curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) (08/15/90)
From: tekbspa!andromeda!g02b!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) Bill, here is an article for sci.military: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently, the Iraqis have two types of chemical agent: Mustard gas and the first generation Nerve agents, which were developed before/during WWII. I've heard Tabun and Sarin mentioned, both of which are non-persistent nerve agents. Non-persistent means that they don't stay lethal for a long time. Much has been written about the various protective measures that individual troops must employ to protect themselves from chemical attack. The current US chemical protective gear is very effective, when used properly, in pro- tecting soldiers against attack. It is made of activated charcoal and specially treated cloth, so that it is not quite as bad as a rubber suit, but it is bad enough in hot weather. The US has a couple of kinds of gas masks and they are very effective, but very good at making you feel claustrophobic. I had to make a five mile forced march in one during the summer in North Carolina (it was an overcast day, fairly warm, but not awful) and by the end of the march, I was ready to throw the thing away because I was sweating heavily and felt as though I couldn't breath. However, there are a number of tactical considerations to remember about employing chemical weapons in combat: 1. Unlike any other weapons I know of, chemical weapons don't produce ANY casualties if the troops are properly prepared. So they must either be used against unprepared troops/civilians OR they must be used in combination with other weapons or an attack by troops. 2. If chemical weapons are used in the attack, remember that the attacking force must be able to operate in a chemical environment also. For the Iraqis, this means that they would be wearing the Soviet protective gear, which is even hotter and more difficult to operate in than ours. 3. Modern tanks and other armored vehicles are essentially 'chemical proof' in that they are air-tight and they maintain a higher pressure inside than outside. This means that tanks/armored vehicle crews don't need the chemical protective suits, even though they would wear gas masks. Whether they would wear the suits depends on current doctrine, which I am not up on. (When I rode in the M60 tank, it was not airtight or overpressured, so we didn't have a choice) However, the point is that armored vehicle crewmen are much less subject to the effects of operating in a chemical environment than the 'Poor Bloody Infantry'. 4. Weather, wind and climate have a degrading effect on chemicals. A strong wind can blow away the chemicals; rain can wash them away and sun can break down the chemicals so that they aren't as active. I don't know how subject the Iraqi chemicals are to degradation, but they must be employed very selectively and very carefully. In WWI, where chemical weapons were used extensively, the experience was that initially, casualties were high because troops were unprepared. When troops got prepared, chemical weapons became more trouble than they were worth.
cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) (08/21/90)
From: convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash)
As has been pointed out, the main purpose of using chemical weapons against
troops equipped with protective gear is to hamper their operations. A
contributor has also pointed out that the sensible thing to do if you are
attacked with chemical weapons is to reply in kind--to assure that the
enemy is operating under a similar handicap.
My question is this: is the US equipped to use chemical weapons? As I
recall, efforts to manufacture new (binary) chemical munitions have been
repeatedly defeated by Congress, and we seem to be engaged in a concerted
effort to destroy existing stocks of chemical munitions. In other words, do
we have anything to throw at them?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (08/24/90)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) In article <1990Aug21.024814.1230@cbnews.att.com>, convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) writes: > My question is this: is the US equipped to use chemical weapons? According to the AP, no. As you note, the binary weapons were never constructed, and the remaining stocks of chemical weapons aren't very usable. The munitions are often leaky, and they're not in any form usable in this environment (wrong caliber shells, etc.). That said, I'm quite certain that the U.S. government would not use chemical weapons even if it could, and even in response to first use by Iraq. Tactically, they might be useful. Strategically, they'd lose the war, and several subsequent ones. The reasons are left as an exercise for the reader...