Article

2005-10-01 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2005-10-01 08:46|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is a pro forma announcement. Practically speaking, *any* industrialized nation is normally filled with stuff that could be classified as chemical and biological weapons.

Chemical weapons are simple to make, just pour the nasty stuff in an empty artillery round. That was the technique used in the Iran-Iraq war. Put into Katusha rockets, same difference. Other than the traditional military agents, there are thousands of other chemicals just as nasty.

Any hospitals pathology department has pathogens that can be cultured into militarily significant quantities overnight, again with stupidly simple technology.

The downside to all of this is that Iran doesn't have any effective countermeasures itself against chem and bio weapons. It's not too bright to use a weapon that can turn on you and bite your behind.

Chemical weapons, after the first attack, produce far fewer casualties than high explosive, and bio weapons are next to impossible to deliver in any way guaranteed to produce casualties at all. The most effective use for either are against unprotected civilians.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-01 11:30|| 2005-10-01 11:30|| Front Page Top

#2 Maybe.

But "weaponized" usually means that the country has, for instance, mastered the fine dispersibility matrix for biological agents. And for chem agents there are techniques to have them persist and disperse much more widely than using the crude approach.

Posted by lotp 2005-10-01 11:34|| 2005-10-01 11:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Crude chem weapons still managed to produce 100,000 Iranian casualties, including over 20,000 dead, during the Iran-Iraq war. of course, those wepaons never existed.

Posted by ed 2005-10-01 11:44|| 2005-10-01 11:44|| Front Page Top

#4 where's John Clark with the satellite feed and JDAM?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-01 13:27|| 2005-10-01 13:27|| Front Page Top

#5 The high number of casualties were because their troops had no protection available to them, putting them on a par with civilians.

The modern military with protective equipment reality is that after the surprise of the first attack, casualties drop to a fraction of a percent for each subsequent attack. The only value is to degrade enemy forces by making them stay masked for a long period. The disadvantage is that the kid gloves come off and in this case, the US, would be inclined to use nuclear weapons in retaliation.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-01 13:37|| 2005-10-01 13:37|| Front Page Top

#6 I believe that current US doctrine regarding chemical or biological attacks is a nuclear response.

The Iranians might want to ponder that.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-10-01 15:25|| 2005-10-01 15:25|| Front Page Top

23:14 Oldun
23:01 RWV
22:59 Frank G
22:55 Frank G
22:51 Classical_Liberal
22:36 Anonymoose
22:30 Biff Wellington
22:27 Frank G
22:25 Frank G
22:18 .com
22:16 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:16 Robert Crawford
22:08 Robert Crawford
22:03 Silentbrick
21:57 Alaska Paul
21:52 ed
21:48 Al Aska Paul
21:45 ed
21:45 Ptah
21:42 Flinelet Sherong3513
21:40 Flinelet Sherong3513
21:40 Flinelet Sherong3513
21:39 Frank G
21:38 Flinelet Sherong3513