Question of the Day: What number constitutes a "stockpile"? One would think that any time you're above 20 or 30, you're in at least small-stockpile territory.

I want the liberals to give us a number, now. Because, a month from now, when we've discovered 60-100, I don't want to hear that a "stockpile" has now been redefined to be whatever number we have not yet reached.


:read:

I would have to say that a "stockpile" is a relative term. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that finding, say, 30 Kalishnikov rifles is different from finding 30 nuclear warheads or 30 drums of nerve gas. I believe we will know a stockpile when we find one, and I don't think liberals will deny that a stockpile is a stockpile if it is. But like I said, it's relative to what's in that stockpile, and also if you find more than one.

What has been found to date numbers in the 40 to 50 rounds of artillery shells that have been found to have chemical compounds. If the storage unit of these chemical compunds is called a drum, and one drum fills one artillery shell, taken together, is this a stockpile?

Based on your definition, the answer would be yes. :good:

:?: No, I don't think one drum of anything constitutes a stockpile, and 40-50 artillery shells, if fitted with chemical compounds, might constitute a stockpile, but I also said in my post that it would depend on how many you found (and of what nature) for it to be serious. I don't think one stockpile of chemically-fitted artillery shells is worth going to war over.

Now, 40-50 nuclear warheads . . . that would be another story . . .

So, with so many people interpreting the definition of a "stock pile", why not take the gov'ts definition?

Which was what?