[SOC] a little something from the Department of Hypocrisy...

[JMcAulay]

Considering the plausibility of a single paragraph:  

>A special working group of the Federation of American
>Scientists concluded
>last month that using even the mildest of these
>weapons to incapacitate
>people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added:
>"Chemical incapacitating
>weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."

I'd really like to see that paper, to help my understanding of just what it
really says.  I have searched the website of the FAS to no avail, having
thought such a paper would be easily available.  The non-lethality of the
CS and "pepperspray" agents has always been without question, and I am
astounded to see any information to the contrary. 

The conclusion reached seems absolutely bizarre.  To the best of my
knowledge neither agent, both having been used extensively, has ever caused
one single death.  Yet the "special working group of the Federation of
American Scientists" concluded that using "even the mildest" of this stuff
would kill *nine percent* of those exposed?  Amazing.  It is utterly beyond
me as to how such a conclusioon could be reached by anyone using ordinary
intelligence.  The only alternative which pops into mind is that either the
conditions assumed by the group were other than the breadth of those
prevailing for each and every one of the countless previous uses of these
agents; or, alternatively, the working group's conclusion had nothing to do
with CS and pepperspray but rather may have been addressing some other
agents entirely, with the information used in the article in a misleading
manner.

For many years, every member of the US military was required to submit to
exposure to CN, an agent similar to CS (CS is generally considered to be
the milder of the two, both of which are commonly referred to as "tear
gas").  I do not know if this requirement is still in place.  This was an
instructional exercise, to require proper installation on one's face of
standard gas protective equipment during a time of exposure.  Again, as far
as I know, no death or permanent harm was ever experienced by any one of
the millions so exposed.

I am not an advocate of the use of toxic chemical agents in combat.
However, I am also not an advocate of protesting to a degree which appears
to border on the absurd, for to do so tends to drive away those who might
otherwise reach a conclusion more favorable to the presenter.  In other
words, if someone paints a picture for me, I want it to be both genuine and
visible. 

All in all, I found the article to be terminally biased.  YMMV.

73
John WA6QPL  SOC 263