Sarin shell 'probably a stray': Blix

Victor

I'm inclined to agree with Blix and Kimmitt on this one, but I imagine someone in Iraq was cursing himself last night.... and some others blessing themselves.

I take it we are out of the abuse newscycle and into the WMD newscycle.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/05/18/story148110.html

Sarin shell 'probably a stray': Blix
18/05/2004 - 09:42:04

Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said today that a shell containing sarin nerve gas used in an attack in Iraq was probably a stray weapon that could have been dated from the first Gulf War.

Blix said the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.

The US-led coalition used that claim to justify the invasion even though UN inspectors failed to make any significant finds before the war.

The former Swedish foreign minister said the 155-mm shell used to attack a US military convoy yesterday could have been part of a group of old, unused shells that were simply debris leftover from the war in 1991, adding the weapon could have been scavenged from a dump.

“It doesn’t sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past and that’s a very different thing from having stockpiles and supplies,” he said in Stockholm. “Whether this may indicate something more … I think we need to know more about it.”

Blix said the weapon could have been scavenged from a dump that could have been dated from the first Gulf War.

Saddam’s regime was told to destroy any weapons of mass destruction under UN resolutions passed after the 1991 war. Blix reiterated that his inspectors found no such weapons in the run-up to the invasion.

“We found a dozen warheads that were intended for chemical weapons and they were empty,” he said.

His inspectors also found four other shells that were designed to carry chemical weapons, including the sarin used in the attack, but they, too, wear empty.

US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said in Baghdad that two soldiers were treated for “minor exposure” to sarin, but no serious injuries were reported. He said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive did not know it contained the nerve agent.

Sparks

I was under the impression that Sarin had a shelf life of less than a decade. Meaning that this shell, or it's contents, would not have been from an Iraqi source.

Rock Climber

surely blix would be an authority on that?
If thats the case, he has either forgotten it's shelf life or, his justifiable anger with Bush and the Iraq war has clouded his opinion, in that he is prepared to say that the shell must have been a stray from Gw1...
When he should in fact know it's been produced after that...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
I was under the impression that Sarin had a shelf life of less than a decade. Meaning that this shell, or it's contents, would not have been from an Iraqi source.

Most of the reports I've seen are saying that it has been claimed that it was a binary-form shell, where two precursors are stored seperately, and mixed shortly before explosion.

This would avoid half-life issues of Sarin itself.

The downside is that the only binary-style shells that Iraq was known to have prior to this were not for sarin.

Its worrying, regardless of what was actually in the shell (this wouldn't be the first time initial reports were widely inaccurate) and what the providence of the shell is.

We've heard an awful lot from the coalition about foreign terrorists coming in to fight in Iraq. Should we not therefore automatically make the same assumption about weaponry, or has this shell been positively identified as definitely being Iraqi in origin?

jc

arcadegame2004

It would be laughable for the US to try to portray this as an example of Saddam's huge stockpile of WMD.

halkar

Give it another few months and US will find its WMD manufacturing plant. They have been there long enough to build one

Magnolia_Fan

Blix said the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year

but they did have weapons of mass destruction before last year!?..even if it is 10 years old it is a weapon of mass destruction and it was there before the war..I'd credit Bush for not jumping the gun and exclaiming that this find has justified the war.

I never quite understood why so much emphasise was put on WMD by Bush...it would have been more appropriate to use The stockpile of U.N Regulations Sadam ignored.

bonkey

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
and it was there before the war

Was it?

Prove it isn't a Libyan shell, smuggled in by terrorists or those looking to support insurgents and fight what they see as an illegal occupation.

Prove it isn't an American-planted shell, for that matter.

jc

flogen

While I too am happy to see the US not go media-mad over this find, i think its for their own good, Magnolia_Fan.
If they go out saying this is the justification for war, they will be laughed at. Firstly, one shell, even if it was Saddams is hardly what they told us was there, a cow probably makes more chemicals in a month.
Secondly, if it is found to be a stray weapon, or a new one that was smuggled in, they will be forced to make a big retreat. They wont make much noise about this until they know for certain what its all about, they've suffered enough in the international community because of WMD or lack thereof

Flogen

seamus

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
but they did have weapons of mass destruction before last year!?..even if it is 10 years old it is a weapon of mass destruction and it was there before the war.

"Weapon of mass destruction" is a beautifully loose term isn't it?
Even dictionary.com defines mass (in this context) as
"A large but nonspecific amount or number: a mass of bruises."
Non-specific being the important word.

In a large stockpile, Sarin shells could be defined as capable of causing "mass" destruction. If a single sarin shell is a WMD, then so is a single incendiary grenade or a single tank shell....

Moriarty

I had this debate with memnoch a few months ago seamus. When the military or government use the term 'weapon of mass destruction' its taken to mean a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon designed for the express purpose of causing large-scale destruction.

Nerve agents and nuclear weapons - for example - all fall into this definition, whereas napalm and cluster munitions, again as an example, don't. The latter are conventional arms.

sceptre

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
but they did have weapons of mass destruction before last year!?..even if it is 10 years old it is a weapon of mass destruction and it was there before the war..I'd credit Bush for not jumping the gun and exclaiming that this find has justified the war.

Everyone knows that Iraq had a stockpile of sarin and mustard gas in 1991, amongst other things. They had already used some of it remember?

seamus

Originally posted by Moriarty
Nerve agents and nuclear weapons - for example - all fall into this definition, whereas napalm and cluster munitions, again as an example, don't. The latter are conventional arms.

As yes. So long as they don't use immoral weapons, then it's ok to label big dirty weapons that blow the **** out of stuff as non-WMD. :rolleyes:
Politics is great isn't it? The thing is, it's not necessarily the definition that's important, it's the stigmatism they've managed to attach to the word. Many people would be happy to believe that WMD are the big, bad danger to the east, but wouldn't realise that their own country possesses and uses them too.

What the Coalition forces went to fight for were WMD that presented a "clear and imminent danger" to their own countries. A single Sarin shell is no threat to a country.

I'd personally label things as WMD, depending on their concentration, but I think nuclear arms fall under the definition, even at their smallest possible size (critical mass).

The Brigadier

Originally posted by seamus


What the Coalition forces went to fight for were WMD that presented a "clear and imminent danger" to their own countries. A single Sarin shell is no threat to a country.

No but Saddam is believed to sympathise with Al Quida. The threat wasn't of saddam launching WMDs at the US, but of supplying terrorist groups to use.

Certainly if he had WMDs and had given them to terrorists they would not still be in Iraq?

Moriarty

Originally posted by seamus
As yes. So long as they don't use immoral weapons, then it's ok to label big dirty weapons that blow the **** out of stuff as non-WMD. :rolleyes:

There is an order of magnitude of difference in the destruction that chemical/biological/nuclear weapons can cause when compared to any specific conventional arms. Hence the term. 'Blowing the **** out of stuff' is a necessary by-product of war. If you can think of a more practical solution to war, people are listening.

Originally posted by seamus
The thing is, it's not necessarily the definition that's important, it's the stigmatism they've managed to attach to the word.

A justified stigmatism imo. More over, a stigmatism that is nothing new. Anyone remember the 'nuclear threat' of the 50's, or the unspoken agreement between both sides in ww2 not to use chemical weapons?

Originally posted by seamus
Many people would be happy to believe that WMD are the big, bad danger to the east, but wouldn't realise that their own country possesses and uses them too.

Many would also be happy to believe that the earth is flat and that nasa faked the moon landings. Just because people believe in something doesn't automatically lend it an ounce of credability.

Originally posted by seamus
What the Coalition forces went to fight for were WMD that presented a "clear and imminent danger" to their own countries. A single Sarin shell is no threat to a country.

I'm not here to argue the rights or wrongs of gw2, and the term weapons of mass destruction has no bearing to the threat - or not - of a country. Moreover, sarin is not produced in such miniscule quantities that only one shell can be filled with it.

Originally posted by seamus
I'd personally label things as WMD, depending on their concentration, but I think nuclear arms fall under the definition, even at their smallest possible size (critical mass).

With all due respect, no one gives a jot about what you or I personally want to label them as. The term WMD is a specific internationally recognised term. Just because people misuse it doesn't suddenly mean that the meaning has changed.

seamus

Originally posted by Moriarty
blah

Ah, mine was more of a rant really, pre-empting any claims that the WMD we had heard so much about actually exist.

Moriarty

Originally posted by seamus
twaddle

I've seen your blah and raised you a twaddle. Heh.

gandalf

Originally posted by The Brigadier
No but Saddam is believed to sympathise with Al Quida. The threat wasn't of saddam launching WMDs at the US, but of supplying terrorist groups to use.

Certainly if he had WMDs and had given them to terrorists they would not still be in Iraq?

Actually that is totally untrue. Bin Laden hated the fact that Iraq was a secular state and had serious issues with Saddam. Saddam would never have handed weapons to Al Queda that could quite easily have been handed to him.

I would say there is a bigger danger of terrorist groups getting their hands on a nuke from one of the former Soviet Republics.

Magnolia_Fan

A Weapon Of Mass Destruction is a weapon that can cause Mass Destruction....Its name is its own description...Sarin can cause Mass Detruction even in small quantitys..if you disagree maybe you should find some,take a drop and put it in a water cooler..Mass Destruction

Magnolia_Fan

Ohh and to the previous reply when the troops went to Iraq first they discovered that the fighters were using night vision goggles sold to them by Russia

It should be interesting to see the results of the investigation into the Oil for Food scandal...Germany, France and Russia must be wettin themselves...but I wouldn't be suprised to see the pro-war countries in it too, either way it should be interesting at least

Magnolia_Fan

I know sceptre so there is valid grounds to assume they still have some...it could take years to find them..Sadam may have destroyed them!, but was too smug to prove it if he actually did....Or they could be like their Air Force burried under the sand, funny enough I havn't seen anything about that since, whether they burried them just to get rid of them or that they actually thought they'd still work afterwards...it would be strange if they were getting rid of them since Iran stole the rest of their planes

sceptre

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
I know sceptre so there is valid grounds to assume they still have some...it could take years to find them..

Well, that's a guessing game that neither of us are equipped to play unless you've information that hasn't publically been released by anyone. I'm merely stating that you don't get to play the "Hans Blix said they didn't have WMD as far as he could see before the war but they must have had because they had some thirteen years ago" card with anything more than conjecture attached because we all knew that as well as we knew that Blix was referring specifically to the status in quo at the time of the statements he made. It's nothing more than a guessing game, let's move on.

Magnolia_Fan

Thats true it is just a guessing game the only problem for Blix is he also couldn't find evidence that the weapons they did have were destroyed. I didn't think they looked long enough, its a big ass country they could of been anywhere. All they did was look at labs and old military bases...if he didn't want to them to find them would he put them there. As far as I remember they searched one old school and that was it and they needed authorisation to see go anywhere.

flogen

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

fox news has labeled it as a IED (Improvised Explosion Device), which would tell me it was basically an more dangerously loaded bomb aimed at the US troops there now.

If Fox News cant pretend it was Saddams, then i cant see anyone doing it.

Flogen

Carpo

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
A Weapon Of Mass Destruction is a weapon that can cause Mass Destruction....Its name is its own description...Sarin can cause Mass Detruction even in small quantitys..if you disagree maybe you should find some,take a drop and put it in a water cooler..Mass Destruction

Or you could look at the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995. The conditions were pretty much perfect for a chemical attack ie a lot of people in an enclosed space with inadequate ventilation. Despite this only 27 people died as compared with, for example, the 'conventional' Omagh bomb which killed 29 people.

The presence of a chemical or biological agent is not enough to warrent it automatically being call a WMD as far as I can see. A mortar filled with mustard gas is clearly a chemical weapon but a daisy-cutter bomb is capable of damage on a much more massive scale.

Originally posted by Moriarty
the unspoken agreement between both sides in ww2 not to use chemical weapons?

I'm a little hazy on my history but wasnt a large part of this to do with the fact that they just were not effective? A chemical barrage is rendered pretty much useless by a stiff breeze, or worse, the chemicals could be blown back at the ones firing them. Much more effective to use a barrage of standard explosive shells or bombs. Especially when most of the casualties inflicted would only be on any unfortunate civillians about rather than soldiers whom would be more likely to have gas masks etc. Given what, in particualr, the Germans and the Soviets, were doing to each other on the eastern front, I would find it hard to believe that either side would forgo using any kind of effective weapon on each other because of stigmatism.

But this brings me back to my main point. Yes chemical and bio weapons can be an awful way to die, but then so can being shot in the stomach or having your legs blown off by a mine. WMD should be classified by the scale of the damage they are capable of causing rather than the way in which it is done. A lot of hysteria has grown up about chem/bio weapons but it is largely unfounded, and tbh a bit silly. A couple of pounds of semtex or a couple of guys with assault rifles are just as deadly as most chemical or bio weapons. If only they had the same stigma attached to them

Morpheus

Originally posted by seamus
"Weapon of mass destruction" is a beautifully loose term isn't it?
Even dictionary.com defines mass (in this context) as
"A large but nonspecific amount or number: a mass of bruises."
Non-specific being the important word.

In a large stockpile, Sarin shells could be defined as capable of causing "mass" destruction. If a single sarin shell is a WMD, then so is a single incendiary grenade or a single tank shell....

As might be guessed, the nerve gas discoveries have been the subject of much debate over the last few days.

And I predicted all the arguments from the lefties out there:

"It's obviously a plant, to save Bush and Rumsfeld."

Could be - but Im sure that can be proven to be true or not by the forensic investigation- I think it's highly unlikely.

What about, "It was only a trace of Sarin. only one shell, nothing much really, hardly a WMD?"
No according to initial reports and as mentioned here already... This was a fully capable binary artillery shell. Only a trace amount of the agents actually reacted together because it was not used as it was intended. IE a mortar shell, not a roadside improvised bomb. You must understand, that one of these devices has enough chemical to kill many thousands if exploded inside something like an airport terminal, a shopping center, or a sports stadium.

"It was from before the Gulf War." So what? Supposedly according to UN rules, all WMDs were to be accounted for and destroyed.

This argument has become quite silly, Mobile chemical plants were found, buried illegal MiGs Fighters were found, now this, what next??

and as for the classification of WMDs? well, if for some crazy reason a lunatic exploded a bomb under your seat in a stadium, it might kill you, or indeed blow your legs off, but it sure as hell wont de-leg the thousand or so people around you. One of these however would have the potential to kill or injure thousands artound you.

The definition is the ammount of damage one round of a special weapon such as a bio or chem weapon would do in comparison to a similiarly sized conventional weapon. IE a WMD has the ability to inflict a multiple increase of injuries per round than a Conventional counterpart.

For example hypothetically if the allies in a typical trench war in WW1, somehow had a hundred modern chemical artillery shells filled with todays most lethal toxins and launched them at German positions, and the Germans simulataneously launched a thousand of todays modern conventional artillery shells in response, I can guarantee you that the germans would have suffered at least tenfold the number of casualties from the chemical weapons.

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
And I predicted all the arguments from the lefties out there:

I didn't see you predict mine.

No according to initial reports and as mentioned here already... This was a fully capable binary artillery shell.

Yes indeed. A fully capable binary shell of the type that Iraq is not believed to have had from the time-period that this shell supposedly dates from.

While not indicating that it cannot be Iraqi in origin, it does case some doubt on any such assumption.

You must understand, that one of these devices has enough chemical to kill many thousands if exploded inside something like an airport terminal, a shopping center, or a sports stadium.

Then perhaps you could explain how, despite being unable to disarm it and the bomb actually exploding, there were only 2 people in the vicinity who picked up light injuries?

"It was from before the Gulf War." So what? Supposedly according to UN rules, all WMDs were to be accounted for and destroyed.

Yes they were. And Blix had already reported that records were incomplete etc. There is still no indication that it was in the possession of the Iraqi military, and - more importantly - that they were aware it was in their possession.

No indication other than your assumptions which are about as solid as those you are criticising the "lefties" for offering.

This argument has become quite silly, Mobile chemical plants were found, buried illegal MiGs Fighters were found, now this, what next??

I didn't hear about the MiGs, but the "mobile chemical plants" were most likely no such thing...except in the minds of those who refuse to accept the analysis of the plants, which says that - at best - it is highly improbable that they were chemical plants at all.

But I guess you presenting these as fact while deriding "lefties" for presenting their "its all a plant" theories as fact is ok?

<edit>
Its just occurred to me. Since when is a MiG a WMD?
</edit>

and as for the classification of WMDs?

Any quantity of Sarin - as little as a does just large enough to kill a single person in an enclosed space - qualifies as a WMD.

The gas is classified as a WMD - the quantity of it is almost irrelevant present to that classification.

The definition is

Which definition? There's no shortage of definitions.

If we take the FBI definition for a moment....

Any Weapon Designed or Intended to:

1. Cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic/poisonous chemicals or their precursors

2. Release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

3. Any weapon involving a disease organism

4. An explosive (greater than 4 ounces), incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket

Now, given that some of these options ar mutually exclusive, it is reasonable to assume that qualifying for any one point is sufficient. Note that points 1, 2 and 3 do not specify any form of quantity either in terms of the potential loss of life or in terms of the amount of substance present.

the ammount of damage one round of a special weapon such as a bio or chem weapon would do in comparison to a similiarly sized conventional weapon.

You'd better contact the FBI right sharp quick. Their definition - by your standards - is clearly wrong.

<edit>
Continuing slightly...the UN also coined the term in resolution 687 to apply to NBC weapons in general...again without any reference to the actual quantity involved.

So you'd better get on to them as well....
</edit>

jc

Sparks

For the record, those "mobile chemical plants" were, in fact, mobile chemical plants. Specifically, they were mobile plants for producing the chemical hydrogen, used to inflate balloons for estimating wind strength at altitude for the purposes of artillery shelling. And that's not from a leftie, that's from the British Army and the british company that sold the plants to the Iraqis in the first place.

And the buried MiGs were well past airworthy condition, so it's not like a buried, ready-to-be-used weapon or weapons system.

Frankly, if a single artillery shell used in an IED (isn't that a lovely acronym for a car-bomb?) a year after the invasion is offically declared successful by Bush, is the absolute best that the coalition can point to in terms of WMDs, then it's no surprise that they haven't been jumping up and down and yelling "we told you so" at the top of their voices.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
For the record, those "mobile chemical plants" were, in fact, mobile chemical plants. Specifically, they were mobile plants for producing the chemical hydrogen

Touché

I'm just wondering though....given that hydrogen would be fatal if you breathed it in a pure enough form....

....so if those plants could produce more than 4oz of it at a time, they would be classifiable as WMD-manufacturing equipment by the FBI's definition

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Touché

I'm just wondering though....given that hydrogen would be fatal if you breathed it in a pure enough form....
....so if those plants could produce more than 4oz of it at a time, they would be classifiable as WMD-manufacturing equipment by the FBI's definition
jc

Forget about breathing it in, you could plant one of these things in a city, and a few months later have enough hydrogen to make a large incendiary device - a fuel-air bomb, if you will, with hydrogen as the fuel. Why, you could almost call it a hydrogen bomb.
*ahem*

You know, I probably should stop before I give someone ideas....

xm15e3

Originally posted by flogen
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

fox news has labeled it as a IED (Improvised Explosion Device), which would tell me it was basically an more dangerously loaded bomb aimed at the US troops there now.

If Fox News cant pretend it was Saddams, then i cant see anyone doing it.

Flogen

IED's tend to be artillery shells and the like turned into "command detonated" mines. This was an old 155 artillery round. This method works well with conventional rounds, since packing explosives in the detonator pocket gets around having to arm the thing. However, using a booster for a detonator like this with a binary gas round doesn't work, since the thing is designed to mix (arm) between firing and hitting the target (probably about 10 miles away). All they did spread the partially mixed parts.

I doubt the people who put this in place knew what they had. They aren't that dumb, and had they imported it from Syria, Iran, N. Korea ect, they probably would have had instruction on how to use the thing. My guess is that they picked it up from a weapons depot by accident. Had it been a conventional round, it would have killed someone.