Chemical Weapon used in Syria, Western military response likely

[NBC]

There needs to be a distinction between harassing chemicals and poisonous or battlefield chemicals (gases), which is what ethyl bromoacetate, or White Cross or T-stoff was - a harassing chemical. Sure, while French troops fired these half-pound grenades at advancing German forces, this did not really have anywhere the same significance as the wide-spread, mass-release of highly poisonous chlorine that the Germans used in 1915. Also the 1899 Hague Convention dealt specifically with the use of "projectiles with the sole object to spread asphyxiating poisonous gases." I do not believe that the French lachrymatory grenades, which were fitted to special .26 cailbre rifles, fell into this category.

French attempts at harassment with chemicals played no part in Imperial Germany's decision to undertake large-scale battlefield chemical weapons deployment. Germany had the most sophisticated chemical industry in the world and people like Fritz Haber who first had the idea to use poison to dislodge enemy combatants from their entrenched positions.

However, I do take the point that France was the first to use a harassing chemical in the First World War.

[CaptainCrunch]

God I think I have a new knowledge hero on this board.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by NBC

There needs to be a distinction between harassing chemicals and poisonous or battlefield chemicals (gases), which is what ethyl bromoacetate, or White Cross or T-stoff was - a harassing chemical. Sure, while French troops fired these half-pound grenades at advancing German forces, this did not really have anywhere the same significance as the wide-spread, mass-release of highly poisonous chlorine that the Germans used in 1915. Also the 1899 Hague Convention dealt specifically with the use of "projectiles with the sole object to spread asphyxiating poisonous gases." I do not believe that the French lachrymatory grenades, which were fitted to special .26 cailbre rifles, fell into this category.

French attempts at harassment with chemicals played no part in Imperial Germany's decision to undertake large-scale battlefield chemical weapons deployment. Germany had the most sophisticated chemical industry in the world and people like Fritz Haber who first had the idea to use poison to dislodge enemy combatants from their entrenched positions.

However, I do take the point that France was the first to use a harassing chemical in the First World War.

I think the distinctions are debatable, but you do have valid points. The treaties of those days were not ironclad by any means and were never enforcable. Technology was changing so fast that within 15 years of the Hague treaty, much of the wording was obsolete. I still think the spirit of the treaty was to not use chemical irritants rather than focusing on the delivery system. It's like banning nuclear bombs and using nuclear missiles instead.

Maybe the French actions weren't the cause of the escalation, I can accept that. No doubt the Germans were stockpiling chemical weapons and had the most sophisticated program.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Cameron's government published an intelligence assessment Thursday that concluded it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government was behind last week's suspected poison gas attack. British intelligence said at least 350 people died, while rebel leaders have put the death toll at more than 1,300.

The British dossier on Syria also concluded the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on 14 previous occasions. Cameron said he believes al-Assad opted to increase the scale of his chemical attacks as a sort of test for the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

[NBC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think the distinctions are debatable, but you do have valid points. The treaties of those days were not ironclad by any means and were never enforcable. Technology was changing so fast that within 15 years of the Hague treaty, much of the wording was obsolete. I still think the spirit of the treaty was to not use chemical irritants rather than focusing on the delivery system. It's like banning nuclear bombs and using nuclear missiles instead.

Maybe the French actions weren't the cause of the escalation, I can accept that. No doubt the Germans were stockpiling chemical weapons and had the most sophisticated program.

This is true. Also another thought occurred to me and that is I do not believe that the authors of the 1899 Hague Protocol bothered to define what an asphyxiating gas was. There has been some scholarship on this over the years where people try to ascertain what the authors actually meant. This is still happening today with the discussions on distinctions between incapacitating chemical agents, riot-control agents, etc, as RCA have been legitimized for use by police forces.

Definitions and distinctions have become a popular sub-field within the study of unconventional weapons and disarmament practices. Don't even try to come up with a consensus definition on what constitutes WMD - a term that I find incredibly unhelpful.

But I fear that I have sidetracked the Syria debate. My apologies if I have.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by NBC

But I fear that I have sidetracked the Syria debate. My apologies if I have.

It's all relevant, and your posts are highly informative, please don't stop.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by NBC

I have real problems with both of these articles.

Granted, I didn't look those through very carefully. However, those are far from the only articles telling basicly the same story. Look them up if you feel like it and make your own mind. Either way, it doesn't really affect the basic question of who is the likely suspect in Syria.

If you look at what happened and who benefitted from what happened, it's pretty clear that Assad regime does not look like the first suspect, and that whoever did the chemical strike propably did it for propaganda reasons, not for military.

Of course, we never know if the ones who did it got what they wanted out of it, so you can't simply say that "rebels benefitted so they must be at fault". But it should clearly make them the first suspects.

Out of basicly four options (Assad regime, rogue pro-Assad group, FSA, rogue rebel group), the Assad regime seems like the least likely one to come up with this idea, because they have the most to lose and the least to win by doing this.

Originally Posted by NBC

Not likely at all. The destruction of CW stockpiles in the US and Russia are closely monitored by the OPCW and have been for years. There is little chance that either, a) bulk agent or, b) chemical munitions, have gone missing as these facilities (at least in the US) are highly secure facilities, regardless of what the film The Rock would have us believe.

I'm not going to argue whether or not the US would do something like this, but that they couldn't? You can't be serious.

Hey, remember when Nixon closed down US bioweapons program? You know, so they can only make "defensive" bioweapons? Funny stuff.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by T@T

Like what? The Russians or Chinese? If you think either of these would try to strike back because of Syria your mistaken, they wouldn't dare expose themselves as the lightweights they really are.

If you think Russia and China are military lightweights I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Why would the US fake evidence to get into a war they don't want to get in to?

Why would Russia or China risk a major war over Syria?

Why argue complex issues of morality and world politics with people who believe that the world is run by a shadow government that uses vaccines/chemtrails/fluoride to control your mind?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

God I think I have a new knowledge hero on this board.

Well, his name is short for "Nuclear, Biological, Chemical". I'd expect him to have a solid working knowledge of said attack methods.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

God I think I have a new knowledge hero on this board.

He's replacing you as my favorite. Step up, Captain.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I dunno why people keep saying this. The US seems like it really doesn't want to have to get involved. There is little to no public support, Obama doesn't seem like he really wants to. Not sure about congress, haven't heard them say much. Who else is there? Without going all 'shadow government' on my ass.

No doubt the American public support for a impending conflict is near 0%, but that doesn't matter. Obama doesn't seem like he wants to? Based on his actions I'd say he indeed does "want to". Actions speak louder than words, and his actions right now tell me this is coming to a head. Based on what has been said the last few days on behalf of Chuck Hagel, Biden, and Kerry they in fact DO want to get involved. Shadow gov't has nothing to do with this since their proclamation of impending war is out for everyone to see and hear.

I think they realize the last two wars cost way too much. Mostly economically, but in lives as well.

The US simply isn't in the economic situation they were before Afghanistan. They can't afford it. Which is kinda sad, because I feel there is much more reason to be in Syria than there was for Iraq.

They certainly cannot afford it, but nothing jump starts a impotent economy like a good ol fashioned war. As well, the fact the US is about to breach their debt/credit limit in as little as six weeks may preclude a war anyways. Intentions aside, someone may come looking for their money.

Saying that though, I'm not sure any international force could do enough. :/ It's a bad situation for sure. I feel like the world should help somehow, but it might be unrealistic to think it would do any good.

I agree, the region is a disaster, and the western powers coming in, dicks swinging isn't going to resolve anything. I hope I'm wrong and youre right, but I don't see this latest wave of posturing as doing any good, words and sanctions are not going to fix jack squat, its way beyond that point now.

Oh, and Putin can go suck a dick. That is all. The security council is completely pointless.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

If you think Russia and China are military lightweights I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken.

I would argue tho that the Russian Med presence is pretty light compared to the Americans.

From my understanding the Russians have a guided missile cruiser, a missile destroyer an anti submarine destroyer, 2 amphibious assault ships, a couple of submarines type unknown and probably 4 or 5 escort class vessels.

The Med is home to the United States 6th fleet, which usually means they have 2 aircraft carriers (probably the Truman and I think Nimitz) composing one task force each with 6 cruisers and destroyers(including the Burke class Destroyers), there is also a third carrier task group in the same area. Sub wise we would see probably 2 of the converted Ohio class SSGN cruise missile subs (Probably the Florida which participated in Libya and the Georgia) There would also probably be 2 to 3 fast attack boats patroling the regions.

Both China and Russia are going through their crash programs to rebuild or modernize their navies. But they just can't match up to American Naval power that far off of their shores.

The biggest threat to American intentions would be the Admiral Kuznetsov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...iral_Kuznetsov

Its pretty lightweight in terms of offensive capabilities compared to an American Super Carrier and its escorts.

the Chinese navy is not really in a position to project power away from its shorelines.

Its main aircraft carrier which I believe is the Liaoning is more of a escort class carrier then anything else, built along the same line as the AK listed above.

I think that the extent of Russian intervention if the balloon should rise will be pure and simple harassment of the American Navy elements. America's Navy is pretty much the power in that region even with draw downs.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hey, remember when Nixon closed down US bioweapons program? You know, so they can only make "defensive" bioweapons? Funny stuff.

This is a classic misinterpretation. Nixon did renounce biological weapons and set the pieces in motion to destroy the US stockpile, which, by all accounts was a step in the right direction, or as Nixon himself put it, "These important decisions have been taken as an initiative toward peace." Retaining small amounts of either cultures or agent for research purposes is not only scientifically beneficial, it is just plain common sense. These samples were important in helping the US Government create anthrax vaccines, which were used to inoculate US troops prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Further to that, retaining BW and CW samples for research frequently leads to innovation in soldier systems and troop defence/safety. For example, Canada never had an active offensive toxic organophosphate (TO) R&D program, though work on developing TO antidotes was considerable. Research in this area led to the creation of the Hi-6 multicomponent auto-injector, which has been adopted by the Canadian Forces as it's primary TO antidote. This work was undertaken at DRDC Suffield, using active agents and was a hugely successful and important project.

So personally, I don't really see how it is a bad thing.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would argue tho that the Russian Med presence is pretty light compared to the Americans.

From my understanding the Russians have a guided missile cruiser, a missile destroyer an anti submarine destroyer, 2 amphibious assault ships, a couple of submarines type unknown and probably 4 or 5 escort class vessels.

The Med is home to the United States 6th fleet, which usually means they have 2 aircraft carriers (probably the Truman and I think Nimitz) composing one task force each with 6 cruisers and destroyers(including the Burke class Destroyers), there is also a third carrier task group in the same area. Sub wise we would see probably 2 of the converted Ohio class SSGN cruise missile subs (Probably the Florida which participated in Libya and the Georgia) There would also probably be 2 to 3 fast attack boats patroling the regions.

Both China and Russia are going through their crash programs to rebuild or modernize their navies. But they just can't match up to American Naval power that far off of their shores.

The biggest threat to American intentions would be the Admiral Kuznetsov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...iral_Kuznetsov

Its pretty lightweight in terms of offensive capabilities compared to an American Super Carrier and its escorts.

the Chinese navy is not really in a position to project power away from its shorelines.

Its main aircraft carrier which I believe is the Liaoning is more of a escort class carrier then anything else, built along the same line as the AK listed above.

I think that the extent of Russian intervention if the balloon should rise will be pure and simple harassment of the American Navy elements. America's Navy is pretty much the power in that region even with draw downs.

Agreed, no nation can hold a candle to the US navy, my concern is if those nations care though.

I did find it interesting that about a month ago Russia sent off four fleets to the Med for "oceanic training" when the country has nothing but ocean to conduct training. Posturing for sure but still.

China really isn't within a position to militarize from their own shores, mostly because of the US destroyers currently in a Asia pacific. The recent changes in China's defense strategy leads me to believe they are not too happy about this. Basically they are feeling crowded and have said as much, I will try and find the article that stated this.

I don't disagree that any nation willing to poke the US bear may get annihilated, my concern is that they may not care. Russia has been VERY vocal in their displeasure of a US gov't that seemingly dictates foreign undertakings and in doing so making the UN null and void. Especially since they are supposed to play by the same rules.

If the US starts an attack and Russia doesn't back their strong words with strong actions, well you may as well raise a American flag in the center of Moscow. I don't know if Russia would risk backing down and making themselves look weak, especially considering their strong ties to Syria.

What are your thoughts? I guess I'm thinking that if the opposition to the US in that region during a attack comes from nations other than Syria itself the results could be catastrophic and all world encompassing. I really hope I'm wrong, but history buffs will attest to having heard this story before.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by NBC

This is a classic misinterpretation. Nixon did renounce biological weapons and set the pieces in motion to destroy the US stockpile, which, by all accounts was a step in the right direction, or as Nixon himself put it, "These important decisions have been taken as an initiative toward peace." ...

I feel like I just received an information BJ.

[NBC]

Not that I have any real clue as to what is currently happening in Syria (I'll wait for Ake Sellstrom's report to the UN), the problem I have with all of these "likely" or "unlikely" scenarios of who may or may not be responsible for the alleged CW attacks, is that it is all based on rumour and conjecture. The only thing people can do is deal in fact and unfortunately facts are in short supply.

From what I can tell the main reason why the Syrian Government is the likely culprit is the basic fact that they are in possession of both chemical agents and adequate delivery systems. This, coupled with the regime's CW doctrine, makes me think that they are most likely responsible, regardless of who profits from these heinous acts.

M. Zuhair Diab wrote an influential article on Syrian CBW called SYRIA’S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: ASSESSING CAPABILITIES AND MOTIVATIONS. It is a bit dated now (Fall 1997 Nonproliferation Review, p.104-111) but it has been expanded upon somewhat on the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) website. Here's the link:

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/chemical/

I know people love to beat up on Donald Rumsfeld - and for good reason - but his quote on "known knowns" is apt here. We know that Syria has chemical munitions and adequate delivery systems and doctrine for use. This began under Hafez al-Assad and I find it hard to believe that his son would have drastically altered such a significant portion of the regime's strategic doctrine.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by NBC

Not that I have any real clue as to what is currently happening in Syria (I'll wait for Ake Sellstrom's report to the UN), the problem I have with all of these "likely" or "unlikely" scenarios of who may or may not be responsible for the alleged CW attacks, is that it is all based on rumour and conjecture. The only thing people can do is deal in fact and unfortunately facts are in short supply.

From what I can tell the main reason why the Syrian Government is the likely culprit is the basic fact that they are in possession of both chemical agents and adequate delivery systems. This, coupled with the regime's CW doctrine, makes me think that they are most likely responsible, regardless of who profits from these heinous acts.

M. Zuhair Diab wrote an influential article on Syrian CBW called SYRIA’S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: ASSESSING CAPABILITIES AND MOTIVATIONS. It is a bit dated now (Fall 1997 Nonproliferation Review, p.104-111) but it has been expanded upon somewhat on the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) website. Here's the link:

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/chemical/

I know people love to beat up on Donald Rumsfeld - and for good reason - but his quote on "known knowns" is apt here. We know that Syria has chemical munitions and adequate delivery systems and doctrine for use. This began under Hafez al-Assad and I find it hard to believe that his son would have drastically altered such a significant portion of the regime's strategic doctrine.

Here comes the question that's probably answered in there. But in terms of deploying and using these weapons I'm assuming its single chain of command without the need for Asaad to consult with anyone in his government correct.

Even if he decided to use it, he could place a single call to his I guess you'd call it special warfare commander who would give the deploy order. Which could explain the calls between government members and the Chemical warfare unit since there's no confirmation requirement. His government might not have even known that he ordered the use of chemical weapons.

I believe command and control would be quit different from America's and Russias use of WMD which requires confirmation from high government members.

[DuffMan]

I think it's time to send in Jack Bauer to clean this mess up and expose the real culprits.

[NBC]

Captain, neither the report nor the original article touches on command and control. My own sense is that you are right in thinking it is a decision that al-Assad can make unilaterally, much the same as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. This however is more guess-work as information on how the regime works is in short supply.