Originally posted by RealSpoke
The US tested nukes on its own soil, so they clearly don't care about polluting the environment.
Things to take into account about US testing of nuclear weapons. Most occurred in isolated or desert areas far from any major populations. Not all
test were above ground. Much of the testing was done before the full understanding of fallout, the long term effects of radiation etc. The last US
nuclear test was in 1992.
In populated areas you have water sources that flow to other towns etc. East of the Mississippi, towns are typically close enough together that a
nuclear attack on one would most certainly effect others. In an attack on a populated area, there would be survivors effected by the fallout and
radiation. Those people would be bringing contamination from the area as they evacuated and spread out looking or aid. This would contaminate other
areas and people that the government would not be able to control and would be counter to their existence.
I don't doubt that the government is only marginally concerned about the environment from a pollution standpoint. However, with regards to NBC
weapons, they would be gravely concerned.
Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines
(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an
explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving
a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life
Actually that is a little wrong.
Since the start of the new millennium, a new term – CBRNe – was introduced as a replacement term for CBRN. The e in this term represents the
enhanced (improvised) explosives threat.
CBRN defense (CBRND) is used in reference to CBRN passive protection, contamination avoidance, and CBRN mitigation.
CBRN weapons/agents are often referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, this is not entirely correct. Although CBRNe agents often
cause mass destruction, this is not necessarily the case. Terrorist use of CBRNe agents may cause a limited number of casualties, but a large
terrorizing and disruption of society. Terrorist use of CBRNe agents, intended to cause terror instead of mass casualties, is therefore often referred
to as weapons of mass disruption.
Explosives in general do not constitute a WMD. If they did, every military on the face of the earth would be guilty of possession and use of WMDs. As
such, explosives in general, in the form of missiles, bombs, grenades etc, should be viable options for the people to possess.
So we have to have a common understanding to proceed. I will be classifying WMD's as follows:
Nuclear Bombs, Radiological Bombs, Chemical Weapons designed to kill (not something like pepper spray), Biological Weapons.
Based upon that criteria, those four classes of weapons would most certainly not be used by the US government on its people. With respect to Chem and
Bio weapons, I don't think these should be allowed by any government, including our own. Considering the US has abandoned such weapons, or
radiological bombs, that leaves only nukes. I have stated my case on the US government not using such a weapon against its people on its soil, and as
such would not be a weapon of consideration for the people.
The US does not consider Depleted Uranium ammunition a WMD. I too agree that such a device is not in the truest sense a WMD. However, I do think that
is a biological hazard whose use is so significantly dangerous the life that is should not be used. I believe that the US government should commit to
the elimination of the use of such devices, as they have with chem and bio weapons. Having said that, if the government considers its use something
that would be feasible a tool against insurrection, then it should be as available to the people.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no