FWIS3

Well apparently things are ratcheting up, even though there are UN inspectors currently in the country- link

Pretty fucking insane and awful. I know Syria's been going on for years now and will likely continue for many more, but every once in awhile one of the events cries out to you.

For those more in the know by the way, how exactly do chemical weapons work? Do you fire a rocket of some gas and then it just dissipates? How much area does it usually cover/ what kind of gas do you use?

Edit to add: what I find most crazy here is it seems like some people died in a chemical attack as there are too many photos and videos for it to be fake... but I doubt Assad would do it under the noses of inspectors. In which case the rebels did it to their own people, which is even MORE awful...

The short answer to Rommie's question: It depends on the agent.

There are chemical agents that are designed to hang around and keep causing problems. Think mustard gas from WWI.
There are agents that are designed to be short acting.
Some agents are intended to incapacitate and others are intended to be lethal (think nerve agents).

The standard chemical weapons being used in the middle east are probably a variant on mustard gas. Mustard gas is especially nasty because it's a blistering agent that causes severe chemical burns. If the victim inhales the gas into the lungs the lungs become blistered and stop functioning. If the victim gets in on the skin it can cause the skin to peel off due to the chemical burns.

The usual method of delivery is by an artillery shell. One shell by itself probably only covers a small area. The standard approach is to lay down a barrage of artillery shells that blanket an area. A few hundred shells could blanket several square blocks.

What makes a weapon like this so damaging is that it is indiscriminate. If you lob it into a city block packed with several hundred people virtually every one will suffer some damage.

Believe it or not most military organizations hate the stuff. It's hard to control because the best way to deliver it is as a gas (for best dispersion) which is very vulnerable to shifting winds and atmospheric conditions. And it's relatively easy to defend against with the right equipment. Plus, it does way too much collateral damage to civilian populations.

for those who just can't resist knowing more >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon

SciFiFisher wrote:What makes a weapon like this so damaging is that it is indiscriminate. If you lob it into a city block packed with several hundred people virtually every one will suffer some damage.

Which is why human civilization has outlawed chemical weapons: The Chemical Weapons Convention

The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.

...

Almost all countries in the world have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. Currently 189 of the 196 states recognized by the United Nations are party to the CWC.[1] Of the seven states that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria).

The US and Russia have the biggest stockpiles and have been systematically destroying their stockpiles for years, but they are both behind schedule. The US has destroyed about 90% of its stockpile, Russia about 57%.

According to the BBC article they're in need of atropine as an antidote, so it would be some kind of nerve gas. There are probably worse ways to die, but I'm having trouble thinking of any at the moment.

I have to admit I was not so keen on the idea of the US getting involved in yet another war, but what Assad's regime is doing is vile beyond comprehension... The country just standing by seems unconscionable. I'm not in any position to be a warhawk, but this is just too damn much.

There's no way the US or NATO are going to get involved. Not only are the populaces of those nations dead-set against it, there's the fact that Russia's on the other side. No way anyone would want to antagonize the Bear over Syria.

That said, I'd like to see Assad nabbed out of his own bunker. Grab him and ship him to The Hague for trial for war crimes.

Never going to happen, I know... but I can dream, right?

I agree with TSC, if they haven't intervened yet they sure as hell aren't going to now. Even my friend here in NL who has Syrian relatives says there's no way by this point they won't just have a civil war for years to come- basically the situation is fucked- so I think the window for any good to come out of outside intervention has closed.

Shame really as I never totally got why we could go into Libya but Syria was not acceptable. Though don't get me wrong, I'm expecting us to have a leak in some years in the future talking about all the covert things the US is currently doing in Syria (because if nothing else they're surely trying to contain the violence to inside the borders and not having it spill into the rest of the region).

Awful stuff going on there for sure though, and I wish there was a way out of it.

Rommie wrote:I agree with TSC, if they haven't intervened yet they sure as hell aren't going to now. Even my friend here in NL who has Syrian relatives says there's no way by this point they won't just have a civil war for years to come- basically the situation is fucked- so I think the window for any good to come out of outside intervention has closed.

Shame really as I never totally got why we could go into Libya but Syria was not acceptable. Though don't get me wrong, I'm expecting us to have a leak in some years in the future talking about all the covert things the US is currently doing in Syria (because if nothing else they're surely trying to contain the violence to inside the borders and not having it spill into the rest of the region).

Awful stuff going on there for sure though, and I wish there was a way out of it.

I wasn't invited to the meetings but I suspect that part of the challenge with Syria is their close association with Hezbollah. And consider that the main opposition to Syria's government are all strongly Islamic and anti-American for the most part. Not a recipe for success.

I found this at the BBC:

Obama's thick red line on Syria

the HNIC said that if Assad & Co started using chemical weapons, they were looking for trouble, Now it's undeniable that SOMEONE is using them and most people (myself included) thnk it's Assad, even if it's illogical since they're gaining ground, so why use them when they have been warned not to.

And of course there's what one of Fisher's cousins said:

"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Gen Dempsey said.

"It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favour. Today, they are not.''

Sigma_Orionis wrote:I found this at the BBC:

Obama's thick red line on Syria

the HNIC said that if Assad & Co started using chemical weapons, they were looking for trouble, Now it's undeniable that SOMEONE is using them and most people (myself included) thnk it's Assad, even if it's illogical since they're gaining ground, so why use them when they have been warned not to.

And of course there's what one of Fisher's cousins said:

"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Gen Dempsey said.

"It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favour. Today, they are not.''

Apparently, I was paying attention when I took Command and Staff College.

Yeah, the more I think about it the more to me this points out just how many factions are starting to break out in Syria.

I mean, the UN was there to see if Assad was using chemical weapons. But assuming they didn't do it to themselves (seems increasingly unlikely) for someone else within his faction who wants to depose him it's a golden opportunity.

Also saw a report today that there are now an estimated 1 million child refugees outside Syria, who make up half the refugees (and maybe twice as many children are displaced within Syria). Looked it up, and an estimated 100k have died already, and the country originally had around 22 million people.

So something like 10% of people of the population has fled, and considering internally displaced persons at least a third of the population has refugee status. The mind boggles. I mean I'm 27 and struggling to think of when such a country-encompassing-and-destroying civil war has happened last- maybe Rwanda but that's a much smaller country.

SciFiFisher wrote:Apparently, I was paying attention when I took Command and Staff College.

That's where Yosh learned to play Command & Conquer right?

Rommie wrote:Yeah, the more I think about it the more to me this points out just how many factions are starting to break out in Syria.

I mean, the UN was there to see if Assad was using chemical weapons. But assuming they didn't do it to themselves (seems increasingly unlikely) for someone else within his faction who wants to depose him it's a golden opportunity.

Also saw a report today that there are now an estimated 1 million child refugees outside Syria, who make up half the refugees (and maybe twice as many children are displaced within Syria). Looked it up, and an estimated 100k have died already, and the country originally had around 22 million people.

So something like 10% of people of the population has fled, and considering internally displaced persons at least a third of the population has refugee status. The mind boggles. I mean I'm 27 and struggling to think of when such a country-encompassing-and-destroying civil war has happened last- maybe Rwanda but that's a much smaller country.

I remember once my mother was bitching about Chavez and when the talk turned to Civil War, she asked what was so bad about it. I suppose that news from what happens in Syria could be a good explanation......

GJ: There ain't a good way to die, but frankly...if I had to face a chemical weapon, I think i'd take a large does of nerve gas over a blistering agent like mustard gas. The VX stuff is *fast* by comparison.

Sigma-san: Naw..."Red Alert 2" was for Squadron Officer's School. I want to recall "Risk" being the game of choice at ACSC.

Yosh wrote:Sigma-san: Naw..."Red Alert 2" was for Squadron Officer's School. I want to recall "Risk" being the game of choice at ACSC.

Let me guess: the ACSC switched from Chess to "Risk" and "Stratego" in 2010

Sigma_Orionis wrote:If you kids don't behave I'm putting my foot down

Saw that. Seeing as I have a "don't approve of wars where you wouldn't die for it yourself" policy, I hope it doesn't go much beyond saber rattling for reasons outlined above.

Hmmm, somehow I suspect you wouldn't like this dude all that much.

He about the only mercenary adventurer we got down here, apparently his motto was "When you see a good war, enlist to fight in it". He died peniless and forgotten.

So, I'd say your policy is a wise one

I wouldn't want to make the call on this one. Obama is between a rock and a hard place in Syria. Kind of like in Egypt.

It's hard to ignore repressive regimes gassing people - we seem to have been unable to do that in Iraq. On the other hand, tossing Assad (if we could accomplish that) leaves Syria in the hands of ... who? No one that likes or respects the US, that's probably for sure. And probably no one that will respect the rights of Syrian citizens any better than Assad does.

Basically, the Middle East sucks, politically speaking. Not that it gets any better as you move east (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, etc.).

I completely agree- it is awful but frankly there's no plan for how to get out of the mess in Syria, and no one wants a repeat of Iraq. Though I do suspect this is going to be one of those things where someday I'll need to explain to my kids how our policies on Syria were shaped by Iraq and all that happened there- sorta like how I didn't get why the US did XYZ in the post-Vietnam world and my dad had to explain it in that context.

Apparently yesterday folks were doing sniper shots at the UN inspectors. As I said earlier, this situation is clearly gone and past salvaging as I can't imagine how such an action would benefit anyone (Assad because he wants to prove there was no chemical attack, the rebels because they want the UN to condemn Assad) so clearly by this point you have folks who think stirring the pot is nonetheless beneficial to their agenda.

You'll excuse me for sounding sanguine, but that has been the eternal dilemma of your foreign policy since 1945 at least.

No, it doesn't make it one bit easier. Half the world demanding that you intervene and the other half blaming you for the problem if you do, or even if you don't.

I'll say one thing about ASSange and Bradley: their leaking of all those diplomatic cables caused more embarassment to a lot of countries in Europe than to the US itself.

Just like we swarthy greasy latin-americans spend half our time blaming the US for our problems and the other half begging them for money (except us, now we beg the Chinese for money while still blaming YOU for everything else). most Western European countries (except the Brits most probably) spend half the time spewing sugar coated bullcrap and the other half covertly begging the US to do their dirty work. Look at the Swedes: all that high minded bullshit about neutrality and they expected the US to defend them if the USSR invaded them, and covertly assisted the US during the Cold War.

That's what you get for being a the dominant world power. However, since (like argentinians say) "you've got the pan by the handle", nobody is going to be sympathetic. And if you ask me, the Chinese and Russians are not actively working harder to undermine the US because they know what they're going to get into in the odd chance they succeed.

So maybe things HAVE changed since the 19th century after all. In those days, since public opinion was irrelevant it was "KIll or be Killed". Nowadays it's "Kill or be Killed, but don't touch the status quo".......

Between WWI and WWII and for a few years after WWII you had to be a big power (if not a super power) to even get the worlds attention.

Look at how Israel was formed immediately after WWII. A handful of countries decided the Jews needed a country of their own. Viola! Hello world, my name is Israel. I love puppies and if I win the contest I will be a homeland for those of the Jewish faith. Oh, and I believe we should give world peace a chance.

Now, if you tried something like that no one would be able to agree and it would take 50 years just to get the UN to agree to pass a resolution that sort of, kind a, suggested that the UN thinks it's a good idea but it still needs everyone to agree.

You mean the 1950s, when the UN was essentially controlled by the US (while your nut jobs claimed it was a conspiracy by the Tri-Lateral Comission or the Council on Foreign Relations to surrender US sovereignity to the UN)?

Of course, you had to try to live up to your ideals and let all those greasy swarthy furriners that disagreed with you take over it.

Not to mention that you TWICE tried to set up a world wide "compact" to prevent wars (the Society of Nations and the UN)

And on top of that, it was done by two bleeding heart pinko commie liberals (Wilson and Roosevelt).

See? it's all your fault. You ought to elect Ron Paul as president-for-life, or better yet: Rick Santorum

Oh yeah, and while we're at it: Chuck Hagel saying "Kids, we're serious this time, you better behave".

ETA: and so are the french

Ah WWII, the worlds version of Americas civil war.

See what I find interesting here somewhat requires historical context- for those who are non-Americans Bill Clinton was actually the second president to be impeached, as the first was Andrew Johnson after the Civil War. He was not removed from the presidency thanks to just one vote in the Senate, mainly because his impeachment was politically driven and people were worried that that would set the bad precedent where you could kick someone out just because politically you didn't agree with him.

So in another political parallel universe I'm sure the impeachment hearings would be well underway. I dunno why I mention all this, I guess I just always found it politically interesting.

Rommie wrote:I dunno why I mention all this, I guess I just always found it politically interesting.

I don't either. Is someone suggesting Obama get impeached for threatening to bomb Syria? Or for not having already bombed Syria?

geonuc wrote:

Rommie wrote:I dunno why I mention all this, I guess I just always found it politically interesting.

I don't either. Is someone suggesting Obama get impeached for threatening to bomb Syria? Or for not having already bombed Syria?

Dammit, I'm suggesting I was going to post in the other thread and did it wrong.