One of the three officially military spokespersons from the danish military was asked about them just after they were discovered. He said it proved absolutly nothing since all armies have to count on the worst. Even when you opponent is the US military. And keep in mind that we are a part of the coalition and he was speaking as a representative for a fighting party. All armies have those suits so you can´t say that when "bad" countries have them it proves their intents.
BTW: All three come from the military academy. I had my lectures in International Politics with one of them. Extremely level headed person. His status was that of a student like the rest of us but once in a while he would lecture of current events when it fitted into our (rather theoretical) course. The course went from 10th of september 2001 and ended may 2002 and was perhaps the course where I have learned the most in Uni so far, even if the course wasn´t strictly sociological relevant.
Once again, everyone's getting their pantiesin a bunch reading presumptuous media headlines instead of reading the real quotes anf acts from even the US military. Please, by all means, continue...
pretty much my rule to follow in war times is this.
wait 5 days after something is first announced. that's the first time you might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting info that's even remotely accurate.
everyone is falling over themselves to report the latest and greatest, so is leading their shock headlines with "Possible, May, Suspected" etc.
then they go to the opposite extreme when it's not what they initially hoped/feared it would be. (read: absolute worst case scenario)
if, by Friday they still think those missles have chem. warheads i'll start to care. until then it's all smoke and mirrors IMO.
The headline of the above post: "Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
Yup, which last I read the military spokesman specifically said it might very well be just that.
Many pesticides are nerve agents of one form or another, and they can easily set off detectors for such chemicals. It *was* found in an agricultural plant, after all.
Just a little info on Mustard, Sarin and Iraq. It's good to keep some of this in mind as reports start coming in:
Mustard:
Quote:
Evaluation. A "blister agent", mustard has a longer shelf-life than G-series nerve agents. As the final assessment report from UNSCOM recorded:
"a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997 - 1998 [..]. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%."
(Enclosure 1 to the Annex of the Letter to the President of the Security Council, 29 January 1999, S/1999/94, para.33; at: http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm)
However, mustard has a high volume-to-effectiveness ratio. As the IISS record in the strategic dossier, at p.43:
"large amounts of mustard are necessary for effective military operations. Roughly, one tonne of agent is needed to effectively contaminate 2.6 square kilometres of territory, if properly disseminated."
Iraq declared that it filled approximately 13,000 artillery shells with mustard prior to 1991. UNSCOM accounted for 12,792 of these shells, and destroyed them in the period of 1992-94. However, Iraq also declared that 550 mustard-filled artillery shells had been lost in the aftermath of the Gulf War; it later (in March 2003) claimed that this figure was arrived at by way of approximating the amount used, for which reliable records are not available, and thus the quantity unaccounted for is simply a result of the use of unreliable approximations. UNMOVIC report that the 550 artillery shells would contain between them "a couple of tonnes of agent" ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.76). The extent to which these - if they still existed - could constitute an ongoing danger should be assessed in light of the need to deploy large amounts of mustard for effective use.
Iraq has also cooperated in the destruction of remaining mustard items. 10 artillery shells were found by UNSCOM but were not destroyed before UNSCOM withdrew in 1998. As requested, Iraq kept these shells at al-Mutanna facility, where they were identified by UNMOVIC on 4 December 2002. On 11 February 2003, UNMOVIC reported:
"An UNMOVIC chemical team went to Al Mutanna, approximately 140 km north of Baghdad in preparation for the beginning of the process of destroying 10 155mm artillery shells and four plastic containers filled with mustard gas. The destruction process will begin tomorrow and is expected to last four to five days to complete. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors will work with an Iraqi team in the destruction process. These artillery shells were scheduled to be destroyed by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1998 but the plan was halted when UNSCOM withdrew from Iraq."
Technical problems were subsequently reported, but destruction continued from 25 February 2003, and was completed by 5 March 2003.
With regard to the "1,000 tons of mustard gas", referred to by the State Department on 27 February 2003, this seems to be an exaggeration. The only mustard that is unaccounted for except for the artillery shells is the discrepancy revealed in the Air Force document between the aerial bombs that Iraq claims it used in the Iran-Iraq war and the lower figure for those used in that document (see above). As Hans Blix said (quoted above), the total amount of chemical agents in these bombs could be around 1,000 tonnes. However, a considerable proportion of this would be made up of Sarin and Tabun bombs, agents that would not have lasted for more than a few months, and not mustard.
And Sarin
Quote:
Evaluation. The main G-agents produced by Iraq were Tabun, Sarin and Cyclosarin. It is generally accepted that Iraq stopped producing Tabun in 1986 (UNMOVIC accept that this account "is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOM?s findings", in "Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.68 ), in favour of concentrating on the producing of Sarin and Cyclosarin.
These agents deteriorate rapidly, especially if impurities are present in their manufacture. This seems to have been the case with Iraq's nerve agents. The Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force of the US Department of Defense gave the following assessment in March 2001:
"Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent. Since it contained at least 40 percent impurities when manufactured, sarin produced at Al Muthanna had a short shelf life. The CIA estimates the chemical warfare agent in the rockets stored at Al Muthanna had deteriorated to approximately 18 percent purity by the time that Bunker 2 was destroyed, leaving about 1600 kilograms (1.6 metric tons) of viable sarin."
The taskforce of the Department of Defense attributed the high level of Iraqi cooperation in revealing the scale of its earlier chemical programme to the fact that the Iraqi government realised that the nerve agents it had produced were no longer viable:
"We believe Iraq was largely cooperative on its latest declarations because many of its residual munitions were of little use - other than bolstering the credibility of Iraq's declaration - because of chemical agent degradation and leakage problems."
A similar assessment was made by the CIA in a memorandum from January 1991:
"Iraq is not able to make good-quality chemical agents. Technical failures have reduced their purity and caused problems in storage and handling. This is a particular problem for the sarin- type nerve agents (GB and GF). These both contain hydrofluoricacid (HF), an impurity that attacks metal surfaces and catalyzes nerve agent decomposition. This leads to metal failure and leaks in the ammunition, increasing handling hazards. [...] Lower purity significantly limits shelf life and reduces toxic effects when the munition is employed. [...] The nerve agent should have already begun to deteriorate, and decomposition should make most of the nerve agent weapons unserviceable by the end of March 1991."
This assessment is repeated in the IISS strategic dossier of 9 September 2002: "As a practical matter, any nerve agent from this period [pre-1991] would have deteriorated by now.." (p.51)
UNMOVIC have also acknowledged this conclusion with regard to specific substances:
Tabun: "documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.68 ).
Sarin / Cyclosarin: "According to documents discovered by UNSCOM in Iraq, the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq?s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production. [...] There is no evidence that any bulk Sarin-type agents remain in Iraq - gaps in accounting of these agents are related to Sarin-type agents weaponized in rocket warheads and aerial bombs. Based on the documentation found by UNSCOM during inspections in Iraq, Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production. Therefore, with respect to the unaccounted for weaponized Sarin-type agents, it is unlikely that they would still be viable today." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, pp.72-73).
pretty much my rule to follow in war times is this.
wait 5 days after something is first announced. that's the first time you might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting info that's even remotely accurate.
everyone is falling over themselves to report the latest and greatest, so is leading their shock headlines with "Possible, May, Suspected" etc.
then they go to the opposite extreme when it's not what they initially hoped/feared it would be. (read: absolute worst case scenario)
if, by Friday they still think those missles have chem. warheads i'll start to care. until then it's all smoke and mirrors IMO.
Smartest, most rational post of the day (if not the year), IMO.
In their rush to be "first and newest", the pinheads in the media have stepped in it over and over again with premature "reports" about one thing or another (and not just the Iraq war, but EVERYTHING: Elizabeth Smart, last summer's shark attacks, the D.C. sniper situation, the Columbia tragedy, etc.).
Just think about how many things they've gotten wrong in just a few weeks' time, regarding this war? I, too, prefer to "wait it out" a few days because it's so easy for some boneheaded, gloryhound reporter or commentator to say something and it gets picked up and before you know it, it's "news" and "the real deal".
About 83% of the time, it's anything BUT.
I HOPE it's WOMD, but I'm not going to dance or gloat just yet.
Smartest, most rational post of the day (if not the year), IMO.
In their rush to be "first and newest", the pinheads in the media have stepped in it over and over again with premature "reports" about one thing or another (and not just the Iraq war, but EVERYTHING: Elizabeth Smart, last summer's shark attacks, the D.C. sniper situation, the Columbia tragedy, etc.).
Just think about how many things they've gotten wrong in just a few weeks' time, regarding this war? I, too, prefer to "wait it out" a few days because it's so easy for some boneheaded, gloryhound reporter or commentator to say something and it gets picked up and before you know it, it's "news" and "the real deal".
About 83% of the time, it's anything BUT.
I HOPE it's WOMD, but I'm not going to dance or gloat just yet.
Comments
*If accurate*... solid enough for everyone?
we'll have to wait and see though, i didn't find anything in print yet, although i only looked for 30 seconds.
One of the three officially military spokespersons from the danish military was asked about them just after they were discovered. He said it proved absolutly nothing since all armies have to count on the worst. Even when you opponent is the US military. And keep in mind that we are a part of the coalition and he was speaking as a representative for a fighting party. All armies have those suits so you can´t say that when "bad" countries have them it proves their intents.
BTW: All three come from the military academy. I had my lectures in International Politics with one of them. Extremely level headed person. His status was that of a student like the rest of us but once in a while he would lecture of current events when it fitted into our (rather theoretical) course. The course went from 10th of september 2001 and ended may 2002 and was perhaps the course where I have learned the most in Uni so far, even if the course wasn´t strictly sociological relevant.
Originally posted by groverat
True or not, makes no difference to me.
True or not, makes no difference to me either.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Yes, there aren't many people who would claim that bio/chem suits prove WMD, merely that they raise suspicions further.
Not when every army going into battle has them.
wait 5 days after something is first announced. that's the first time you might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting info that's even remotely accurate.
everyone is falling over themselves to report the latest and greatest, so is leading their shock headlines with "Possible, May, Suspected" etc.
then they go to the opposite extreme when it's not what they initially hoped/feared it would be. (read: absolute worst case scenario)
if, by Friday they still think those missles have chem. warheads i'll start to care. until then it's all smoke and mirrors IMO.
Originally posted by tonton
The headline of the above post: "Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
Yup, which last I read the military spokesman specifically said it might very well be just that.
Many pesticides are nerve agents of one form or another, and they can easily set off detectors for such chemicals. It *was* found in an agricultural plant, after all.
Any more word on those missles?
Mustard:
Evaluation. A "blister agent", mustard has a longer shelf-life than G-series nerve agents. As the final assessment report from UNSCOM recorded:
"a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997 - 1998 [..]. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%."
(Enclosure 1 to the Annex of the Letter to the President of the Security Council, 29 January 1999, S/1999/94, para.33; at: http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm)
However, mustard has a high volume-to-effectiveness ratio. As the IISS record in the strategic dossier, at p.43:
"large amounts of mustard are necessary for effective military operations. Roughly, one tonne of agent is needed to effectively contaminate 2.6 square kilometres of territory, if properly disseminated."
Iraq declared that it filled approximately 13,000 artillery shells with mustard prior to 1991. UNSCOM accounted for 12,792 of these shells, and destroyed them in the period of 1992-94. However, Iraq also declared that 550 mustard-filled artillery shells had been lost in the aftermath of the Gulf War; it later (in March 2003) claimed that this figure was arrived at by way of approximating the amount used, for which reliable records are not available, and thus the quantity unaccounted for is simply a result of the use of unreliable approximations. UNMOVIC report that the 550 artillery shells would contain between them "a couple of tonnes of agent" ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.76). The extent to which these - if they still existed - could constitute an ongoing danger should be assessed in light of the need to deploy large amounts of mustard for effective use.
Iraq has also cooperated in the destruction of remaining mustard items. 10 artillery shells were found by UNSCOM but were not destroyed before UNSCOM withdrew in 1998. As requested, Iraq kept these shells at al-Mutanna facility, where they were identified by UNMOVIC on 4 December 2002. On 11 February 2003, UNMOVIC reported:
"An UNMOVIC chemical team went to Al Mutanna, approximately 140 km north of Baghdad in preparation for the beginning of the process of destroying 10 155mm artillery shells and four plastic containers filled with mustard gas. The destruction process will begin tomorrow and is expected to last four to five days to complete. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors will work with an Iraqi team in the destruction process. These artillery shells were scheduled to be destroyed by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1998 but the plan was halted when UNSCOM withdrew from Iraq."
Technical problems were subsequently reported, but destruction continued from 25 February 2003, and was completed by 5 March 2003.
With regard to the "1,000 tons of mustard gas", referred to by the State Department on 27 February 2003, this seems to be an exaggeration. The only mustard that is unaccounted for except for the artillery shells is the discrepancy revealed in the Air Force document between the aerial bombs that Iraq claims it used in the Iran-Iraq war and the lower figure for those used in that document (see above). As Hans Blix said (quoted above), the total amount of chemical agents in these bombs could be around 1,000 tonnes. However, a considerable proportion of this would be made up of Sarin and Tabun bombs, agents that would not have lasted for more than a few months, and not mustard.
And Sarin
Evaluation. The main G-agents produced by Iraq were Tabun, Sarin and Cyclosarin. It is generally accepted that Iraq stopped producing Tabun in 1986 (UNMOVIC accept that this account "is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOM?s findings", in "Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.68 ), in favour of concentrating on the producing of Sarin and Cyclosarin.
These agents deteriorate rapidly, especially if impurities are present in their manufacture. This seems to have been the case with Iraq's nerve agents. The Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force of the US Department of Defense gave the following assessment in March 2001:
"Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent. Since it contained at least 40 percent impurities when manufactured, sarin produced at Al Muthanna had a short shelf life. The CIA estimates the chemical warfare agent in the rockets stored at Al Muthanna had deteriorated to approximately 18 percent purity by the time that Bunker 2 was destroyed, leaving about 1600 kilograms (1.6 metric tons) of viable sarin."
"The Gulf War Air Campaign - Possible Chemical Warfare Agent Release at Al Muthanna, February 8, 1991", 19 March 2001; at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/al_muth/al_muth_s02.htm
The taskforce of the Department of Defense attributed the high level of Iraqi cooperation in revealing the scale of its earlier chemical programme to the fact that the Iraqi government realised that the nerve agents it had produced were no longer viable:
"We believe Iraq was largely cooperative on its latest declarations because many of its residual munitions were of little use - other than bolstering the credibility of Iraq's declaration - because of chemical agent degradation and leakage problems."
"Chemical Warfare Agent Issues During the Persian Gulf War", Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force, April 2002; at: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...s/cwpaper1.htm
A similar assessment was made by the CIA in a memorandum from January 1991:
"Iraq is not able to make good-quality chemical agents. Technical failures have reduced their purity and caused problems in storage and handling. This is a particular problem for the sarin- type nerve agents (GB and GF). These both contain hydrofluoricacid (HF), an impurity that attacks metal surfaces and catalyzes nerve agent decomposition. This leads to metal failure and leaks in the ammunition, increasing handling hazards. [...] Lower purity significantly limits shelf life and reduces toxic effects when the munition is employed. [...] The nerve agent should have already begun to deteriorate, and decomposition should make most of the nerve agent weapons unserviceable by the end of March 1991."
"Iraq: Potential for Chemical Weapon Use", 25 January 1991; at: http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/9708..._txt_0001.html
This assessment is repeated in the IISS strategic dossier of 9 September 2002: "As a practical matter, any nerve agent from this period [pre-1991] would have deteriorated by now.." (p.51)
UNMOVIC have also acknowledged this conclusion with regard to specific substances:
Tabun: "documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.68 ).
Sarin / Cyclosarin: "According to documents discovered by UNSCOM in Iraq, the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq?s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production. [...] There is no evidence that any bulk Sarin-type agents remain in Iraq - gaps in accounting of these agents are related to Sarin-type agents weaponized in rocket warheads and aerial bombs. Based on the documentation found by UNSCOM during inspections in Iraq, Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production. Therefore, with respect to the unaccounted for weaponized Sarin-type agents, it is unlikely that they would still be viable today." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, pp.72-73).
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
Originally posted by giant
Just a little info on Mustard, Sarin and Iraq. It's good to keep some of this in mind as reports start coming in.... [/url]
Are you trying to say that Bush lied to us in order to start a war??!?
Originally posted by alcimedes
pretty much my rule to follow in war times is this.
wait 5 days after something is first announced. that's the first time you might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting info that's even remotely accurate.
everyone is falling over themselves to report the latest and greatest, so is leading their shock headlines with "Possible, May, Suspected" etc.
then they go to the opposite extreme when it's not what they initially hoped/feared it would be. (read: absolute worst case scenario)
if, by Friday they still think those missles have chem. warheads i'll start to care. until then it's all smoke and mirrors IMO.
Smartest, most rational post of the day (if not the year), IMO.
In their rush to be "first and newest", the pinheads in the media have stepped in it over and over again with premature "reports" about one thing or another (and not just the Iraq war, but EVERYTHING: Elizabeth Smart, last summer's shark attacks, the D.C. sniper situation, the Columbia tragedy, etc.).
Just think about how many things they've gotten wrong in just a few weeks' time, regarding this war? I, too, prefer to "wait it out" a few days because it's so easy for some boneheaded, gloryhound reporter or commentator to say something and it gets picked up and before you know it, it's "news" and "the real deal".
About 83% of the time, it's anything BUT.
I HOPE it's WOMD, but I'm not going to dance or gloat just yet.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you trying to say that Bush lied to us in order to start a war??!?
No, he's trying to say that those poor nerve agents get a bad rap. Really, they're harmless! Legalize 'em with marijuana!
Originally posted by pscates
Smartest, most rational post of the day (if not the year), IMO.
In their rush to be "first and newest", the pinheads in the media have stepped in it over and over again with premature "reports" about one thing or another (and not just the Iraq war, but EVERYTHING: Elizabeth Smart, last summer's shark attacks, the D.C. sniper situation, the Columbia tragedy, etc.).
Just think about how many things they've gotten wrong in just a few weeks' time, regarding this war? I, too, prefer to "wait it out" a few days because it's so easy for some boneheaded, gloryhound reporter or commentator to say something and it gets picked up and before you know it, it's "news" and "the real deal".
About 83% of the time, it's anything BUT.
I HOPE it's WOMD, but I'm not going to dance or gloat just yet.
Well it'll have to be more than just pesticide.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you trying to say that Bush lied to us in order to start a war??!?
No. Giant already proved that there were not chem/bio weapons there. So he doesn't have to prove it now.
So there's no need to test those drums. Nothing to see here folks, move on.