Re: Nuclear Autumn and Weather

[kurt@blazenet.net (Kurt Feltenberger)]

At 12:09 PM 9/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 12:03 PM 9/4/97 -0400, Kurt Feltenberger wrote:
>>At 07:28 AM 9/4/97 -0700, Bill Garmer wrote:
>>>At 02:02 AM 9/4/97 -0400, Kurt Feltenberger wrote:
>>><stuff deleted>
>>>>I thought the government passed regulation banning CFC's in commercial
>>>>products.  If this is so, then the numbers will be off.  If the exchange
>>>>postulated in the gamebook takes place, knowing some of the background of
>>>>some of the sites, I think this might be a moot point.  I am reasonably
>>>>sure our containment is as good as or better then the Sov's and any one
>>>>else on our s**t list when we launch.  All of our bio and chem nightmares
>>>>let loose, and thiers,  coupled with the nuclear destruction, should not
>>>>just knock us back to the 1880's 150 years after the war, but should wipe
>>>>the slate clean for the next lifeform to crawl from the goo.
>>>
>>>Just a question - do you believe that the US deployed ICBM with chemical
>>>and/or biological weapons?
>>>
>>>Bill
>>
>>If we did, we would not admit it.  Other than cruise missile or manned
>>delivery, it would be the only safe way for bio.  Chemical can be delivered
>>via 155mm or larger.  
>
>Why not?  We have a fairly open society and stats of most of our weapons
>are known in one form or another.  There is no deterrent effect unless you
>let people know what you can do.  I have never worked on a weapon system
>that wasn't "leaked."  Hell I was out on a boat testing one day reading
>"Sum of All Fears" when I read about the system I was performing testing
>on.  It was the most secret program I was ever on.
>
>>As reprehensible and unpredictable as these weapons are, I would like to
>>think that SAC (still can't get used to calling it anything else) still
>>wants to smite the enemy, unlike others in our government.
>>
>
>Personally I would be ashamed if I were to find out we had stragetic
>biological and chemical weapons.  There is no way to contain the effects of
>their use.  It could, and probably would, spread outside the target area.
>Since our goal with stragetic weapons was prevent others from using them on
>us and the use of bio and chem weapons is minimize physical damage
>(allowing the target to be taken in tack), we did not need them.
>
>Bill


It is not wheather or not we have them, IMO, but how much of them do we
have?   Down the road, south of Gettysburg near Frederic, MD is Ft.
Dietrich.  Just one of the Army's Bio Warfare Labs.  What is the difference
between a tactical weapon utilizing these warheads or a strategic one?
Range and voulme of payload.

I stand by my original statements above.  If we are in a war for survival,
where it really is all or nothing, I do not care what kind of hell we foist
on the enemy.  I am against bio weapons on the knowledge that they are
difficult to contain, but chemical weapons are another matter.  Remember,
tear gas is classed as a chemical weapon.  

And the Project has also invested in chemical weapons.  Note the M55 Bolt
Rocket and the CNDM (IIRC) tear and vomit gasses.  Against the potential
opposition of 3-5 years after the war, the opposition would have almost no
chance ofprotection.  It would be like siccing a ICBM on Berlin during WWII.  

Yes, these are drastic weapons.  No, I am not a slope headed, drooling
killer that wants to see piles of bodies stacked like cord wood.  What I do
believe though, is that in the event of a total war situation which is/has
rapidly escalated to the use of weapons of mass destruction, that any and
all weapons should be employed in defense of our nation.  If it is more
advantageous to hit an enemy formation with a chemical strike than a
tactical nuke, then do it.

Respectfully,


Kurt Feltenberger
kurt@blazenet.net
http://www.igateway.com/clients/kurt