Pentagon: ISIS using mustard gas?
CBS News reports that the Pentagon is investigating whether or not those 11th century cretins in ISIS are using mustard gas against peshmerga forces;
It is unclear if the gas was leftover from Saddam Hussein stockpiles or if they were brought over from Syria, which would be the two likeliest sources of the gas, said a senior Department of Defense official. The official said the reports are credible because of prior information, but did not elaborate.
Mustard gas is considered an “antiquated” weapon that must be used in very large concentrations to be lethal, the official told CBS News.
Yeah, well, what are we going to do about it? ISIS knows that we didn’t do anything to the Syrian government when they used chemical weapons against rebels, so we won’t do anything to ISIS, either. Hussein didn’t use chemical weapons against US troops in 1991 or 2003 because he knew that the retribution would be forceful, but ISIS isn’t dealing with a Bush, are they?
And, oh, yeah, how could the mustard gas they’re using originated with Hussein? He didn’t have any WMDs, remember?
Category: Terror War
The current impotency at 1600 PA Ave has been clear to our enemies for quite some time.
Our leaders will make some impotent threats as usual, draw another line probably around the east coast this time and do nothing except look concerned in photo ops.
I think the phrase “clueless and incompetent” also belongs in there somewhere, VOV. Like maybe right after “current”.
But that’s just me.
I believe you are right, I stand corrected….(:smile:)
“Mustard gas is considered an “antiquated” weapon that must be used in very large concentrations to be lethal, the official told CBS News.” That antiquated weapon doesn’t have to kill, in fact ISIS probably doesn’t want to kill the peshmerga forces. Having them horrendously injured and scarred probably suits ISIS just fine. SMDH
Kill a man, you take him out of the fight. Injure him badly, and you take 1-2 additional men out of the fight.
Anything that can screw someone up like mustard gas is a viable weapon… may not be the optimum weapon but neither is a bayonet, and no one wants one of them in the guts, either.
Saddam didn’t use chemical weapons against us in 2003 because everything he had was from before the Gulf War and more of a danger to anyone trying to handle it than anything else. Chemical weapons degrade quickly, and are largely useless for Armies over time unless continually replaced. You’d do far more damage with conventional munitions than you will with expired CW.
Jonn is largely right about why Saddam didn’t use them against us in ’91. But we were only pushing him out of Kuwait, had he used them then we would’ve had no choice but to take Baghdad, and he knew this. But had we not stopped at kicking his ass out of Kuwait then he’d have nothing to lose, and you’d better believe he would have used those munitions against us in a last ditch effort, just like he did when the Iranians were on the verge of overrunning Iraq.
Not sure about your first para. While many chemical agents reputedly do degrade fairly quickly, it’s my understanding that binary weapons designs largely eliminate that problem – for an example, see sarin.
Not my area of expertise, so I could be wrong. And I really have no idea if Iraq produced any binary chem weapons to speak of.
I personally think the reason Hussein didn’t go chem in 2003 was the same reason he didn’t go chem in 1991: he didn’t want to glow in the dark.
Correct Hondo. One of the beauties of binary agents is they are more stable and last longer in storage. Chemical weapons do degrade over time; however it’s not quickly. There have been instances of IEDs in Iraq made from pre 1991 shells that still produced effective contamination on EOD troops. He didn’t use what he had in 2003 because no one with any hope of self preservation would use those against a country that can vaporize your section of the planet.
You seem to be under the impression that using chemical Weapons automatically provokes a nuclear response. But the only makes sense when you’re waging total war against an existential threat.
Iraq was not such a threat. Moreover, there are other reasons why nukes against Iraq would have been monumentally stupid. Why would we nuke a country when we’re claiming to be acting as that country’s liberators? Why would we nuke a potentially major future ally that is sitting on one of the world’s largest oil reserves? Why would we have irradiated a country that could’ve served as a major strategic base for our troops in the Middle East, particularly when said country borders on one of our biggest enemies?
Actually, I’ve heard rumors that the US sent a message through 3rd-country diplomats prior to the Gulf War to Hussein that effectively said the following: “You use chem or bio, we will use nukes. Think about it.”
I don’t know from personal knowledge whether or not that is true. But Hussein didn’t use chem weapons (or bio) in either war. He indeed had them – albeit far more plentifully in 1991 than in 2003. And in 2003, after the first few days the war’s outcome was, barring a gamechanger, becoming pretty obvious.
FWIW: we used nukes on Japan. We have forces based there today – and have since 1945.
Also FWIW: ERWs (AKA “neutron bombs”) weren’t retired from the US inventory until 1992; the Gulf War was in 1991. By design, those devices don’t cause too much fallout, and their blast is relatively small. Further, the fallout produced by most other tactical nukes is quite manageable, particularly if they’re employed airburst. They hardly irradiate “entire countries”.
I spent 13 years in the chemical weapon demil business, incinerating mustard (HD) and nerve agent (VX & GB) munitions. We would on occasion, pull and analyze samples to prove to International inspectors that we indeed were destroying munitions filled with agent and not water or antifreeze. The majority of the mustard agent we dealt with was manufactured in the late 50’s-early 60’s and was stored outside until 9/11. Virtually all samples came back 90% pure or better. VX also analyzed fairly pure, with GB degrading the most.
Most chemical agents are pretty stable in storage, until they eat through the munition or container that they’re in. Keep in mind also that 50% pure will ruin your day just like 100%, especially if you’re only wearing a man-dress for protection.
We must have been typing at the same time nbcguy.
No worries. I learned 100% more about chemical weapons in 13 years of being a civilian destroying them than I ever learned with 20+ years of NBCing in the Army. I would have assumed as well that this stuff would have a rather limited shelf life, but it unfortunately, is another one of these gifts that can keep on giving. That’s why, irregardless of our Treaty obligations, we WANT to get rid of it – it still packs a bite and does quite a job at eating up whatever it’s stored in also. The agent is fairly stable, but the munitions and ton containers it in are not after 40-50+ years of storage. Leakers are not good….
Last I heard they are still digging up gas containers in France from WWI that have viable, dangerous gas contents.
I learned all I needed to know from “The Goat is Dead” video. I will say this much, as nasty as it is if I had to get contaminated I’ll take a blister agent any day over the others. At least you stand a chance of recovery.
You know, there IS a reason you don’t use scouring powder and chlorine bleach together. Right?
I’m sure they must be mistaken. There aren’t any weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. The MSM said so.
/sarc (lots and lots of sarc!)
Biggest problem there is that when we say WMD we mean gas, bio, and nuke weapons… they’re stuck on the “only nukes are WMDs” ignorance. I think it’s intentional, myself… otherwise a lot of people would be ingesting an awful lot of crow.
This changes nothing. They been committing the most horrendous crimes against humanity for so long the use of chemical weapons is tame in comparison.
How ridiculous are the western civilization slugs we call leaders when this is the case.
Hmmmm, didn’t the Muthanna complex fall to ISIS a few months ago?
Can we PLEASE go take care of this mess NOW before it further metastasizes? Dropping your little GBUs ain’t gonna get the job done, it’s going to take groundpounding and a mess load of face-to-face asswoopery. Stop the damn foreplay, get the band back together and let the Infantry go take it to ISIS’s ass, posthaste. Oh, and if you wait any longer and let those little black flag waving douche bags get any stronger I *may* just answer your little ‘we need you’ letter with a resounding ‘I told you so. Have a great day!’