Markov/Litvinenko 2.0

Sonic67

Can't remember what it was but it isn't the first time. Might have been over civil partnerships or something.

Anyway, while we are on the subject of how, Russia would never do such a thing, or whatever, I am reminded of Russia being unique in sticking biological weapons on an ICBM.

The problem with biological weapons is if they spread too well and also infect your own side. Russia thought, well if it's on a missile and fired at someone far away we should be fine, so they stuck smallpox on an ICBM.

Soviet Union Once Deployed Smallpox-Tipped ICBMs | Analysis  | NTI

“If Alibek is right, this would be the only known case of strategically deployed biological weapons,” he said.

Hmm that article is from 2003. I remember it being available in "Theatre Europe" a computer game from the 1980's. It also came up in a book I read though lord knows what book that was.

I have a lot of books these were the most recently read as they are listed on my Kindle.

"A Higher Form Of Killing" - Robert Harris & Jeremy Paxman.
"A History Of Chemical & Biological Weapons" - Edward M Spiers

Before that I'd have to find my paperbacks.

Enki

Sonic67

Quick game -
1. What was the first use of a biological or chemical weapon in warfare?

Marv

I'd have to google i'd guess at gas in WW1.

Sonic67

Interesting. I believe the Geneva convention bans the first use of chemical weapons. In the cold war Russia considered the use of a smoke bombs to be "a chemical weapon." Therefore they could then use actual chemical weapons. They'd like to use them to trash airfields on day one.

Though note:

                                                                                 

Here they may not consider Novichok to be "a chemical weapon."

Mark Stone on Twitter

                                                                       

Sonic67

I won't copy the full statement but worth a read:

"The Russian State was responsible for the attempted murder...and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury" - GOV.UK

"Statement by Ambassador Jonathan Allen, Chargé d’Affaires, at a UN Security Council Briefing on a nerve agent attack in Salisbury."

IronGiant

I agree, but I'm assuming they probably don't really need a sample as they already know what it is...

Maybe they just need to check which vial is missing?

IronGiant

Thanks Enki

Enki

They will deny it was state sactioned whatever, why give them any room for their platform to frustrate, follow due process of international law and let them shout all they like.

Sonic67

The Guardian:

The Guardian view on Theresa May and Russia: tackling the troll state | Editorial

On the question of Kremlin responsibility, Mrs May supported her belief by citing the pattern of “complete disdain … sarcasm, contempt and defiance” in official Russian responses to British requests for an explanation as to how a nerve agent developed by former Soviet weapons facilities came to Salisbury. The goading manner of Mr Putin’s diplomatic mouthpieces seems designed to confirm that offence was intended, while not quite accepting responsibility. This is the style of a rogue state or, more pertinently, given Russia’s predilection for internet-based subterfuge, a troll state.

The leader of the opposition’s response to the prime minister was dispiriting. Jeremy Corbyn invited Mrs May to acquiesce to Russia’s requests that a sample be sent to Moscow for verification – on the supposition that the Kremlin might then honestly try to match it with its own stores. He sounded too keen to find another explanation for the use of the nerve agent novichok in the attack.

There are many reasons to be wary whenever governments ask for cross-party support. Oppositions have a duty to challenge prime ministers in the most critical circumstances. Nations should not act in haste over such issues. But Mr Corbyn’s reluctance to share Mrs May’s basic analysis of the Salisbury incident made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power. In the coming days the diplomatic clash with Moscow is sure to escalate. There is likely to be a campaign of obfuscation and misinformation directed at British audiences. That is the Kremlin’s well-established modus operandi. When matters of national security come to the fore, governments do not acquire a licence to act without check or criticism.

But it is also vital to keep sight of the facts. Britain has been targeted with a chemical weapon and it is almost certain that there is only one plausible culprit with the means and the motive. The prime minister might not have as many tools for retaliation, unilateral or international, as she would like. But she has judged correctly that the time for equivocation, given the sinister nature of Mr Putin’s regime, is over.

I've looked through this:

Article IV. Chemical Weapons

I can't see anywhere that we do have to send Russia a sample.

Also this:

Briefing on the attack in Salisbury on March 4 - Security Council, 8203rd meeting

Briefing on the attack in Salisbury on March 4 - Security Council, 8203rd meeting
14 Mar 2018 -  Letter dated 13 March 2018 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2018/218).