riga@uncecs.edu (Helmuts A. Fiefs) (08/13/90)
From: Helmuts A. Fiefs <riga@uncecs.edu> Chemical warfare seems to be the only phase of warfare where no real offensive modality has been delivered. Troops are just expected to hunker down, cover up, or robe up and move through the fog. Doesn't this seem strange. Why do troops not carry aresol counter chemical agents which , when they are attacked, could bbe deployed to neutralize whatever vapor was being wafted their way. The new acronym could be NOP (neutralize, oxidize, or percipitate). Counter ARTY sends in a neutralizing agent into the aresol (sp) cloud headed toward our troops and our troops move through it spraying their individual aresols. Fluid within fluid. My examples might be bad but has this been tried ?
hwt@uunet.UU.NET (Henry Troup) (08/15/90)
From: bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca!hwt@uunet.UU.NET (Henry Troup) In article <1990Aug12.214511.2686@cbnews.att.com> riga@uncecs.edu (Helmuts A. Fiefs) writes: >be deployed to neutralize whatever vapor was being wafted their way. The new >acronym could be NOP (neutralize, oxidize, or percipitate). Counter ARTY sends >in a neutralizing agent into the aresol (sp) cloud headed toward our troops >and our troops move through it spraying their individual aresols. Fluid within Well, part of my employement involves being on the Emergency Response Team. Our response to chemical spills is absorb and avoid, never attempt to neutralize. The basic (pun, sorry) problem is identification - is it an acid spill? alkali? solvent? Each requires different neutralizing techniques, plus the reaction products. Gases are worse, and less well known at a distance. I agree that in principle, you can remote chemical identify with lasers - but I doubt that its in the field today. -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 |