Swift Sword

Good Morning Gentleman,

Is there any merit to the idea of using various chemical weapons against terrorist facilities or in the pre-emptive striking of WMD facilities?

Some possible scenarios:

1. Raids on terrorist training camps might be preceeded with a non persistent agent such as carbonyl chloride to throw the enemy off balance just before commandos hit to grab some papers and prisoners.

Upon exfiltration of friendlies, hit the place hard with a persistent agent along the lines of any one of a number of mustard compounds to reduce the chances of survivors getting away, deny the area to the enemy for a time and hamper his efforts to recover surviving muntions or other materials.

2. In a WMD pre-emption move, critical aimpoints could be hit with conventional PGMs followed with a bombardment of a persistent agent to hamper salvage efforts.

3. Anti material agents of either a persistent or non persistent nature might be devised from halogen chemistry to damage or destroy equipment, computers, paperwork, etc. in a WMD pre-emptive capacity in conjunction with conventional PGMs.

Hydrogen flouride comes to mind and there has already been some work on weaponizing this compound from the early 1990s. HF would be a good bet; hard to do labwork when the windows and the glassware are destroyed.

4. The vexing question of underground facilities might be addressed with earth penetrating PGMs to critical aimpoints in conjunction with persistent agents targetting known entry/exit points, ventilation facilities, etc.

Suspected terrorist caves might be hit with persistent agents to catch the rats when they try to get out or a non persistent agent to cut them off from forces retreating towards them.

Various standard, non-lethal chemical weapons or new developments in this area are of course acceptable.

I am not super familiar with the inventory so can anyone say what, if any precision guided chemical bombs are available? CW warheads for cruise missles should not be to difficult to devise.

What sayeth the experts?

Thanks for your input in advance,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

FOG3

From what I've read the US possesses no BC weaponry at this time, due to treaty obligations. The small but potent arsenal of chemical weapons we did possess ceased to exist a long time ago. Has this changed?

Swift Sword

FOG3,

The way I understand it, the idea was to become treaty compliant by a certain date, 2007, IIRC, but recall hearing talk of an extension due to difficulties in both the U.S. and Russia in disposing of materials.

Russia lacks money and many American citizens do not consider disposal plants to be good neighbors, look cross eyed at transporting materials through their juristictions, etc. What about the children?

Honestly, I do not know the exact status of weapons in question but that is why I through these thoughts out in the good Colonel's corner .

However, were I to venture the risk of assumption, it is possible there are some weapons available in some stockpiles due to the delays inherent to the interminable lawyering that goes along with the implementation of any treaty but I could not venture to guess type, kind, shelf life or any such issues. If not in the U.S. than likely in Russia.

For scenario purposes consider some following sources of supply:

1. Perhaps a JDAM kit might be adapted to anyone of a number of Russian or Chinese weapons;

2. New production of some proven weapons should present no problems. For instance:

a. Chlorine gas is a commonly available industrial feed stock and a reasonable enough non persistant agent under the right climatic conditions and has some uses against underground facilities.

Combat proven to be useful against and suprise troops with low chemical discipline and little or no equipment available such as might be found in some camps.

b. Phosgene can be readily made and liquified by any high school sophmore so give one a company credit card and send them go over to AirGas in Miamiville if Mr. Rumsfeld would like to indulge in carbonyl chloride.

c. With an essentially ethylene powered chemical industryl, the United States could have mustard compounds on a COTS basis fairly readily and the blueprints for shells and bombs are no doubt available.

d. New build capabilities from scratch. US withdrawl from the CWC under some obscure clause that allows. I have not read the document but many treaties seem to have them. For purposes of example, consider the US withdrawl from the ABM Treaty.

e. Find a suitable vendor.

Regarding the nerve agents, the robust agri-chemical industry of the United States should be able to supply G agents in a fairly near timeline, one would think. These were developed from organo phospor ester (is that correct spelling?) pesticide research in Switzerland in the 1930s, IIRC.

Bings us right back to the "Riddle of the Rhine" which, incidentally was the "Riddle of the Euphrates" in the lead up to war.

Finally, if you all will permit me a wisecrack in an otherwise serious discussion, we could always just look in Mr. al Majid's Rolodex ! Surely it is on file somewhere.

For purposes of argument, I think it is fair to say that there is not an issue of supply regardless of existing stockpiles or their status in a failry near time frame.

Kind Regards,

William

Officer of Engineers

Chems, no matter, what their form, including FAEs, have a problem with delivery. You need extremely good weather. Wind or rain would reduce its effectiveness at times to nil.

In enclosed space, I think FAEs are a better solution. Most ventillation systems got filters of some kind.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

Temperature also plays a role.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

zraver

ther eis only one disposal site in the US, the Pine Bluff Arsenal with its 4 billion dollar zero emissions incenerator about an hour and a half from my home.

using leathal agents is illegal adn the US wont do it. But the idea of a non leahtal destructive agent is intriguing.

makes me wonde rif we can make a non nuclear EMP bomb to frag the hardrives and circuitry.

Gun Grape

It takes a large amount of agent to achieve results. In WW1 it took approx 1 ton of agent to kill 1 soldier.

Must build up a lethal amount and keep that amount for the period that it takes to kill someone.

As stated , they don't work good in cold weather, heat, rain, wind....

The Tokyo subway attack shows how ineffective they are in an enclosed space. At rush hour, on the busiest subway system in the world, 5 locations, each with at least 1 liter of sarin used. Total dead 12.

Swift Sword

Sir,

This is true and I understand.

The classic case study would be the first I suppose.

I understand the difference between the first use in France and the first use on the Russian front by the Germans.

Counterpoint for purposes of argument: modern military operations have a great deal of meterological support as it stands.

In one possible scenario, WMD facility for instance, we are going to be picking the time and place of our choosing. If it is decided these weapons are indispensible for whatever reason, than the strike would be launched under the most favorable conditions.

I will defer to your proffessional judgement on these matters but I still see some potential for using persistent agents to hamper the other guys recovery efforts. These agents do not neccessarily have to be lethal and of course the stipulation that conditions need to be appropriate is understood.

Have a good evening,

William

Swift Sword

Thank you, I guess that answers one question.

We can address the legal aspects as I/we learn more about the CWC.

An anti-material agent is possible as noted with HF compounds but this would be decidedly lethal or crippling most likely.

However, in a PGM that is specifically designed and deployed as and anti material weapon and dropped an important area that is known to be unoccupied could be useful and might pass legal muster.

Anybody with a better grasp of chemistry is going to have to go into more detail I am afraid.

As an example, I understand that HF was to be weaponized in rifle grenades so that an M203 could become an anti tank weapon.

The mechanism of injury was to be that HF would eat at the coatings on sensor lenses and damage/destroy the periscopes.

I do beleive the Russians are reputed to have something along these lines.

The following is from wikipedia so the standard wikipedia caveat is in force: do MORE homework but it gives some idea.

"Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) is an electromagnetic pulse generated without use of nuclear weapons. There are a number of devices to achieve this objective, ranging from a large low-inductance capacitor bank discharged into a single-loop antenna or a microwave generator to an explosively pumped flux compression generator. To achieve the frequency characteristics of the pulse needed for optimal coupling into the target, wave-shaping circuits and/or microwave generators are added between the pulse source and the antenna. A vacuum tube particularly suitable for microwave conversion of high energy pulses is the vircator.
NNEMP generators can be carried as a payload of bombs and cruise missiles, allowing construction of electromagnetic bombs with diminished mechanical, thermal and ionizing radiation effects and without the political consequences of deploying nuclear weapons."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

Regards,

William

Swift Sword

GG,

I understand this.

As a counterpoint, I would say that:

1)the target areas were much larger;
2)their delivery systems were much less efficient;
3)we have more agents to choose from to better match the conditions and could no doubt develop new products as as the Russians demonstrated in their messy theatre rescue.

Too, slightly OT, but our logistics system is really good at moving bulk liquids around, AFAIK, so there might be some advantages to be explored at this level viz. competing systems.

I understand this.

However, in the area denial roll or harrassing role this might not be so much of an issue as it appears on the surface, especially against those without good chemical discipline or appropriate defensive measures.

See above for my counterpoint.

I am not going to second guess the Tokyo PD because I just don't know, but most of the books (outside of hands on use of riot agents I am using a lot of book knowledge) seem to list symptoms that do not match what many victims were complaining about.

There could however, be anyone of a number of good reasons for this I would venture:

1)Inferior product;
2)Inappropriate concentration;
3)Impurities.
4)I don't know what I am talking about

Etc.

Definitely a chemical attack. Reasonably effective, IMO, in that it made a mess which is what these Apocalyptic types seem to be interested.

Regards,

William

Anon

If anyone remembers we all pointed this out(at length) to DeadKenny in the "Could Germany Win WWII" thread as well.

Chem weapons are VASTLY over-rated for their military utility.

GG was a gunbunny, and gunbunnies definitely get briefed wrt the expected effects and capabilities of chem barrages and delivery methods.

Swift Sword

M21,

I agree with you wholeheartedly and it would be foolish to argue in another direction in a conventional military context.

My position is simply that these weapons have been used effectively in the past and therefore it might be useful to consider whether they may have possibilities for forwarding the current efforts.

Dispensing large quantities of VX against a WP formation in the Fulda Gap where chemical discipline is high and they know how to deal with it and expecting great things is certainly having expectations that are too high.

However, calling down a small quantity of persistent agents (again, does not have to be lethal, even) and precisely placing them in a small area such as a narrow mountain trail known to be used by infiltrators might justify higher expectations.

For instance:

1)They might change their plans and have to go around the long way;
2)Throws off their timing;
3)It causes the enemy to draw resources to combat the threat, resources they have to take away from those ordinarily used to further their nefarious skulldruggery.

They will eventually catch on and adapt but we can keep them busy for a good while using different weapons and tactics against different types of targets under different circumstances.

Understood, but again using an old weapon in a new context may be something worth investigating. His input is valued because he knows,

Friendly regards,

William

Gun Grape

but the point we are all trying to make is that they have not been effective in the past.

Wow you just gave a good example of a harrasment short term minefield.
Pop a few ADAM and you achieve the same(better) results. Without all the hassles that come with CW employment.

Ray

The use of poison gas in World War I was a major military innovation. The gases used ranged from disabling chemicals such as tear gas and the more severe, mustard gas to killing agents like phosgene. This chemical warfare was a major component of the first global war and first total war of the 20th century. The killing capacity of gas was limited — only 3% of combat deaths were due to gas — however, the proportion of non-fatal casualties was high and gas remained one of the soldiers' greatest fears. In that it was possible to develop effective countermeasures to gas, it was unlike most other weapons of the period. Hence in the later stages of the war as the use of gas increased, in many cases its effectiveness was diminished.


Food for thought.

Swift Sword

GG,

In some instances, AFAIK, the lack of effectiveness has been proven to have been the inability to exploit the opportunities their use created.

Too, I would not expect effectiveness in the conventional military context for the reasons already articulated: chemical weapons are easy to defend against in this context.

However, used in new ways, effectiveness might be greater. For instance, the terrorist enemy in many areas uses pack animals. A chemical agent might be deployed against them which is designed to make them refuse to cross a given area.

But, say against a North Korean WMD target, I would expect much less effects as the enemy is already familiar with the weapons and has a plan which means any CW activity would have to involve a new twist such as anti materials use.

The enemy is already familiar with minefields. Does this mean we should not use them, of course not, but a good curveball might be handy on occassion.

Too, even with self destructing mines, there is going to be a dud rate. Chemical agents are done when they are done and thats that.

OK, getting back to the original question of merit, your proffessional judgement to leads you to beleive "little or no merit" and that was what I was looking for.

Other opinons may be forthcoming but the nays have it at this point.

Happey Election Day,

William