Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines.
From: Juergen Nieveler (juergen.nieveler.nospam_at_arcor.de)
Date: 03/14/05
- Next message: Paul F Austin: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Previous message: William Black: "Re: Troops + Role-Playing Games = A Bad Mix?"
- Maybe in reply to: rb: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Next in thread: Thomas Koenig: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Reply: Thomas Koenig: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Mar 2005 18:55:18 GMT
"Pan" <pan_dc@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's news to me. I would hope not the chemical or biological
> since we all know the US signed on to the CWC and the BWTC. But we
> all know treaties are only worth the paper they're written on.
Most western countries WILL posess small stocks of biological agents,
if only to have something to test the antidotes against. But of course
having small cultures doesn't equal a full-blown biological stockpile -
however I don't doubt that the USA could build the necessary production
facilities within a couple of weeks.
As for chemical weapons - most countries posess production facilities
suitable for production of chemical agents of some kind, at least the
agents used in WW1. The only thing lacking is something to fill them in
to deliver them to the enemy target.
Juergen Nieveler
-- I am, therefore, I think. I think.
- Next message: Paul F Austin: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Previous message: William Black: "Re: Troops + Role-Playing Games = A Bad Mix?"
- Maybe in reply to: rb: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Next in thread: Thomas Koenig: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Reply: Thomas Koenig: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|