root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) (08/08/90)
From: edat!root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) Although it is a well know fact that Iraq has and will use chemical weapons, what types of weapons do they actually have? Chlorine, mustard, something else? What type of dispersal pattern do these weapons take on. Next question, delivery systems. Iraq has modified Scud B that I think are between 500 & 1000 miles. Anything else? What about the missle that Libya and Brazil (? maybe Argentina) was developing with a 3000 mile range. Can anybody in netland elaborate on these systems, payloads, ranges, accuracy? (granted accuracy may be a mute question). Last question. Does anyone know much about Iraqii C^3? I've come across some esoteric references to an Iraqii C^3 system that essentially provides for a "doomsday" response. That is if Iraq comes under direct attack, they have a plan to launch chemical loaded weapons at various targets. Sort of a poor mans M.A.D. scheme. Hussein alluded to this a few months back in response to talk of another Israeli pre-emptive strike on their reactor. Does anyone else know of any such system in place.
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (08/13/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) I suited up in 1986 at Quantico in October (temp ~85F) and it was damned difficult and uncomfortable. The mask/hood combo goes on first, of course, to provide the primary protection. The suits are foam rubber impregnated with activated charcoal, with chemical resistant cloth covering, a one-piece coverall. You put it on over your BDUs for that "layered" look. "Boots" are rubber which go on over the combat boots; you then lace up the "toe" to adjust for your side and seal the ankles. Then you put on cotton glove liners, then rubber gloves on over the cloth. This whole evolution takes ~5 minutes, with motivation and training. Needless to say, you sweat. It runs down inside the mask, in you eyes, very uncomfortable - and this is just standing around waiting to take your turn in the gas chamber. In 85 degree heat, I would guess that you might be able to route march with 60# for maybe 10 minutes on level ground; it would be damn near impossible to dig a fighting hole, even in the sand. Once in the suit, you stay in the suit until monitors have pronounced an area safe, or you are in a decontaminated enclosure. Practical matter: if you are in a contaminated area, you keep the suit on until you can leave the area. How long is that? Indefinite. You can drink from your canteen using a fitting in the mask and the corresponding fitting on the canteen - assuming you canteen has not had its surface contaminated. I tried it with the rubber gloves on - not particularly easy, but as I say, with motivation ... So you can drink; however, in 100+ degree heat (like Saudi Arabia), a trooper requires ~ 1 quart of water per hour for light activity, so you are going to be very busy with this one activity. Atropine is the antidote for nerve agents. The agents are dispersed as liquids or aerosols, by artillery/mortars or spray tanks, respectively. Not gasses, as the papers/TV are constantly saying. A single drop on exposed skin of the advanced agends (VX) will do the job (LD50); one good lungful of aerosol is probably fatal. Reaction time is measured in minutes. The official doctrine on atropine use is that you wait until you have symptoms, then you stick yourself with one combo-pen, and stick the empty on you sleeve so your buddies or medics know you have had one dose. You stick the needle in you leg, by the way. After 5-10 minutes, you should get some relief; if not, take a second hit. Repeat one more time, for a total of 3 self-administered; beyond that, you are supposed to have a medic do it as you can OD on atropine. Now you may see a tiny problem here; if you get zapped by a chemical attack without your protective gear, you may have no time at all to get into your gear and then check for symptoms. This question came up way back in NBC school, and the answer, from the chemical defense experts, was that if you think you have been attacked by nerve agent, don't wait, hit yourself with one shot of atropine IMMEDIATELY, get into your gear, and think about the second shot. This sounded like a pretty good idea to me at the time, and still does. Incidentally, atropine has some side effects that degrade your combat effectiveness, hence the doctrine that says "wait for symptoms". So if used prophylactically, you become at least a partial casualty, but maybe a live casualty. The likelihood is that an enemy will use several chemicals in combination; mustard is used to "mask" the nerve agent (i.e., you smell/detect the mustard, neglect to protect against nerve, and become a nerve casualty). Others like Adamsite might be used ahead of a nerve agent to make it difficult for you to keep the mask on. Nasty. In the current mideast war, the chemicals are useful in that, even though they might not kill protected and trained troops, they will make them almost totally ineffective. Persistent chemicals can deny use of a geographic area to the enemy (and yourself, too). So they are not totally inappropriate as a tactical weapon. The major effect of chemicals is to produce lots of casualties that have to be evacuated, taken care of, etc. So you can tie up lots of the enemy's resources with chemicals, and cheaply. Mustard is very good at producing casualties rather than fatalaties. Triage, anyone? The drawbacks is that chemicals are a bit difficult to apply, and you need cooperation from the weather. Commanders don't like them as well as conventional explosive munitions because it is hard to predict the effects (i.e., bad weather, and you are out of business; wind in the wrong direction, and you score own goal). Then there are their very negative political implications. I think the Iraquis have a version of the Scud-B, with a range of ~300 miles (Scud-B lists 100-170 mi, but I heard/read 300 miles somewhere), carries ~1800 lb warhead. BTW, the Soviets use weakened version of live agents in their training. Motivation. Pat Kauffold ATT-BL Naperville
wyle@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Mitchell F. Wyle) (08/13/90)
From: "Mitchell F. Wyle" <wyle@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> In <1990Aug8.030444.25822@cbnews.att.com> edat!root anonymously asks: >Although it is a well know fact that Iraq has and will use chemical >weapons, what types of weapons do they actually have? Chlorine, >mustard, something else? What type of dispersal pattern do these >weapons take on. >From the USA Today of 10 August 1990, quoted without permission: Iraq would not hesitate to use poison gas against U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi ambassador to Greece said Thursday. "We possess very destructive chemical weapons and we will use them if attacked, " ambassador Abdel Fatah Khereji said in Athens. Iraq's chemical weapons supply is estimated at 5,000 tons of mustard gas and two types of nerve gas. Range of destruction: up to 400 miles. >Next question, delivery systems. Iraq has modified Scud B that I think >are between 500 & 1000 miles. Anything else? What about the missle >that Libya and Brazil (? maybe Argentina) was developing with a 3000 >mile range. Can anybody in netland elaborate on these systems, >payloads, ranges, accuracy? (granted accuracy may be a mute question). According to _Spiegel_ the 40,000 Kurds were killed with gas delivered by fighter-bombers (MiGs?). No one in the press I read has mentioned gas as a payload on Iraqi missiles, except Hussein himself, while threatening Israel. >Last question. Does anyone know much about Iraqii C^3? I've come >across some esoteric references to an Iraqii C^3 system that >essentially provides for a "doomsday" response. That is if Iraq comes >under direct attack, they have a plan to launch chemical loaded >weapons at various targets. Sort of a poor mans M.A.D. scheme. >Hussein alluded to this a few months back in response to talk of >another Israeli pre-emptive strike on their reactor. Does anyone >else know of any such system in place. According to a front page article in the "Neue Zuercher Zeitung" which I read 7 days ago (a long time ago!) there are 3,000 Soviet advisors in Iraq and several hundred were involved in the military annexation of Kuwait. I suppose they have "advised" Iraq since then to withdraw, but the soviet advisors did not set off any alarms before or during the invasion. Given that much of Iraq's best military equipment is Soviet, I always assumed that their C^3I was Soviet in nature. Now that you have mentioned their reactor, I have some questions of my own: 1. "Dust Bomb" If one puts Plutonium dust in one's petroleum, what happens? Does it sink and cause no harm? Does it dissolve and make the oil radioactive? 2. What is US sop if enemies attack with low-yield tactical nukes? Do you respond in kind? 3. What happens to 20-40% of the world's oil if a nuclear device is detonated deep inside the oil "pool?" My personal speculative answer to this question is "Not much."
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/16/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: "Mitchell F. Wyle" <wyle@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> >1. "Dust Bomb" If one puts Plutonium dust in one's petroleum, what > happens? Does it sink and cause no harm? Does it dissolve and > make the oil radioactive? Oil is not a good solvent for inorganic materials like metals and metal salts. You might get a suspension of the dust in the oil, depending on details like relatively densities and the viscosity of the oil. My guess would be that it would settle out... but that settling might be very slow in thick crude. In any case, filtering, although possibly difficult, would clean it out. >2. What is US sop if enemies attack with low-yield tactical nukes? > Do you respond in kind? Probably. It is officially US policy to go nuclear in certain cases even when the other side has not, e.g. an overwhelming attack in central Europe. (There was essentially a conscious decision in the 1950s not to maintain conventional forces in Europe large enough to positively stop a Soviet conventional attack.) In practice there would be great pressure to avoid use of nuclear weapons, even in retaliation: better to present the use of nuclear weapons as the act of a madman, and refrain from responding in kind. One must distinguish SOPs from what would actually happen. :-) Use of nuclear weapons requires presidential authorization, barring extreme circumstances not relevant here, and that means it doesn't really matter what the rules say -- it's the president's decision. Long odds that he would refuse permission unless the survival of the US seemed at stake. >3. What happens to 20-40% of the world's oil if a nuclear device is > detonated deep inside the oil "pool?" My personal speculative > answer to this question is "Not much." There is no single "pool" of oil involved, in the sense of a swirling underground lake, and the effects of a single nuclear bomb should be quite localized. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jaw@cs.rochester.edu (Jim Watson) (08/17/90)
From: moscom!jaw@cs.rochester.edu (Jim Watson) >From: wilson@b11.ingr.com (Jon Wilson) > >What chemical weapons options are available to the U.S. should Iraq use them >in the Persian Gulf? >One assumes the usual spray tanks on tactical aircraft, but are any surface- >to-surface missiles available with chemical warheads? > Delivery options are limited only by the twisted imaginations of those wonderful people who work for defense contractors. Spray from planes, artillery, mines (yes MINES! :-{), ground based dispensers (assuming of course that your target is down wind), sabatoge (contaminating water supplies by whatever means), etc. I don't envy a combatant in a chemical warfare environment. >In article <1990Aug12.214422.2463@cbnews.att.com> cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) writes: > >From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >I suited up in 1986 at Quantico in October (temp ~85F) and it was damned >difficult and uncomfortable. . . That's putting it mildly. I had the pleasure of wearing one of these things in Camp LeJeune N.C. End of July, 95 deg or so. The instructors (and our CO :-}) didn't think it was good enough to just put the thing on and sweat, we went for a little nature walk! You sweat continually. In less than 5 Min the soles of my boot seemed like I had walked through a sizeable puddle and I could feel another pool forming in the "chin-cup" of my mask. It was VERY uncomfortable. However it was surviveable. I've had worse experiences with a normal flak jacket and helmet. I believe that someone could function - sort of - in the suite for a limited period of time. I was extremely thankful to the influential individual who decided that the charcol impregnated suites were worth the extra money over those rubber monsters. >BTW, the Soviets use weakened version of live agents in their training. >Motivation. MOTIVATION !! US troops use plain old CS (tear gas). It's not too threatening and after a while, you build up a tolerence to it. We did, however, come up with our own little concoction that seemed to work well. Take a normal smoke grenade and strap a heat-tab (trioxane tablet) to the exhaust hole. There's no getting used to that !! I suppose it's toxic or causes some sort of cancer, so you didn't here that from me. Jim Watson Sgt USMC Jan 84 - Jan 90 (I suppose I'll have to re-up and kill a few rag heads :-}) >Pat Kauffold ATT-BL Naperville
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (08/21/90)
From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie In article <1990Aug12.214438.2536@cbnews.att.com>, wyle@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Mitchell F. Wyle) writes: > Now that you have mentioned their reactor, I have some questions of my > own: > > 1. "Dust Bomb" If one puts Plutonium dust in one's petroleum, what > happens? Does it sink and cause no harm? Does it dissolve and > make the oil radioactive? > > 2. What is US sop if enemies attack with low-yield tactical nukes? > Do you respond in kind? > > 3. What happens to 20-40% of the world's oil if a nuclear device is > detonated deep inside the oil "pool?" My personal speculative > answer to this question is "Not much." 1. Given that plutonium is heavy and not very soluble, I imagine it sinks. Having said that, I wouldn't put such petroleum in my car... 2. Given that US sop if the Russians are winning with conventional weapons is to use nukes first, I imagine so. 3. I think you're right: the nuke would vaporize X % of the oil-bearing strata but this would only be a small fraction of the total. You wait for the radiation to reasonably subside and then move in and start drilling again. "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
djm@castle.ed.ac.uk (D Murphy) (08/21/90)
From: D Murphy <djm@castle.ed.ac.uk> In article <1990Aug16.030606.15802@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: - - -From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) ->From: "Mitchell F. Wyle" <wyle@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> ->1. "Dust Bomb" If one puts Plutonium dust in one's petroleum, what -> happens? Does it sink and cause no harm? Does it dissolve and -> make the oil radioactive? - -Oil is not a good solvent for inorganic materials like metals and metal -salts. You might get a suspension of the dust in the oil, depending on -details like relatively densities and the viscosity of the oil. My -guess would be that it would settle out... but that settling might be -very slow in thick crude. In any case, filtering, although possibly -difficult, would clean it out. - Erm, I hate to worry you, Henry, but the extraction process used at the BNF Sellafield plant for reproceessing irradiated oxide fuels uses an organic solvent to get the Pu out of a highly acidic aqueous solution. It would be possible to dissolve the Pu in acid, then extract it into an organic solvent, which you could then incorporate into a napalm-like material. IMHO I doubt if it is worth the effort - the only use of Pu in warfare is to make very big explosions, since deaths by lung cancer (the most likely effect of such a weapon) would not occur soon enough to be tactically useful. Murff...