wilson@b11.ingr.com (Jon Wilson) (08/10/90)
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? I would imagine that having to wear chem warfare protective gear in 130-degree heat would render a unit basically useless. Jon Wilson Intergraph Corporation ingr!b11!wilson@uunet.uu.net (Internet)
scallon@cod.nosc.mil (Matthew C. Scallon) (08/16/90)
From: scallon@cod.nosc.mil (Matthew C. Scallon) In article <1990Aug10.010711.29643@cbnews.att.com> wilson@b11.ingr.com (Jon Wilson) writes: > >I would imagine that having to wear chem warfare protective gear in 130-degree >heat would render a unit basically useless. > The discussion that went on recently on such National Public Radio shows such as *Morning Editon* and *All Things Considered* (this is NOT an endorsement; I just wanted it to be clear that this is NOT classified information) have claimed that the strategy in chemical weapons in warfare is, when one side fires chemical weapons, the defensive side must fire off its chemical weapons. This is so that both sides are stuck with wearing this protective gear, thus bringing the combat down to a pace of an elephant polo match (Anyone who had seen such a thing knows what I'm talking about). Chemical weapons are not very neat combat weapons, because Mother Nature does not draw lines in the sand, but, when it comes to General Hessein, you can never tell. Matthew C. Scallon scallon@cod.nosc.mil Disclaimer: The Navy can neither confirm nor deny my opinions.