in at this point in so far as your criteria goes.

The UN knew what WMD Iraq had after the first gulf war. They passed a subsequent 17 resolutions trying to get hussein to VERIFY that they were destroyed, which he didn't.....

yukon · May 25, 2004

Iraq has always had WMD, but before the war, Saddam hid then in Syria.

It doesn't matter whether there were WMD or not. The ppl in Iraq are free now. Maybe some of the children and ppl will get a chance to grow up and live.

Yukon

OneAccord · May 25, 2004

Iraq has always had WMD, but before the war, Saddam hid then in Syria.
It doesn't matter whether there were WMD or not. The ppl in Iraq are free now. Maybe some of the children and ppl will get a chance to grow up and live.

Yukon

Yeah right. The ones that aren't dead, maimed, dismembered or survivors of cruel and inhumane treatment are free, minus a few family members and relatives in most cases. As for the children growing up and living, the ones who miraculaously avoided exposure to depleted uranium and severe emotional trauma will probably carry on. The human species is remarkably resilient.

barracuda · May 25, 2004

there will never be "enough" WMD found to satisfy the opposers and appeasers. :suspect:

I concur wholeheartedly here.

Bush could cure cancer, end the homeless problem, pay off everyone's mortgage, eliminate the National debt, and end all wars around the world, and the appeasers of the world would still be complaining about his policies, etc.

The hatred and denial go back to the 2000 election. The Dems won't rest until they have "stolen" the White House back.

Let the bitterness and juvenile vitriol continue.

Personally, I am in line with the Syrian conspiracy theorists. Those weapons are there, they are just in another country. Our best tactic would be to invade Syria without a warning. Heck - let's just nuke the fanatics. That's the only thing they would understand anyway.

OneAccord · May 25, 2004

Our best tactic would be to invade Syria without a warning. Heck - let's just nuke the fanatics. That's the only thing they would understand anyway.

I hope you're not serious with these comments! Your'e just joking, right?

Please don't forget that there are people in Syria, you know, babies, moms, dads, grandpas, grandmas, aunts,uncles....people made in the image of God, people that God loved. Please don't forget that God so LOVED the world, and we are to be conformed to the image of Christ who taught us to LOVE OUR ENEMIES........

Besides, invading a country without warning is illegal, would be a war crime, and would just put more blood on our hands. It would also be an act of terrorism.

May 25, 2004

The ones that aren't dead, maimed, dismembered or survivors of cruel and inhumane treatment are free, minus a few family members and relatives in most cases. As for the children growing up and living, the ones who miraculaously avoided exposure to depleted uranium and severe emotional trauma will probably carry on.

yeah..... it's a good thing Bush sent in the troops so we could stop all that!

Regarding Syria....if we don't take care of that situation, Israel will have to eventually. It will be much worse for everyone the longer we wait. OA is right that America's hands are tied by politics because we didn't go in when Saddam bin Ladin was moving WMDs there.

:sleep: