NationStates

Puertollano wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
They developed the weapon to be untraceable. I'm no chemical weapons expert but from what I've heard apparently they designed it so its' makeup was hard to trace.

Hard to trace? Apparently they 'identified' it in a day.

I'm not sure if Russia knew that the UK knew how to identify it or not, but apparently they did.

Albrenia wrote:

Puertollano wrote:
Hard to trace? Apparently they 'identified' it in a day.

I'm not sure if Russia knew that the UK knew how to identify it or not, but apparently they did.

It's just unrealistic. There is the same probability that the U.K. designed the nerve agent used against the ex-spy.

Puertollano wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
I'm not sure if Russia knew that the UK knew how to identify it or not, but apparently they did.

It's just unrealistic. There is the same probability that the U.K. designed the nerve agent used against the ex-spy.

No evidence points to that at this time.

Albrenia wrote:

Puertollano wrote:
It's just unrealistic. There is the same probability that the U.K. designed the nerve agent used against the ex-spy.

No evidence points to that at this time.

Now now, feels before facts. We've been over this before.

Albrenia wrote:

Puertollano wrote:
It's just unrealistic. There is the same probability that the U.K. designed the nerve agent used against the ex-spy.

No evidence points to that at this time.

If they could so easily detect the nerve agent, I'm sure they could just as easily recreate it in a lab.

Well this went from 0 to 'Jet fuel cant melt steel beams!' rather quickly.

Puertollano wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
No evidence points to that at this time.

If they could so easily detect the nerve agent, I'm sure they could just as easily recreate it in a lab.

Pretty sure it doesn't necessarily work like that.

Hallistrom wrote:Well this went from 0 to 'Jet fuel cant melt steel beams!' rather quickly.

Yeah, usual conspiracy theory stuff, where any area of no evidence is used as conclusive proof of a pet theory, and any evidence to the contrary is met with 'it couldn't be them, why would they use their own gun to shoot their victim, that's stupid' sort of stuff.

I'd be happy to point fingers at the UK were there any evidence whatsoever that they did it. There's not at this time though, unlike with the 'Russia did it' side of the story.

Puertollano wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
They developed the weapon to be untraceable. I'm no chemical weapons expert but from what I've heard apparently they designed it so its' makeup was hard to trace.

Hard to trace? Apparently they 'identified' it in a day.

No they didn't...

You can look back at this thread for the first mention of Novichok on the 13th of March, almost a week after the attack.

UK says they cannot determine the "provenance" of the toxin.

Which means they do not know where it came from.

Declare an all out world war on Putin and possibly destroy us all!

Pope Joan wrote:UK says they cannot determine the "provenance" of the toxin.

Which means they do not know where it came from.

Nothing's really changed then

Pope Joan wrote:UK says they cannot determine the "provenance" of the toxin.

Which means they do not know where it came from.

Apparently there needs to be big Russian flags painted on every molecule before people will accept it or something.

Vassenor wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:UK says they cannot determine the "provenance" of the toxin.

Which means they do not know where it came from.

Apparently there needs to be big Russian flags painted on every molecule before people will accept it or something.

Don't forget Putin's manly DNA.

Vassenor wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:UK says they cannot determine the "provenance" of the toxin.

Which means they do not know where it came from.

Apparently there needs to be big Russian flags painted on every molecule before people will accept it or something.

Small Russian flags, molecules are very small.

What we really need is the OPCW to test the sample against Russian stockpiles, which they are going to do.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Small Russian flags, molecules are very small.

What we really need is the OPCW to test the sample against Russian stockpiles, which they are going to do.

Excellent, providing they can get Russia to cooperate in good faith.

At the moment, the Russian government has both the means and the motive. And they gloated about quite transparently.

Fahran wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Small Russian flags, molecules are very small.

What we really need is the OPCW to test the sample against Russian stockpiles, which they are going to do.

Excellent, providing they can get Russia to cooperate in good faith.

At the moment, the Russian government has both the means and the motive. And they gloated about quite transparently.

Russia is the one who bought it to the OPCW, if they then turn around and deny them access to their stockpiles it will prove their culpability just as much as a positive test, and possibility even more, since they wouldn't get to suggest the test is fake, or wrong.

Phoenicaea wrote:I don t see "brexit" to be an issue; about the meat of trade agreements, which matters, most influent neighbours (namely French and German govts) side with the Russian gov;

Erm, no they don't? Like, not at all. Like, explicitly not.

Puertollano wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
No evidence points to that at this time.

If they could so easily detect the nerve agent, I'm sure they could just as easily recreate it in a lab.

That is not how chemistry works.

Salandriagado wrote:

Puertollano wrote:
If they could so easily detect the nerve agent, I'm sure they could just as easily recreate it in a lab.

That is not how chemistry works.

Being able to recognise a toxin's symptoms and the metabolites it leaves behind is not the same thing as being able to make it.

Pope Joan wrote:UK says they cannot determine the "provenance" of the toxin.

Which means they do not know where it came from.

Who developed Novichok agents?

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:UK says they cannot determine the "provenance" of the toxin.

Which means they do not know where it came from.

Who developed Novichok agents?

No, just that they can't pinpoint where specifically the batch used in the attempt was made.

Vassenor wrote:

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:Who developed Novichok agents?

No, just that they can't pinpoint where specifically the batch used in the attempt was made.

Yeah, but the possibilities mostly scream Russia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43755789

More evidence of "state actor" *coughRussiacough* being behind the attack. And Russia is acting more like Donald Trump then the man himself, with all their "fake news" claims and propaganda.