Rockets as WMD

Just completed a Federal Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) course today at work. Just about choked when the video presentation was defining the official Federal definition of a WMD and it included "any rocket containing more than 1/4 ounce of propellant". So now I'm sitting there trying to figure out in my head just how much Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, or Explosive payload one could send with 1/4 oz of propellant and how many "mass casualties" you might expect. Unfortunately, I kept getting these "does not compute" errors...

Reply to
Scott Aleckson
Loading thread data ...

Scott Aleckson wrote in news:1069922513.676752@prawn:

The really unfortunate thing is that this sounds perfectly reasonable to some people. I'm trying to imagine the line of reason that they must go through to advocate this, "Hey, it's rocket propellant so it must be pretty powerful," or something to that effect.

Of course on the other hand, warp drive sounds perfectly reasonable to some of us too... :D

Reply to
BrundlFly

I wonder if you heard that quite right ;o)

see below

18 USC 921 - Definitions
formatting link
formatting link
Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

as 4 oz is 113.4 grams of total propellant (total for all the grains in all the motors for all the stages), that is only a single G motor

an insignificant payload capacity indeed!

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Sadly, although you didn't cite it, this definition is included elsewhere in the definition of WMD. Specifically, 18 USC 2332:

---------------------------------------- (c) Definitions. -

For purposes of this section -

(1)

the term ''national of the United States'' has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1101(a)(22)); and

(2)

the term ''weapon of mass destruction'' means -

(A)

any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;

(B)

any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;

(C)

any weapon involving a disease organism; or

(D)

any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

------------------------------------------

Note that under this definition, most persons charged with a federal arson offense also qualify as using WMD's. Which is outragous.

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

formatting link

Reply to
David Schultz

formatting link
or
formatting link
---

Iz

Perhaps the person making the presentation slipped and said a quarter ounce of propellant......now that it's in the public record this will be next year's limit.......Now Estes has get off the pot. This may be the twisted way our governement works and the batf cheats around rules

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

...so people with STDs are also WMDs

Reply to
DM

What is the propellant? ;-)

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

Chuck Rudy wrote in news:3FC60DF4.5030502 @tradenet.nospam.net:

Testosterone!

Reply to
David W.

Scott Aleckson wrote in news:1069922513.676752@prawn:

Think of how much powdered anthrax or other biological agent could be used as 'tracking powder' in a model rocket.I suspect it doesn't weigh much.

Now launch one(or more) at the country fair on a busy day.Using a MR as a weapon,one does not have to launch at near-vertical angles,one can aim it towards the 'target' to get a lower release alt.

Just a few cases of disease would be bad news,and the spores on the ground don't 'go away',either.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

It's all about as close to zero tolerance as possible.

One wonders how that and TRA can exist in the same universe or country.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Until recently any "lab" could mail order anthrax and the "lab" qualification form is a fax.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Mid-H

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

there are more inconspicuous ways to accompish this, but there are non-trivial challenges in creating dispersion without rendering the materials inert. I will not go into details as I have no interest in encouraging lunatics intent on killing innocent people'

and of course getting the materials in the first place is non-trivial

but if someone had the means to get such materials, they would certainly have the means to get a black-market shoulder-fired missile and wouldn't ne bothering with a hobby rocket

- iz

Jim Yanik wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

not all materials are easily "weaponized". It is not as simple as putting a bunch of it in a burstable container. It has to be of a specific particulate size be effective.

BTW: this is all publicly available information

- iz

Jerry Irv> Until recently any "lab" could mail order anthrax and the "lab"

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

formatting link

Reply to
Scott Aleckson

men and women on testosterone...........hmmm, that could make for WMDs

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

The dispersion rate makes it a mute point, it was attempted in Japan by dropping it off a building and nothing happened.......anthrax does occur naturally......which is why the Japanese terrorists changed tacts and dispersed ricin into the confined space of a subway.......

remember dispersion rate......if you really want to be successful, on target and send a large payload I'll give you a few hints.......crossbow, soft plastic container (100 yards).........t-shirt launcher, balloon (400 yards)......no launcher, no igniters, no one looking at you as you set up, pull it out of the trunk and fire on target, then tell everyone you saw a white van leave at a high rate of speed

so true, they occur naturally in this world.......shelf life is measured in centuries

>
Reply to
Chuck Rudy

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote in news:jRsxb.292463$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyc.rr.com:

Effective as a military person would think,or effective as an ordinary person would? I recall the anthrax infections of about a year ago,and all the trouble to detect,disinfect just from what was in a common envelope. Perhaps a teaspoon full,if that much?

I suspect that if people at a country fair,even just one or two,got infected with anthrax, it would be considered an 'effective' attack. The problems,fears and economic chaos caused would be awful.

I also suspect that terrorists could get 'militarized' bioagents,perhaps from one of the gov'ts that support terrorism.(easily smuggled,too.)

Reply to
Jim Yanik

that anthrax was weaponized......and it ain't easy to do.......from an American strain......and if the terrorist is not smart enough to know the difference between weaponized and research anthrax, my guess is they are not smart enough to do anything but infect themselves, so the delivery system is a mute point

one or two is not their aim, it's hundreds.......attacks to the subway would cause far greater calamity with no chance of getting caught.......rockets leave smoke trails which give away your position......retire and repeat......my guess is a terrorist setting up a rocket might be a little suspect at a county fair.......

all have fingerprints to them which will tell researchers in a couple days what the research facility source was........not every government wants to be up on the radar screen

>
Reply to
Chuck Rudy

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.