Two? Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I see that history is basically OVERFLOWING with the multitude of uses of WMDs....
Not particularly. They just don't do anything to curb it.
Chemical Weapons were widely used in World War 1, the Tambov Rebellion, the Iran-Iraq war and before World War 2 in various uprisings and wars in Morocco, Libya and Ethiopia. Their residue is, in some areas, still responsible for health hazards.
Chemical weapons, especially those used in WW1, are not usually labelled as WMDs (though they certainly can be). They are usually frowned upon because they are regarded as "inhumane" and have unpredicatable fallout.
Yes.
No.
It is.
Diseases are not mutually exclusive with being weapons of mass destruction.
It was.
It does.
Your claim of what is fact is what is in dispute.
It does.
Hardly.
I know you get a hard on pretending to sound knowledgable about stuff, but really, you should only do so with stuff you actually know something about.
I am sure you desperately want to use what the US court define as WMDs, in which case ANYTHING is a WMD. The Boston Marathon Bomber was tried for the use of WMDs (use of homemade IEDs) for instance. The use of poisonuos gas (no matter the amount), could be defined as use of WMDs. Using any radioactive substance (no matter the half-life, no matter the severity) could be classified as WMD use. But when you talk about the use of ACTUAL WMDs there have been TWO, and only TWO, uses of WMDs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And you are STILL no countering my original point. Your idea of weaponizing abominations remains moronic.
It was the Chantry (Divine Retina I, to be exact) that came up with the idea of alienages to put their new not-so-willing converts in.
Which they need not stay in. They are free to go anywhere they please; they just tend to get attacked if they do.
If you would argue that the Chantry is to blame for the beginning of their second class status, even if not its continuation, I will argue that, given the war at the time, the alienage was probably the safest place for the surviving elves.
Chemical weapons, especially those used in WW1, are not usually labelled as WMDs (though they certainly can be). They are usually frowned upon because they are regarded as "inhumane" and have unpredicatable fallout.
I know you get a hard on pretending to sound knowledgable about stuff, but really, you should only do so with stuff you actually know something about.
Your credentials first, please. If you intend to discredit me on account of not being an authority, it would behoove you to establish yourself as one first. Hypocrisy, you know.
I am sure you desperately want to use what the US court define as WMDs, in which case ANYTHING is a WMD. The Boston Marathon Bomber was tried for the use of WMDs (use of homemade IEDs) for instance. The use of poisonuos gas (no matter the amount), could be defined as use of WMDs. Using any radioactive substance (no matter the half-life, no matter the severity) could be classified as WMD use. But when you talk about the use of ACTUAL WMDs there have been TWO, and only TWO, uses of WMDs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This was the point I brought up before- WMD is a vague category that can range from too small (any chemical explosive) to absurdly high. Calling a pressure-cooker IED a WMD is an illustration of the absurdity of the low end, but excluding all the triple+ digit casualty-producing weapons that exist and have been used is similarly absurd- and frankly arbitrary, considering how most nuclear weapons killed no one.
The thing is, though, low-end WMD definitions have a legal, practical, and consistent definition upheld for decades by numerous governments and agencies. We can point to legal classifications, military doctrines, and even international conventions the define what WMDs are- underwhelmingly so in some cases, perhaps, but the 'W' in 'WMD' doesn't stand for 'Whelming.'
On the other hand, your category of 'ACTUAL' WMDs is undefined, amorphous, and currently unique to you. As of this point you have made it clear you only consider nuclear bombs WMDs... which makes the 'ACTUAL' WMD category redundant on two parts: the redundancy of an purity adjective on a binary category (sort of like how there are no 'half' virgins), and redundant because the category unique to nuclear weapons is... nuclear weapons.
And you are STILL no countering my original point. Your idea of weaponizing abominations remains moronic.
The reasons you gave apply to other weapons, tactics, and strategies that have been used throughout military history by successful organizations. They don't become moronic simply because you neither addressed the initial response or appear to have been aware of them or are apparently unfamiliar with how indiscriminate weapons can be applied for tactical and strategic impact on battles and campaigns.
Question: Do either chantries have anything similar to Saints?
They have something similar, I think. Like this example: http://dragonage.wik...rey_of_Ghislain
And Sebastian wanted to protect the bones of some important martyr in the Kirkwall Chantry in Act 3.
Question: Do either chantries have anything similar to Saints?
Retour en haut