More than a 'conspiracy theory'?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

183 countries out of 195 is a pretty large majority...

Who mentioned a majority? I said not all nations had signed.
183 out of 195 fits that description accurately.

Can you name those who haven't signed?

I suppose I could, if I thought it was important to this discussion. I don't, so I won't. If you want to, go ahead.

I'll give you one notable nation that hasn't done so - Israel!
(Palestine has signed btw)

How is this applicable to this discussion?

Your contradictions are breathtaking, and none of my questions are 'straying way wide of my OP'

What contradictions? I see no contradictions in my comments. Because you claim they exist does not mean it is true.
It appears to me that you are stirring up an argument where none exists.

You talk about nuclear non-proliferation and 'non-nuclear nations must feel sufficiently secure to not need to acquire nuclear weapons'...

How safe can they ever feel?

Safe enough to not feel the need for a similar deterrent.

So why shouldn't they want to acquire 'weapons of deterrent' when fairly recent history shows us that supposed 'civilised countries' start illegal wars particularly when they wrongly claim about WMD's

So you recognise that attacks, by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is still a threat. So nations need to understand the implications of being attacked by such weapons, thus back to your OP and my response.

But you say that nations that have signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention should nevertheless be allowed to break the convention 'just in case'....

I said no such thing. If you're going to invent what I'm supposed to have said, we're not going to get far.
The convention does not stop nations understanding the implications of such weapons being used against them.
The convention is supposed to stop the production, mass storage and supply of such weapons.

So which countries should be allowed to do so?

I never suggested any countries should be allowed to do so. Why do you ask?

 

[transam]

falls on Iran and they will think they are under attack and start launching missiles

best advised that civil aviation stay clear of Iran

sigh of relief it’s crashed into the Indian Ocean all 18 tons of it

I can stop keeping an eye out
And air liners can go to Tehran

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

sigh of relief it’s crashed into the Indian Ocean all 18 tons of it

I can stop keeping an eye out
And air liners can go to Tehran

Transam is continuing to test to see what words he can use without being accused of racism.
He's like a five year old that has picked up a naughty word and is admonished for using it. So he's testing his vocabulary of what he thinks might be naughty words to see what he is allowed to use.
When he finds a word that promotes racism, and he is allowed to use it, he'll repeat it ad infinitum.

 

[transam]

Mind u one would think ?? That it might be a tadge unsafe launching rockets into space knowing full well that most of it will fall to earth

obviously the Chinese don’t know or to be more accurate don’t care

jeez us some bloke in his house in the Ivory Coast gets a bit of surprise when he finds part of a rocket poking through his ceiling

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Mind u one would think ?? That it might be a tadge unsafe launching rockets into space knowing full well that most of it will fall to earth

obviously the Chinese don’t know or to be more accurate don’t care

jeez us some bloke in his house in the Ivory Coast gets a bit of surprise when he finds part of a rocket poking through his ceiling

Yes, you would think that nations would take a more responsible attitude to space junk:

The US is responsible for the most debris in space, followed by Russia and China.

https://www.businessinsider.com/space-debris-garbage-statistics-country-list-2017-10?IR=T
​

As usual transam won't let facts get in the way of his rampant racism.

 

[ellal]

I never suggested any countries should be allowed to do so. Why do you ask?

Probably because...

It's wise for all nations to consider the use of biological weapons. Otherwise if it ever happened nations would be left undefended.
Similarly, it's wise for all nations to consider the use of nuclear weapons.

Or did you mean that nations should just take the hit without retaliatory measures?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Probably because...


Or did you mean that nations should just take the hit without retaliatory measures?

I think I've explained myself sufficiently precisely.
If you wish to interpret my comments in a different way, feel free.

 

[John the plumber]

"Chinese military scientists discussed the weaponisation of SARS coronaviruses five years before the COVID-19 pandemic, outlining their ideas in a document that predicted a third world war would be fought with biological weapons.

The document, written by People’s Liberation Army scientists and senior Chinese public health officials in 2015, was obtained by the US State Department as it conducted an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, The Weekend Australian has confirmed.

The paper describes SARS coronaviruses as heralding a “new era of genetic weapons” and says they can be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponised and unleashed in a way never seen before”.

Thus are we in the experimental phase?

 

[ellal]

I think I've explained myself sufficiently precisely.
If you wish to interpret my comments in a different way, feel free.

So sorry to have shown up your contradictions...

Maybe it's best that you think before you type

 

[Vinty]

The Weekend Australian has confirmed

Is this person only an Australian at the weekend.

 

[Vinty]

Winston Churchill wanted to weaponise Anthrax.
Nothing new in that.
Olden days they used to catapult dead sheep over Castle walls to spread diseases.
Trying weaponise highly infectious viruses would be like trying to make gunpowder while smoking.

 

[John the plumber]

Winston Churchill wanted to weaponise Anthrax.
Nothing new in that.
Olden days they used to catapult dead sheep over Castle walls to spread diseases.
Trying weaponise highly infectious viruses would be like trying to make gunpowder while smoking.

Did Winston Churchill weaponise anthrax in the end?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Or did you mean that nations should just take the hit without retaliatory measures?

I think I've explained myself sufficiently precisely.
If you wish to interpret my comments in a different way, feel free.

So sorry to have shown up your contradictions...
Maybe it's best that you think before you type

It's not a contradiction to misinterpret my comments, which you so obviously did, it's a strawman argument.
If you think that using a strawman argument is identifying contradictions, maybe it's best that you think before you type

 

[ellal]

It's not a contradiction to misinterpret my comments, which you so obviously did, it's a strawman argument.
If you think that using a strawman argument is identifying contradictions, maybe it's best that you think before you type

As soon as someone starts with the 'strawman' comment it means they've lost the argument....

You've contradicted yourself and you are embarrassed...

Best you own up to it

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

As soon as someone starts with the 'strawman' comment it means they've lost the argument....

You've contradicted yourself and you are embarrassed...

Best you own up to it

Best you identify precisely my supposed contradictions, instead of making vague allegations, and then we can examine them.
I am embarrassed, for you, and your silly attempts at creating an argument where none exists.

There is no argument about your OP, If this document exists, and as far as I am aware, it's only been reported in the Australian press, who just happen to be in a serious disagreement with China currently, then the document considers the implications of biological weapons being used. As I said, it's a wise move for nations to consider such application of biological weapons being used, so that they have a ready planned defensive and strategy to deal with it.

Since then, you have misinterpreted what I have said, you have accused me of saying things that I have not said, and now you are claiming that I have contradicted myself.
So let's deal with these so-called contradictions, and let's clear up that supposed situation.
If you can't identify these so-called contradictions, or you won't, then it's end of the discussion because it will illustrate that you amuse yourself with baseless allegations.
So is it going to be an adult intelligent discussion, or a juvenile round of allegations, and counter allegations?
Your choice.