Defining degradation up? Or Upgrading degradation down?

There's nothing more degrading than debates over degrading definitions. And it's especially degrading when the definition degrading the debate involves the definition of "degraded."

Up here in the Blue State of Pennsylvania, the Phildelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin thinks the degrading debate is "shameful." That's because for her, "degraded" means things that can be kept under the kitchen sink:

I'm surprised [Santorum's] nose didn't grow a foot when he claimed a recent Army intelligence report proved Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The report - released under Republican pressure in the midst of the debate - says that, since 2003, about 500 munitions have been recovered in Iraq that contain "degraded" mustard or sarin gas.

Mind you, these munitions were picked up in ones and twos and date back to Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s. There was no operative Iraqi chemical weapons program after 1991.

Such weapons deteriorate over time. According to David Kay, the head of the U.S. team that hunted for WMD in 2003-04, these gases by now would be "less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink." Their "poor condition" was affirmed by intelligence officials in a media briefing.

Hmmm. . . Safe enough for the kitchen sounds pretty safe to me.

But down in red state of Texas (a place most Philadelphians would consider the Wild West), they still think that even degraded Weapons of Mass Destruction are too dangerous to keep under the sink. At least, the Houston Chronicle's Kathleen Parker claims that degraded WMDs are still dangerous:

According to the document, coalition forces have recovered some 500 weapons munitions since 2003 that contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents. Other key points are that these chemical agents could be used outside Iraq and that "most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles."

Which is to say, we don't know what other stores may remain, or where they are, or who else may know about them.

Most significant, perhaps, is the assertion that while agents degrade over time, "chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," according to the released document.

In other words, the word "degraded" doesn't necessarily mean "nothing to worry about." Moreover, Wednesday's document is but a small piece of a much larger document that remains classified and that Republican insiders consider "very significant."

All of this leaves me very confused. I don't think the definition of degradation should be defined by politics. In logic, it strikes me that degraded WMDs are either dangerous or not. But politics always leads to these ridiculous litmus tests. What are the columnists supposed to do? Put the WMDs in the kitchen and let them stew, then report back after a few months that everything's fine?

How far does it go? I'm reminded of that guy who ate his daily DDT for all those years, just so he could announce to the world that DDT was perfectly safe. (Rachel Carson put him up to it with Silent Spring or something, but I don't think debate needs to be carried that far.)

So don't look at me. I'm staying out of this one. . .

But not because I'm scared, mind you! I'm not scared of any piddly-assed little degraded WMDs! What do you think I am, a degraded-WMD chickenhawk? Hell no! It's just that I'm afraid for my dog Coco. Despite her vast experience with all sorts of WMDs, she gets into everything, and dogs have very different disgestive systems than we do. What might be perfectly safe for us can have devastating consequences for a dog. For example, I take Tylenol as if it's candy, but Tylenol can kill a dog. And, you know, just because I can put some degraded Sarin in my coffee along with the half-and-half, Coco might be very Sarin-sensitive. I just don't want to expose her even to that slight risk. Likewise with that mustard stuff. Tom Ferrick can bravely put it on his hot dogs, but I just don't want it in my fridge, again because Coco goes in there when my back is turned, and she might be degraded-mustard-intolerant. (The blister stuff, I don't know much about it, and I'm sure it's perfectly safe, but same deal; I'm worried about the dog, and I don't want to bother the vet.)

I think it's fair that since Trudy Rubin and the Inquirer staff brought up the safety issue, I should just let them be the guinea pigs.

(As to my view of degradation, such things are my own affair.)

UPDATE (06/30/06): According to Raw Story, ISG Inspector David Kay says the 500 chemical weapons are WMDs, and while old, they're still dangerous.

Advantage, Houston.

posted by Eric on 06.25.06 at 02:45 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3760






Comments

One: Degraded means the mechanisms that caused the gas to disperse were old and probably did not work. Mustard gas from WWI still is capable of killing, but I am less familiar with the storage of nerve gas...all I know is that I would not want to live in Toole Utah where they dispose of America's chemical weapons.
Two: Chemical weapons are weapons of terror. They terrify people more than "clean" deaths from explosives or bullets. So even degraded gas in an IED would cause terror. Put it inside a building--say a mosque at prayer time--and you would still have a lot of deaths.
Note: There has been at least one episode of an IED with Sarin gas that injured two soldiers. So it has been used.
Three: Sadam Hussein was supposed to have destroyed these weapons. Instead he hid them. Doesn't matter the details, but he was breaking the agreement. UN Inspectors knew this in 1998, but no one had the guts to call him on this defiance.
Four: Chemical weapons are similar to insecticides. Sadam had extensive factories that had the potential for dual use: i.e. at short notice, they could produce large amounts of chemical weapons. Similar dual use deception was done in Germ warfare, using vaccine facilities.
Five: Many of the scientists suspected of working in these facilities were killed before or shortly after GWII...so we no longer can ask them for evidence...wonder why they were killed?
Six: One reason for the "rush to war" was that US soldiers had to wear chemical suits to protect them against chemical weapons. These MOPP suits are hot, and cannot be used during the heat of Iraqi summer. Sadam openly used oil for food money to bribe France and Russia to stop or delay the war, knowing that if the soldiers did not invade before the heat started they would probably have to wait six more months. If the US was certain that Sadam did not have such weapons, they would not have burdened our soldiers with heavy protective gear against chemical weapons.

tioedong   ·  June 25, 2006 06:58 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits