Chemical Weapon used in Syria, Western military response likely

[Knut]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ads-order?lite

Used against rebel strongholds ? Or a deterrent against foreign intervention

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower...-military-369/

USS Eisenhower is within striking distance as well.

[Red Slinger]

My initial concern would be with the reliability of this intelligence. If the US goes into Syria based solely on the premise that they have and are preparing to use chemical weapons, and it turns out to be another Iraq WMD situation, it would be very bad.

If this is indeed true, then Assad is essentially inviting the US and others to attack. The US has been looking for a reason to get more involved in this conflict and this would likely sway American voters to support an attack.

Assad is either extremely stupid, delusional or suicidal.

[burn_this_city]

Pretty frightening that it has come to this, I doubt it's a deterrent against foreign invasion. If they us chemical weapons it will probably be against Homs, the birthplace of the revolution.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ads-order?lite

Used against rebel strongholds ? Or a deterrent against foreign intervention

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower...-military-369/

USS Eisenhower is within striking distance as well.

Can anybody explain to the ignorant like me why the U.N. couldn't get involved here?

Isn't this type of conflict or breakdown in a region ideal for U.N. intervention?

Is it just a Security Council veto issue or...?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Can anybody explain to the ignorant like me why the U.N. couldn't get involved here?

Isn't this type of conflict or breakdown in a region ideal for U.N. intervention?

Is it just a Security Council veto issue or...?

Not enough troops that can get to Syria in a hurry that are trained to fight in a chemical environment.

Plus they can't do anything without the security council and Russia would certainly veto.

The worry is if they use persistent agents which would create a large number of civilian casualties for a long time.

If Syria uses chemical weapons its likely that it would be a nato response as opposed to a UN response.

[CaptainCrunch]

ugh its Sarin

Just for those that are curious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Sarin is a persistent agent, a tiny quantity on the skin pretty well dooms you unless you have a an atropine injector on hand. You don't need to breath it in to die, you need a vapor droplet on your skin.

On top of that its persistent over weeks. that means that every surface that it touches remains deadly, undersides of boards and fences, hedges etc.

If this is deployed and there's any wind, thousands could die.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not enough troops that can get to Syria in a hurry that are trained to fight in a chemical environment.

Plus they can't do anything without the security council and Russia would certainly veto.

The worry is if they use persistent agents which would create a large number of civilian casualties for a long time.

If Syria uses chemical weapons its likely that it would be a nato response as opposed to a UN response.

Thanks. So, why would Russia desire to have this civil war continue?

Also, why would chemical weapons require a NATO response vs. U.N.?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not enough troops that can get to Syria in a hurry that are trained to fight in a chemical environment.

Plus they can't do anything without the security council and Russia would certainly veto.

The worry is if they use persistent agents which would create a large number of civilian casualties for a long time.

If Syria uses chemical weapons its likely that it would be a nato response as opposed to a UN response.

Would Russia be stupid enough to still veto if Syria actually launches some of these weapons? Lets hope there's enough humanity in the Russian government that they wouldn't.

Then again, these are the same people that have stonewalled UN efforts and let 30k+ people die already.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Thanks. So, why would Russia desire to have this civil war continue?

Also, why would chemical weapons require a NATO response vs. U.N.?

Russia sells a lot of weapons to Syria and has a naval base there that allows them to not have to deal with Turkey (NATO).

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Thanks. So, why would Russia desire to have this civil war continue?

Also, why would chemical weapons require a NATO response vs. U.N.?

Syria's current government is a key ally to the Russians in the region, they will continue to prop up his government.

The UN doesn't have the troops or infrastructure to go after chemical weapons, and they wouldn't be good at it. You can't use airstrikes or missile strikes. You have to get in and secure the launchers and airfields. Chances are the first sign of that kind of intervention means that those bombs and missiles are going to be used, most likely on foreign troops.

Canada, The U.S., Germany and Great Britain have specific units that can deal with chemical weapons and fight in a chemical weapon environment. Plus the additional need for clean up.

Canada's special weapons branch is attached to JTF2 and our special operations command for example.

If you left it to the UN it would take them months to figure out if they should react after several strongly worded notes, then they would gather troops and then sit on their hands and do nothing because there would be no consensus command structure.

The UN isn't build for this crisis.

Also if any of those weapons touch Turkish Soil its pretty grave as its an attack on a NATO ally and chemical weapons are considered to be WMD the same as nukes or bio weapons.

[afc wimbledon]

I suspect the US would declare a no fly zone and evisorate Syrian military capacity with out putting boots on ground if nerve gas was used, and I doubt the Russians would object much either to be frank, even they have to worry about supporting too much of a #######.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ads-order?lite

Used against rebel strongholds ? Or a deterrent against foreign intervention

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower...-military-369/

USS Eisenhower is within striking distance as well.

correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't prepare chemical weapons to defend against foreign military, because they would be the best prepared to fight in a chemical environment. they're solely used against civilian populations to make the other side (the rebels) spend time and resources dealing with the fallout. and considering Assad's track record so far, there is zero doubt that if he does use them it will be against his own populace

[Huntingwhale]

The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

This is just freakin' disgusting. It's times like this when I hope there is an afterlife and that there is a special place in hell for Assad and his crew to burn for all eternity.

There is something wrong with humanity when 1 person has the power to kill thousands of his own people, all in the name of holding onto ''power''. Disgusting.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't prepare chemical weapons to defend against foreign military, because they would be the best prepared to fight in a chemical environment. they're solely used against civilian populations to make the other side (the rebels) spend time and resources dealing with the fallout. and considering Assad's track record so far, there is zero doubt that if he does use them it will be against his own populace

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/

[polak]

If he uses chemical warfare at all, I would like Canada to intervine.

There's a line you don't cross. I don't mind the cost when it comes to stopping something like this.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

ugh its Sarin

Just for those that are curious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Sarin is a persistent agent, a tiny quantity on the skin pretty well dooms you unless you have a an atropine injector on hand. You don't need to breath it in to die, you need a vapor droplet on your skin.

On top of that its persistent over weeks. that means that every surface that it touches remains deadly, undersides of boards and fences, hedges etc.

If this is deployed and there's any wind, thousands could die.

Where the heck is Syria getting the sarin from? Memory thought (and Wikipedia confirmed) that it's a quickly degrading chemical, so it had to have made a batch recently. Do they have some reworked chemical facilities that I'm not aware of or are they getting it through import? And if so, through whom?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't prepare chemical weapons to defend against foreign military, because they would be the best prepared to fight in a chemical environment. they're solely used against civilian populations to make the other side (the rebels) spend time and resources dealing with the fallout. and considering Assad's track record so far, there is zero doubt that if he does use them it will be against his own populace

Not really correct, even if the foreign troops are trained to fight in a chemical environment it has serious physical and mental effects of troops.

First of all fighting in a chemical environment is a bear, the suits don't give you good visibility, they're hot and they're heavy and they drive you nuts. Your food and water can be easily contaminated. Everytime a mortal shell explodes or a plane flys over your trying to put on the suit in less then a minute then waiting in fear with your atropone injector for the first symptoms, dizziness and cold sweat.

Plus your probably going to be walking through piles of civillian casualties. Which is horrifying because Sarin doesn't give a pretty death.

All of your equipment has to be decontaminated constantly as well.

The guys with the easiest job are in armoured vehicles and APC's which are over pressured, that is til you have to open a hatch.

Chemical weapons will at the very best slow down an enemy advanced. At the worst you'll attrite numberrs

[Hemi-Cuda]

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

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by kirant

Where the heck is Syria getting the sarin from? Memory thought (and Wikipedia confirmed) that it's a quickly degrading chemical, so it had to have made a batch recently. Do they have some reworked chemical facilities that I'm not aware of or are they getting it through import? And if so, through whom?

They make their own, they 5 facilities.

Its not like its complex to make Sarin its a side benefit of insecticide manufacturing.

And as for a shelf life, I would be more concerned with the persistance after deployment.

Syria also has the very nasty Tabun and VX which is highly persistant.

Even if they decided to role out Mustard Gas it could be devestating

[Envitro]

see "The Rock".
A great movie about the effects of VX gas when used/weaponized in a warhead. They also touch on Sarin gas as well.
Albeit it's a hollywood-ized version of reality, it's pretty chilling stuff.

I don't understand this move. The best guess that I have at this time is that Assad is gambling that the Russians will stand in the way of any foreign intervention. That's a pretty bold assumption on his part