[Captain Kwok]

If I have to hear the the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' one more time...

Here is a letter that I read in a recent Toronto Star newpaper opinion page that I thought hit the hammer on the head about those weapons...

Dubious Weapons of Mass Destruction

Feb. 6.

In would appear that there are three classifications of weapons of mass destruction: atomic, biological and gas. According to U.N. inspectors, there appears to be virtually no evidence that Iraq has constructed atomic weapons. As biological weapons go, the one most often mentioned is anthrax. But, unless some truly inspired work has been done with this agent, I have a lot of difficulty including it as a problem.

In his recent U.N. presentation, Colin Powell suggested that anthrax was a particularly deadly thing, that a teaspoonful shut down most of the Senate for a long period of time, and that two people died. While I do have sympathy for the survivors of those lost, two people do not make up a very great mass. What shut down the Senate was paranoia, not anthrax. Study of the history of recent infections suggests that it is extremely hard to develop an effective vector and that, to date, nothing has been developed that allows one to conclude that anthrax has any truly "mass" capability.

In regard to gas of whatever type, an understanding of the history of its deployment during warfare suggests that it is an extremely difficult weapon to use. Its use is complicated by wind patterns, geography and counteractive agents. As we discovered during World War I, it often blew back over the very people deploying it, rendering its use extremely questionable. It is also difficult to deliver any real quantity any real distance. A warhead filled with it might, if precisely aimed, kill a few dozen, or perhaps a few hundred, but again, classifying it as even a distant relative to the H-bomb is highly questionable. While Saddam Hussein may have even a large quantity, he has no effective means of delivery.

Given this discussion, the American rush to war seems even more questionable. I listened to Powell's presentation, hoping to hear a proper military briefing, complete with a description of weapons, weapons capability, weapons quantity and estimates of potential casualties if those weapons were deployed. I heard none of this. What I did hear was sound bite propaganda. And nothing that could not be verified by on-the-ground inspection.

How many people could the Iraqis possibly kill? How many would die if the Iraqis were attacked? Given the weapons available to each side, it seems that the Iraqis are in far more danger than we are.

The major worry seems to be that Saddam might follow a scorched earth policy. If this is truly what American officials believe, how can they still present the case that any really effective weapons of mass potential are still in Saddam's hands?

Hmm.