UN Inspectors Find Empty Chemical Warheads

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by JohnT
Optimus: read up on WW1 for further clarification.

You mean this?

Although gas claimed a notable number of casualties during its early use, once the crucial element of surprise had been lost the overall number of casualties quickly diminished. Indeed, deaths from gas after about May 1915 were relatively rare.

It has been estimated that among British forces the number of gas casualties from May 1915 amounted to some 9 per cent of the total - but that of this total only around 3% were fatal. Even so, gas victims often led highly debilitating lives thereafter with many unable to seek employment once they were discharged from the army.

In large part this was because of the increasing effectiveness of the methods used to protect against poison gas. Gas never turned out to be the weapon that turned the tide of the war, as was often predicted. Innovations in its use were quickly combated and copied by opposing armies in an ongoing cycle.

Only the Russians suffered a substantial amount of fatalities from gas attacks (56,000); no other nation lost so much as 10,000 dead. Contrast that with approximately 1.7 million total Russian deaths in the war, and I think you can see where my skepticism comes from.

Chemical weapons might make for effective terror weapons (but, again, you've got to get proper delivery), but are nowhere near as effective military weapons as their conventional counterparts.

EDIT: Also, consider the high density of troops in the trenches in World War I, compared to modern conflicts where forces are more dispersed. Chemical weapons would be nowhere as effective today, even as they were back then, in a military sense. And -- bullets are cheaper.

[Az]

Then they used Clorine gas, and not VX, mind you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by optimus2861
^^ Something I've been pondering as well. Chemical weapons are so reliant upon proper dispersion in order to be effective -- wind, temperature, pressure, etc etc -- that to lump them in as a "weapon of mass destruction" with nukes (which are in a class of their own, no question) and biological agents (which share many of the same dispersion problems as chemicals, however can somewhat make up for it if they are infectious agents) has always puzzled me.

There's several issues with chemical weapons. They are dependent on weather conditions for ideal dispersion, but VX is pretty damned effective whether it's ideally dispersed or not.

The classification of CW agents as WMD's is a correct one, since they can have extensive, severe and permanent health impacts well outside their lethal radius, and the hazard potential persists (with V-series many nerve agents such as VX) long after a direct attack.

Another reason for classification of CW agents as WMD's is that many of them are engineered to have adhesive qualities in liquid form, causing a thin film of the agent to stick to whatever it comes in contact with, then slowly evaporating off. This makes after-attack lethal potential much higher, and requires proper decontamination of all equipment, building surfaces, clothing, supplies, etc. in the area attacked.

Yet another reason is the overwhelming mass casualty potential: VX, for example, has an LD₅₀ of about 10mg in liquid form. (meaning that it has a 50% probability of being lethal), and a much lower dosage would be lethal in gaseous form. This is thousands of times higher than any lethality from conventional missile or artillery rounds. Gaseous VX casualties can only be treated by injection of atropine directly into the heart (atropine itself is toxic and has long-term health problems, but it's far better than the alternative), within one to two minutes of exposure. This means that the vast majority of people exposed can not be treated at all before they die, even with atropine and trained personnel available - the specialized nature of the immediate treatment, along with the need for medics to be in protective suits, severely limits how many people could be reached and treated in time by a properly equipped medic. VX is the worst of the nerve agents, but older, less lethal agents don't give you a lot more slack.

BTW, lethality potential of a 130 or 152 mm arty round with even low-level nerve agents like GA or GB is from a few dozen to a few hundred times higher than a conventional munition, even with less than ideal dispersion. In both cases, it depends on the nature of the targets and density of personnel under the target area, but the Iraqis don't use airburst submunitions, so a ground impact 130 or 152 has a definite maximum potential lethal area (very small against buttoned mechanized forces), and a pretty good potential for inflicting zero fatalities. The GA or GB variant also could potentially have zero direct effect, but it would force all troops in a wide area to go to protective suits, decontamination procedures, etc. - this reduction in combat effectiveness (plus an incidental increase in heat related casualties and heat-fatigue related human error) would have a severe effect on movement, dispersal of forces, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But again, so what? They weren't being used for anything. They were disused, sitting in crates covered in dust and bird poop. Oh, the horrors!!!

And they could be filled and transferred to field units in less than 24 hours.

[DinoDoc]

Isn't it a violation of the ceasefire resolution for them to have these shells at all regardless of thier contents or lack there of?

[MRT144]

of course MtG this just falls in line with the Administrations "could happen" justifcation of war with iraq.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Still nothing. While the US keeps saying they do have WoMD (I'm getting tired of that phrase). That might be true but it seems to be the time to prove it in some way. Otherwise people on the street will start getting arrested by the police because they can't prove that they haven't done anyting illegal.

I'm starting to get a kick out of Bush's continual insistence that Iraq needs to disarm, even though there's no proof that he even has anything. Now we have Rumsfeld saying that if the inspectors don't find anything, that's just proof that Saddam is playing cat and mouse. They're twisting everything to suit their own purpose.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
even though there's no proof that he even has anything.

Iraq could help thier case if they actually a) cooperated with the inspectors and b) verifiably accounted for a large stock of weapons they have yet to provide any real explaination for.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Bushie-boy made a threatening speech about leading a coalition of volunter countries against Iraq. It seems weak. After all, if the US or any other country with a sizable military would be forced to do the same list I would think that eleven 'forgotten' and empty 120mm shells is within the margin of error.

What volunteer countries? Even Blair is backing down and saying any action must be handled through the UN. And just recently the Canadian Prime Minister said the same thing. He won't find a single country willing to support him in a unilateral invasion.

And I just read at CNN that the majority of Americans now support action only with the UN. If he attacked now, he'd be commiting political suicide.

[Willem]

Originally posted by GP


Does that mean it's a lie?

I think the whole world knows that Saddam is a liar. But whether or not he's an actual threat is a different story.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Willem


I think the whole world knows that Saddam is a liar. But whether or not he's an actual threat is a different story.

Blinx is the same idiot who allowed the Iraqis to have enough weapons grade uranium to make a bomb as long as the kept it seperated. they kept it in 3 facilities a mile apart. And 6 months before the last war, put it all together and went on a crash program to get a bomb.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Willem
What volunteer countries?

I don't know. His words, not mine. Your guess is as good as mine I suppose.

[Kropotkin]

And GP, it's Blix, not Blinx

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
And GP, it's Blix, not Blinx

Freudian slip.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MRT144
of course MtG this just falls in line with the Administrations "could happen" justifcation of war with iraq.

I'm not a big fan of invading Iraq and imposing regime change under the present circumstances (inadequate arab world support and clear casus belli), but I don't doubt that Saddam has hidden capabilities - maybe dormant for a year or two, and well hidden in anticipation of allowing a resumption of inspectors.

Hans Blix has already said he has issues with the completeness and veracity of the December 7 report on Iraq's weapons programs, and the fact no hard evidence has been found doesn't mean much - it's several dozen inspectors for a few weeks in a huge country, trying to find evidence the Iraqis had plenty of time to bury away.

Saddam is a problem, and the world's better off without him, but I don't think the case has yet been made adequately, and I don't think there's a clearly thought out approach (with regional support) to what to do with a post-Saddam Iraq.