Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Well, I'll explain it like this: At the end of the Second World War, the Allied forces had enough small arms ammunition to kill every single human being alive, or at least could purchase the remaining amount without much hassle. And this caused no one consternation, rightly, due to the fact that it would be long, costly, and surely someone one stop it before long. WMDs solved this.

Most of these weapons were dumped in the North and East seas actually. A ship running ashore on the wrong place could set of a chain reaction, destroying most marine life nearby. (Due to chemical weapons being stored too.)

Thing is, striking chemical weapon stockpiles is only slightly less dangerous then attacking a nuclear fuel facility. The potential for spillage and contamination is great, and the potential for wannabe terrorists to steal some even greater.

It would be more dangerous, actually. Nuclear fuel canisters and the like are much better armored. And harder to weaponize.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Thing is, striking chemical weapon stockpiles is only slightly less dangerous then attacking a nuclear fuel facility. The potential for spillage and contamination is great, and the potential for wannabe terrorists to steal some even greater.

It would be more dangerous, actually. Nuclear fuel canisters and the like are much better armored. And harder to weaponize.

Significantly more dangerous if the material being stored is pressurized.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The whole thing about taboo on chemicals weapons seems absurd to me after nobody influential said anything about Israel's use of white phosphorus... though I'm probably not as informed as I should be on that point.

I confess ignorance.

It's mostly from the weasel wording of the Geneva section pertaining to incendiary devices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22310544

Use as an incendiary weapon against civilians prohibited (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

A protocol to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

They've phased it out according to reports and statements by officials, though, since the international response to the last usage wasn't as warm. Pun intended. I'm vocal about my disapproval of Israels actions like these. It just gives people more credence to claims Israelis aren't fair about recognizing international law. Israel still gets a free pass for the most part, unfortunately.

I'm sure they know they'd better be stepping on eggshells now, though. Prepare to see a very calm Israel for a while, at least less bellicose than it has been.

[palsch]

The whole thing about taboo on chemicals weapons seems absurd to me after nobody influential said anything about Israel's use of white phosphorus... though I'm probably not as informed as I should be on that point.

Well WP is a strange one. It's illegal to use as a chemical/toxic agent or an incendiary against civilian targets, but legal to use against military targets or to use as a smoke screen/marker. Both Israel and the US have made use of these legal aspects, which may well have secondary effects similar to (if not quite as great as) the illegal uses. For example, US use in smoke screens will have had toxic effects on exposed populations in Iraq, while Israel managed to burn parts of Gaza (including a UN compound) while using it as a marker. But neither use is technically a chemical weapon attack and short of a complete ban on the compound in all applications (and it's a very useful compound) you can't really stop such secondary effects easily. It's more comparable to depleted uranium than chemical weapons IMO.

Thing is, striking chemical weapon stockpiles is only slightly less dangerous then attacking a nuclear fuel facility. The potential for spillage and contamination is great, and the potential for wannabe terrorists to steal some even greater.

I'd go with 10ebbor10 that it's more dangerous. Nuclear materials for bomb making are unlikely to cause a great risk even if they do get dispersed. You don't have that much material and it's relatively harmless if not actually in a bomb. The forms of plutonium and uranium that you use in weapons aren't all that radiologically active by default, otherwise they would decay away before you get to use the weapon. Pu-239 has a half life of 24,100 years while U-235 has a half life of ~704 million years. The toxic effects of their being heavy metals are more scary that those radiation levels. And no external strike is likely to actually detonate any nuclear device I've ever heard of.

A chemical stockpile... well, depends on the chemical but you might be best to hit the area as hard as you can with massive incendiary weapons to burn it off. No matter what it won't be fun to be in the local area. You can almost make a case for ground strikes to secure the stockpiles, although that also seems extremely hard and almost as risky (even ignoring that it puts American troops in direct contact with chemical weapons...).

[Mictlantecuhtli]

A chemical stockpile... well, depends on the chemical but you might be best to hit the area as hard as you can with massive incendiary weapons to burn it off. No matter what it won't be fun to be in the local area. You can almost make a case for ground strikes to secure the stockpiles, although that also seems extremely hard and almost as risky (even ignoring that it puts American troops in direct contact with chemical weapons...).

I highly doubt the regiments in command of said stockpiles wouldn't simply annihilate the radius surrounding them if American troops were closing in..

I'm worried the stockpiles are being liquidated as this debate goes. I'm not even sure the US should be getting involved, I certainly wouldn't want Israel to bear the brunt of a desperate Syrian military.

Syria's military literally depends on their chemical weaponry arsenal as a deterrent for invasion and internal dissent.

If that is truly threatened without thorough US contingency planning.. Expect to see a large chemical attack somewhere. Which scares me, as I have family in Tel Aviv. I'd be buying a gas mask if I lived near Syria/Israel right now.

Things like this can sever the already strained balance of peace/minor conflict that has been in place for a while.

[GlyphGryph]

No matter what happens, I wish safety to your family, and hope they don't end up getting caught up in what's happening - for all our sakes. It seems like a lose/lose situation for everyone involved - but then, that's entire point of chemical weapons, isn't it? The reason the Syrian government built them to begin with, to insure a lose/lose situation.

I honestly don't know what's going to happen next.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Tel Aviv is incredibly safe. The entirety of north Israel has been under lots of drills since the uprising began. I worry in the case of a pre-emptive strike on Israel by a desperate Syria to get the US to stay away from their chemical weapons. It would literally take one or two moves of their stockpiles and US intelligence would not know where they were anymore, if they even know where a majority of them are now. There's very sporadic information and the only confirmed stockpile is in Damascus proper. So even if we annihilate that one completely we get to see the effects take hold on the city.


I also worry because I do not doubt that if any chemical weapon use becomes prolific the military will be gassing the living hell out of the Kurdish region. I do not want to see another massacre of their people.

[misko27]

So, If you are curious where we are in terms of the US moving forward, the Onion has summed it up.

Spoiler: Obama Weighing His Syria Option (click to show/hide)

WASHINGTON—Facing mounting domestic and international pressure to respond to the deployment of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad, White House sources confirmed today that President Barack Obama is carefully weighing his option for dealing with the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. “The president has conferred with his top advisors and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes—nothing is off the table at this point,” said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, noting that the president would “take all factors into consideration,” including the well-being of the Syrian people and the strategic interests of the United States, before settling on his only option. “The president recognizes that the situation in Syria is extremely delicate and that the U.S. faces complex consequences regardless of what he chooses; that’s why he’s giving the one option in front of him so much thought. He will not act until he’s confident in the inexorable decision he’s making.” At press time, Obama had reportedly narrowed his option down to missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, but stated that he would consider it for several more days before making a final decision.

Might need a second read-through before you get it.

I wonder how long now. I've heard Thursday, Congress wants to a recess to vote on it.

[Sheb]

Yeah, the stuff is Obama is pressured into doing something, but short of a big invasion, there is not much you can do that'll be effective. Shooting a few missiles at Assad is a way for him to signal he's doing something while not doing much.

[MonkeyHead]

I feel that the situation has been made so much worse by the fact that it has taken a long time for anyone to be motivated to act, based on how badly involvement in situations similar to this have gone in recent years. If chemical weapons have been used, it was probably under the assumption (of whichever side used them, rebels or state, and I am betting on both - the rebels first, small scale, then the state, larger scale in retaliation) that the west was not wiling to intervene in any way. If an intervention had been carried out early on, the UN/NATO/whoever could have had a guiding influence on the opposition to Assad when it appeared to be more moderate/secular and unified. Alas, the lack of an intervention has allowed so many disparate rebel goups to form the situation is a clusterfuck of moderates, extremists and jihadi nutters that we are now much better off standing back and dealing with whatever nation is left after the many shits have hit the rapidly rotating fan. Its a moral quandry, too - do we have an obligation to help all those rebelling against an opressive state, when they started a rebellion on thier own initiative and only scream for help when it doesnt quite go to plan? Where does the line get drawn? Do we cherry pick causes to support to suit our own needs while ignoring those that dont?

[burningpet]

Tel Aviv is incredibly safe. The entirety of north Israel has been under lots of drills since the uprising began. I worry in the case of a pre-emptive strike on Israel by a desperate Syria to get the US to stay away from their chemical weapons. It would literally take one or two moves of their stockpiles and US intelligence would not know where they were anymore, if they even know where a majority of them are now. There's very sporadic information and the only confirmed stockpile is in Damascus proper. So even if we annihilate that one completely we get to see the effects take hold on the city.


I also worry because I do not doubt that if any chemical weapon use becomes prolific the military will be gassing the living hell out of the Kurdish region. I do not want to see another massacre of their people.

Assad knows better than to mess with israel. we are very very intolerant when it comes to gasses. and trains. and both of them mixed.

jokes aside, it will be the end of assad if he even fire one chemical warhead into an open field in israel. even saddam hussein who was a complete fool knew better than that.

[Guardian G.I.]

So, If you are curious where we are in terms of the US moving forward, the Onion has summed it up.

Spoiler: Obama Weighing His Syria Option (click to show/hide)

WASHINGTON—Facing mounting domestic and international pressure to respond to the deployment of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad, White House sources confirmed today that President Barack Obama is carefully weighing his option for dealing with the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. “The president has conferred with his top advisors and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes—nothing is off the table at this point,” said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, noting that the president would “take all factors into consideration,” including the well-being of the Syrian people and the strategic interests of the United States, before settling on his only option. “The president recognizes that the situation in Syria is extremely delicate and that the U.S. faces complex consequences regardless of what he chooses; that’s why he’s giving the one option in front of him so much thought. He will not act until he’s confident in the inexorable decision he’s making.” At press time, Obama had reportedly narrowed his option down to missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, but stated that he would consider it for several more days before making a final decision.

Might need a second read-through before you get it.

Spoiler: "Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns" - The Onion (click to show/hide)

WASHINGTON—In light of increased pressure on President Obama to order a military strike on Syria, leading historians and military experts on Tuesday simply pointed to the United States’ longstanding and absolutely impeccable record of successful bombing campaigns over the past 60 years. “The record clearly shows that, in every instance since the Second World War in which the U.S. government has launched strategic missile attacks on foreign soil, our military forces easily targeted enemy assailants with total precision, leaving no civilian casualties, collateral damage, or any long-term negative consequences for the affected country or region, American foreign policy, or international relations as a whole,” said Harvard University historian Dr. Michael Carmona, adding that such past U.S. bombing operations have gone particularly well in Middle Eastern countries over the last century. “Just look at the 1954 bombings in Guatemala, the 1965-to-1973 bombings in Laos and Cambodia, the 1982 bombings in Beirut, the 1986 bombings in Libya, the 1987 bombings in Iran, the 1998 bombings in Iraq, the 1998 bombings in Sudan, the 1998 bombings in Afghanistan, routine airstrikes in Pakistan since 2005, the 2007 bombings in Somalia, the 2011 bombings in Somalia, and essentially the entire American military effort in Vietnam from 1960 to 1975. Those were all executed perfectly, and led, in the long run, to the most desirable possible outcome.” All experts on the subject then agreed unanimously that, if you want to create positive and lasting change in a troubled region, change that you will one day look back on with a deep sense of confidence, pride, and assurance that you did the right thing, then bombing campaigns are almost always the way to go.

[DJ]

To be fair, bombing Serbia worked out fairly well.

[Another]

To be fair, bombing Serbia worked out fairly well.

Some Chinese diplomats might disagree. Oh, wait - they are dead so they won't.

[Owlbread]

Extremely sketchy/unconfirmed rumours that are surfacing:

"Countdown to WWIII

Possible intel has surfaced that is being passed through intel channels all over the place that Iran has received nuclear warheads in the bay of Chabahar from the North Koreans. They don't have the capabilities to launch them all the way to the US, but it is widely believed that they will be used against Israel if we were to attack Syria."

Having tried to comb through the internet's unruly locks for more information on those statements I can find absolutely nothing. It is most likely tripe.

The Iranians are of the opinion that the USA would never attack Syria. Interesting.