Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
The thing is the vast majority of troops are not NBC trained. So if it were a general large scale invasion and the side invading Syria had no idea Syria had chemical weapons, it would be more useful against them. There are also persistent chemical weapons that would affect an area for awhile. That being said, when the US starts planning deployment, if they do, they'll probably only send in NBC troops and special forces first to take care of threat before other arrive.
Apparently with the USS Eisenhower now stationed off the Syrian coast and rumors of a lot of US troop movement near the Jordanian border, we could see what happens soon enough. Depends entirely if Assad is crazy/desparate enough to hit the button. According to Russia the US will be ready "within days" if anything happens.
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower...-military-369/ |
my point was you don't develop chemical weapons these days to fight opposing armies, there are much more efficient ways to spend military dollars. the only reason to create them in the first place is to subdue a civilian population
Assad would probably not hesitate to use them if Syria was invaded, but i don't believe for a second that was his original intention when he started the production