Subject:
|
Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:26:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
788 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
(citing the Guardian)
> ==+==
> In May 1989, large-scale anthrax production began at a factory constructed
> at Al Hakam. Unscom estimated that Al Hakam manufactured 8,425 litres of
> anthrax bacteria during the course of 1990.
> ==+==
Thanks for the cite. Does anyone know if this stuff keeps for 10 years in
powder form? Bacteria are quite resilient but 10 years is an aw'fly long time.
(of course that cite just shows production capability, it could still be in
production, or Iraq could be totally innocent of this particular perfidy and
the site destroyed or out of production for years. Who knows?)
What I think is telling is the price/performance ratio here. For the cost of
a stamp and a little legwork (ignoring production cost), an entire country
is stirred up and tens or hundreds of millions spent on defense. Highly
asymmetrical, highly efficient of scarce terrorist resources.
Evil != stupid
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | How odd ? (Re: A N T H R A X - ... )
|
| (...) As it uses UN data, I did not think it would show anything as far as you were concerned? Is your head out of the sand now? Larry: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
