|
Realistically, what kind of consequences would Assad face from the US? I know it would need to essentially bring the hammer down on Syria in a way that would make every future dictator poo poo bricks at the very thought of ever doing something like that again. "We send in the Air Force to ruin your day" doesn't seem like enough. I mean, that would basically be Libya 2.0.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Crackpipe posted:"We send in the Air Force to ruin your day" doesn't seem like enough. I mean, that would basically be Libya 2.0. Libya was pretty effective, though. It also hosed Saddam's poo poo up in Desert Storm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Realistically, what kind of consequences would Assad face from the US?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The US could probably bring down enough diplomatic pressure to make him unwelcome anywhere on Earth. Which would mean it was only a matter of time before rebels pulled him out of some hole and cut off his head. How exactly would the US make him unwelcome in Iran? The US doesn't have much ability to project influence there, after all. I think it's conceivable that Assad would jump to Iran if things got desperate enough, given the ties between Syria and Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Why exactly would US want to stop Assad from fleeing the country, when everyone was requesting Gaddafi to leave Libya while he still lived??? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Why exactly would US want to stop Assad from fleeing the country, when everyone was requesting Gaddafi to leave Libya while he still lived??? The use of chemical weapons would be a pretty big deal. Use of them would be suicidal. I expect there would be big call for a full UN intervention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Realistically, what kind of consequences would Assad face from the US? We would destroy his military from the air and do our best to kill him. We would certainly destroy or render undeliverable any more poison gas. We would probably kill every family member or close friend that he has, and ensure that he'll go the way of Gaddafi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Realistically, what kind of consequences would Assad face from the US? The worst case scenario would be Rolling Thunder 2.0, though. We bomb, it becomes a huge-er fuckup, and still the regime doesn't fall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:The use of chemical weapons would be a pretty big deal. What is special about poison gas that makes it any worse or more special than cluster bombs or trucks full of angry soldiers? e: AtomikKrab posted:Realistically there is a good chance that if he unleashes the WMDs Russia will join the US in stomping on him. And probably a ground invasion to take out his chemical weapons reserves and facilities Except for the fact that that is the complete reverse of Russia's interests and there isn't a single player in the region that wants to commit resources for an invasion and occupation. sum fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Realistically there is a good chance that if he unleashes the WMDs Russia will join the US in stomping on him. And probably a ground invasion to take out his chemical weapons reserves and facilities
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
So Ive been reading a lot of stories today about how a US offical said theres intelligence that the Syrians are mixing up the binary agents for their chemical weapons. And this made me wonder about what that would mean if someone (Israel/US/Nato etc) bombed the weapon sites. I always thought that bombing chemical weapon storage sites was risky because you could end up spreading a cloud of deadly gas and killing civilians in the area around the site. But if the chemical weapons are stored as binary agents that must be mixed first doesnt that pretty much negate any risk of spreading a poison cloud? And if this is true I dont know why all of the chemical sites havent been bombed yet. I cant imagine these weapons will end up someplace good before this conflict is finally over. They will either be used on the rebels by the regime, used against any potential invader like NATO (who most assuredly wont be invading), fired against israel as Assads parting shot before hes skinned alive by the FSA, or fall into the hands of the FSA in the midst of a country that will be in even further chaos should the regime fall. If the FSA gets the weapons god only knows where they will end up from there. They truly are the wild card in this conflict.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:What is special about poison gas that makes it any worse or more special than cluster bombs or trucks full of angry soldiers? VX is just about as bad as it gets. An aerial bombing or artillery barrage has the potential to kill several thousand people in a very short time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0zvp_xhTfg
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
BIG HORNY COW posted:VX is just about as bad as it gets. An aerial bombing or artillery barrage has the potential to kill several thousand people in a very short time. So do regular bombs, especially in crowded areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:So do regular bombs, especially in crowded areas. True, but a VX attack has lasting area denial effects. A HE-FRAG bomb or artillery shell can kill and maim in its own right, but it doesn't really keep killing and maiming after the dust from the explosion has settled. Just think of all the videos you've seen of people digging through the rubble after a strike - a chemical attack has the potential to kill anyone who gets remotely near the impact. Also, there's no cover for a chemical attack - only distance and / or protective clothing is going to save you. You might be able to survive artillery fire behind a thick enough wall but nothing's going to save you from an aerosol of nerve agent. BIG HORNY COW fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:So do regular bombs, especially in crowded areas. A nuclear bomb (at least a fission-based one) does not necessarily cause much much more destruction and death than a large scale conventional bombing raid, such as those carried out on Japan and Germany in WWII or say the bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia during the Cold War. There's still a reason they are considered WMDs and conventional weapons are not. VX incapacitates within a minute or less, can't be smelled or tasted and causes intense pain and muscle spasms, within some three minutes you are dead, the stuff can be delivered as an aeorosole or as a liquid, and it stays along for quite some time, meaning it can render an area completely uninhabitable or be used to deny it to the enemy or seize a city "intact" (if one is willing to wait and conduct cleaup). Just consider the number of deaths that have resulted from chemical industry catastrophes (for an example Bhopal in India, the most famous one, that was a gas leak from a pestocide plant) and the number of disfigurements, permanent disabilities and birth defects and stillbirths caused in these disasters. VX is the most lethal nerve agent deviced by humans, if it was employed against a population center, the results would be disastrous and long lasting. EDIT: Also I doubt a gas mask or chemical protection overalls are common possessions for a Syrian household, and I also doubt that many are properly trained to put one on quickly and correctly enough to survive an attack. I also don't know if the improvised gas masks used by WWI soldiers (piss on a rag wear it over your face) would do much good, or if people would be able to think of it fast enough. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
The nature of how they kill is what makes them WMDs, it's not the mere body count. That's what I'm saying. You just want to kill people, you drop a bunch of bombs. You want to terrorize your victims you use chemical weapons. Randarkman posted:EDIT: Also I doubt a gas mask or chemical protection overalls are common possessions for a Syrian household, and I also doubt that many are properly trained to put one on quickly and correctly enough to survive an attack. I also don't know if the improvised gas masks used by WWI soldiers (piss on a rag wear it over your face) would do much good, or if people would be able to think of it fast enough. And none of them have fuckin' bomb shelters or "survive buried under the rubble of a building" masks. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
BIG HORNY COW posted:True, but the lasting a VX attack has lasting area denial effects. A HE-FRAG bomb or artillery shell can kill and maim in its own right, but it doesn't really keep killing and maiming after the dust from the explosion has settled. Just think of all the videos you've seen of people digging through the rubble after a strike - a chemical attack has the potential to kill anyone who gets remotely near the impact. Which is why the continuous crying wolf is so pointless to begin with: chemical weapons may be deadly, but they're hugely impractical in terms of influencing a battle. You just need a sudden change of wind and it's your men that are dying in droves or the cloud drifting harmlessly away. Chemical weapons have never won any wars because they're too imprecise and random. They just have an inflated reputation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The nature of how they kill is what makes them WMDs, it's not the mere body count. That's what I'm saying. Yeah, I can't think of too many worse ways to go than exposure to nerve agents. Releasing them on civilians is infinitely more inexcusable than going to war with a rebel group and having collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Which is why the continuous crying wolf is so pointless to begin with: chemical weapons may be deadly, but they're hugely impractical in terms of influencing a battle. You just need a sudden change of wind and it's your men that are dying in droves or the cloud drifting harmlessly away. Chemical weapons have never won any wars because they're too imprecise and random. They just have an inflated reputation. Chemical weapons aren't released like they were in WWI, though you are right wind direction is still important. You could shell a city and sit back as they panic and die in droves. If that is your inclination, meanwhile the buildings would still be intact. They could also wreak terrible havoc among fighters who lack training and equipment to counter any such attacks, and if you keep your own forces some distance away they shouldn't be under any threat. However I don't see why Assad and his guys would use it, it would most likely cause mass civilian casualties and cause a flood of panic and sheer terror. However, I doubt even Russia would continue defending Assad if he went down that road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20576197 I don't think Putin is happy about those Patriots (hasn't expansion of the NATO missile shield into Turkey been an long time issue - now with urgency) The article tries to put a positive spin on it - energy and trade, guys! Also I wonder how hosed up Putin is on pain meds and how that is affecting decision making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
McDowell posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20576197 Wait Putin is on pain meds? For what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Is it possible Assad is taking the weapons out of storage and flying them to Russia? That would explain flights to Russia and the activity at the storage facilities. And it would possibly explain money if Russia is buying off Syria's chemical weapons storage to settle the situation down a bit. Although, that's some serious wild-rear end guessing on my part. If Assad uses chemical weapons the only winds he should be worried about are the political kinds; he'd be isolated in a minute and even Russia would find it next to hard to stand with him. I imagine Iran has issued religious rulings against the use of chemical weapons, so they would rhetorically be in an odd spot as well. Weapons of mass destruction are probably the worst ways to kill people indiscriminately in the current world political climate. A sarin bomb could go off in a field somewhere in Syria killing a few goats and the political poo poo would hit the fan. A Syrian government death squad could go around systematically killing thousands and it would barely get a yawn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Wait Putin is on pain meds? He probably pulled something while hunting tigers in Siberia or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Wait Putin is on pain meds? Supposedly he hurt his back doing judo. The meds part is a guess but Politicians get good health care (see: Rick Perry's back problems  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
Heres an interesting video of a band of rebels and a journalist getting fired on by Syrian tanks while they are filming: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/50059046/#50059046
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
BIG HORNY COW posted:True, but a VX attack has lasting area denial effects. A HE-FRAG bomb or artillery shell can kill and maim in its own right, but it doesn't really keep killing and maiming after the dust from the explosion has settled. Just think of all the videos you've seen of people digging through the rubble after a strike - a chemical attack has the potential to kill anyone who gets remotely near the impact. I was reading something on Halabja recently, because we're nearing the 25th anniversary of the attacks recently, that they're still getting casualties from mustard gas exposure from opening old cellars or digging into foundations. Even the old carpeting absorbed the stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 08:51
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:But if the chemical weapons are stored as binary agents that must be mixed first doesnt that pretty much negate any risk of spreading a poison cloud? Yes. Think of the stupidest person you know: that's the guy handling the storage and transfer of the agents. You want to make sure one idiot doesn't kill everyone. The best way is bringing the chemicals anywhere near each other at the last possible moment. Similarly, if the storage comes under attack you don't want one unlucky bomb to release nerve gas and kill everyone. Manufacturing chemical weapons is easy enough you can do it at home if you're dedicated enough. Delivery and dispersal is the problem. See sarin gas attacks in Japan, 1995.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
Deployment isn't as difficult as some might think. To hear some here talk about it, chemical warfare is a mere military inconvenience that is more than likely to hurt the wielder than the target. Or that chemical warfare doesn't deserve to be treated as a WMD. But that simply isn't the case. Poison gas dominated the WWI battlefield, and was so utterly terrifying that the world banned it for fear that every future battlefield would yield those kinds of casualty rates. The last serious chemical attack killed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds instantly. Like many countries, the US was still producing chemical warfare agents until the fall of the Cold War. Its latest product was the M687 round, a 155 mm artillery shell that was filled with Sarin (capable of easily penetrating the skin and being instantly lethal). Such rounds, when fired from a modern M777 Howitzer, would have a range of 15 miles and can be fired 2-5 times per minute. However if the rounds were modernized then the range would probably be closer to 25 miles. Completely lethal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M687 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777_howitzer
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
I know this question is not really Middle East related, or even current event related but seeing as there are a lot of expertise on history in this thread I though I would ask anyway. This has been bugging me for the last couple of weeks. I'm currently working on digitalising an enormous amount of photo negatives for the dockworkers union in Gothenburg, Sweden. Among the negatives from the 80's I found this:  If you can't make out the text it says: YAZARATE JANG SAZEMANE SANAYE NEZAMI CHEMICAL PROJECT NO. 1 ISFAHAN IRAN CONSIGNMENT NO. 11 CASE NO. 216 ITEM NO. 68-15 Feed Water Treatment MILITARY CHEMICAL PLANT EQUIPMENT GROSS WEIGHT 126 KGS NET WEIGHT 120 KGS L/C NO. 09/77253 I have found no other pictures of the shipment. It's strange that this would be shipped through or from Sweden, as far as I know Sweden never exported any equipment used for manufacturing WMD's to Iran. I would be grateful if any of you could help me solve this mystery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
It looks to be Dow Chemicals, HCR-S Ion Exchange Resin Systems for water treatment plants. You can buy that on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
az posted:It looks to be Dow Chemicals, HCR-S Ion Exchange Resin Systems for water treatment plants. You can buy that on the internet. What is that used for? And in as related question: is there anything but WMD's that would need a "military chemical plant"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
It's only application as far as I know is just water purification. Militaries stockpile a lot of water purification systems of all kinds for when they need it. Soldiers in the field, ships at sea, etc. don't have access to clean fresh water at all times so they need kits that can clean water/turn salt water into fresh water. Also there's always doomsday preppin'. If you think this could have something to do with nuclear weapons manufactury, I highly doubt it. Water used in nuclear fission fuckery is usually of the heavy water kind that has special attributes and now I'm entering an area where I have no idea what the hell anymore so yeah, probably not. edit: some googling says it's "A high capacity cation exchange resin for industrial softening and demineralization applications" Here's a page http://www.dowwaterandprocess.com/products/ix/dx_hcrs.htm az fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
az posted:It's only application as far as I know is just water purification. Militaries stockpile a lot of water purification systems of all kinds for when they need it. Soldiers in the field, ships at sea, etc. don't have access to clean fresh water at all times so they need kits that can clean water/turn salt water into fresh water. Also there's always doomsday preppin'. If you think this could have something to do with nuclear weapons manufactury, I highly doubt it. Water used in nuclear fission fuckery is usually of the heavy water kind that has special attributes and now I'm entering an area where I have no idea what the hell anymore so yeah, probably not. Thank you. I guess I just got worked up finding anything exiting since scanning thousands of photos is not the most satisfying job in the world  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
az posted:It's only application as far as I know is just water purification. Militaries stockpile a lot of water purification systems of all kinds for when they need it. Soldiers in the field, ships at sea, etc. don't have access to clean fresh water at all times so they need kits that can clean water/turn salt water into fresh water. Also there's always doomsday preppin'. If you think this could have something to do with nuclear weapons manufactury, I highly doubt it. Water used in nuclear fission fuckery is usually of the heavy water kind that has special attributes and now I'm entering an area where I have no idea what the hell anymore so yeah, probably not. It could have something to do with nuclear reactors, for instance most nuclear reactors use water as both a coolant and a moderator (to slow down neutrons to raise the probability of collision nuclei and resulting fission), I think the moderator at least is usually highly purified water. Most water used in nuclear fission is NOT heavy water (though all water contains small concentratins of heavy water, though when we talk about heavy water we usually mean the situation when the concentration is quite high), though there are some reactors that do use heavy water, notably a Canadian series of ractors. These can work using natural uranium, meaning you can drop the whole enriching thing (usually done to about 10-20% U-235 for civilian reactors I think), the downside is that these reactors produce plutonium at a higher rate than normal light water or graphene moderated reactors. Incidentally this makes heavy water ideal for military reactors, plutonium being the main component in fission bombs (and kind of the detonator in a hydrogen bomb). for that matter I don't really think anyone has really made their nuclear weapons from highly enriched uranium since little boy, it's easier to just make plutonium (though there's technical and engineering challenge with implosion triggers and you have to get the plutonium out from the used fuel, which requires separate facilities, that is not necessary with highly enriched uranium). India's and Pakistan's first bombs were made from plutonium recycled out from research reactors I think. Anyway all this was pretty much just rambling as it is most likely that this is just going to be used to purify water for field use by the army and/or navy, and besides if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons (which I have my doubts about, I think it is mostly posturing) they seem to be going the way of enriching uranium rather than using military owned and operated facilities dedicated to plutonium production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
Mass protests in Egypt are still ongoing. Apparently Morsi has been forced to leave the presidential palace after protesters surrounded it on three sides and broke through the barricades. Ongoing updates on The Guardian's live blog here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/dec/04/syria-obama-chemical-weapons-warning-live
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Boldor posted:How exactly would the US make him unwelcome in Iran? The US doesn't have much ability to project influence there, after all. I think it's conceivable that Assad would jump to Iran if things got desperate enough, given the ties between Syria and Iran. Why, though? He's no use to them if he isn't in power. Fangz posted:The worst case scenario would be Rolling Thunder 2.0, though. We bomb, it becomes a huge-er fuckup, and still the regime doesn't fall. Assad isn't exactly Vo Nguyen Giap though. And Syrian Army has nothing on ARNV. And well, the U.S. Air Force has gotten a lot more sophisticated. I don't think it would fail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Iran says they captured another drone, and the USN says it was not one of theirs. Could be a CIA drone or flown by a non-US group since this particular drone is used in several other countries. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-iran-usa-drone-idUSBRE8B308920121204
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
gimpfarfar posted:Mass protests in Egypt are still ongoing. Apparently Morsi has been forced to leave the presidential palace after protesters surrounded it on three sides and broke through the barricades. Nice to see that this is moving quicker than with Mubarak. I'm guessing the military is going to sit this one out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
I've just put up a new blog piece that covers videos showing IEDs that have supposedly been planted by Assad's forces, which is a bit of a shift in tactics on their part. I should also have a new Foreign Policy piece up sometime today after about 4 weeks of waiting thanks to the bloody Israeli's starting a war. It'll cover the DIY weapons used in the conflict, and has some pretty nice videos for you all to enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
mitztronic posted:Iran says they captured another drone, and the USN says it was not one of theirs. Could be a CIA drone or flown by a non-US group since this particular drone is used in several other countries. It could have been a lot of people, the Iranians might've just captured a drone that the UAE was using to watch shipping traffic and decided that it must be a US drone because it has English lettering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 21:52
|
|