Some more sarin warheads found in Iraq

[tony6]

Just heard on the Polish news.
This time by Polish forces. Not much but still-chemical weapon.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040701/pl_afp/us_iraq_rumsfeld_weapons&cid=1521&ncid=1473

[He219]

Obvously leftover from the Iran-Iraq War. So what; one, two, sixteen, twenty Sarin warheads ..... still doesn't justify that Saddam had WMD.
;)


http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040701/thumb.xdg13807011948.iraq_saddam_xdg138.jpg
"Yes, We have no Mass destruction!"

:lol:

[tony6]

Yeah-those shell are most probably from before 1991.
They have to keep digging :D

[ZeroPositive]

thing is hard to believe as the brits and Yanks shiped samples of certain biological weapons, read a load of articles.... If I was him I wouldn't just destroy them...

Heck finding it probably is as hard as finding HIV in the human body...

[Pandy]

It's going to take years to find all the warheads or **** in Iraq, they are digging up ****ing planes, you know how hard is it is dig a hole for a MIG-29..., Hard as ****, because that has to be a big as hole.

[Black Dots]

I'm no expert on chemical weapons, but one thing I haven't heard from any news source is if these weapons were: 1) operational 2) deliverable 3) viable. I think that’s the real sticking point. What does it matter if you found sarin-filled warheads if they had been buried for years, there was no way to deliver the weapons and the chemical itself was no longer potent due to lack of maintenance? If there are any news stories that address the viability of these warheads, please send them my way because I would be interested in reading them (no sarcasm, just an honest request).

[Secret Squirrel]

It's going to take years to find all the warheads or **** in Iraq, they are digging up f*** planes, you know how hard is it is dig a hole for a MIG-29..., Hard as f***, because that has to be a big as hole.

correction, they dug up planes; the pics above are from July 2003.

[He219]

I'm no expert on chemical weapons, but one thing I haven't heard from any news source is if these weapons were: 1) operational 2) deliverable 3) viable. I think that’s the real sticking point. What does it matter if you found sarin-filled warheads if they had been buried for years, there was no way to deliver the weapons and the chemical itself was no longer potent due to lack of maintenance? If there are any news stories that address the viability of these warheads, please send them my way because I would be interested in reading them (no sarcasm, just an honest request).
Ahh, IED's for example ....

;)

[Black Dots]

Ahh, IED's for example

If I remember correctly, the insurgents who rigged the warhead weren’t aware of the chemical content. Secondly, and most important, I think only two soldiers were injured and then recovered. Unfortunate, but by no means “mass destruction.” Assuming the chemicals were even potent, the warheads are designed to mix the chemicals in flight, making them fully operational. Without the artillery to launch the warheads, they will not be able to be used as they were designed to.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Ahh, IED's for example

If I remember correctly, the insurgents who rigged the warhead weren’t aware of the chemical content. Secondly, and most important, I think only two soldiers were injured and then recovered. Unfortunate, but by no means “mass destruction.” Assuming the chemicals were even potent, the warheads are designed to mix the chemicals in flight, making them fully operational. Without the artillery to launch the warheads, they will not be able to be used as they were designed to.

Also the force of the explosion most likely wouldnt allow the chemicals to properly mix and dispearse them instantly...in idea form it sounds like it would work but in reality the IED would be more dangerous then the warhead.

[He219]

Are you saying that an IED could not be properly rigged to attain a devastating effect with WMD warheads?

Certainly an airburst would optimize dispersion, perhaps even in moderate winds....

Remember the Sarin attack in the Tokyo subway, certainly no airburst, yet catastrophic in confined environments!

;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Are you saying that an IED could not be properly rigged to attain a devastating effect with WMD warheads?

Certainly an airburst would optimize dispersion, perhaps even in moderate winds....

Remember the Sarin attack in the Tokyo subway, certainly no airburst, yet catastrophic in confined environments!

;)

The artillery shell used as an IED was fitted with two aluminum cannisters separated by a rupture disk. The two precursor chemicals for the kind of sarin associated with this shell were stored separately in these containers. The thrust of the shell being fired was designed to cause the liquid in the forward cannister to press back and break the rupture disk, whereupon the rotation of the shell as it headed downrange would mix the two precursors together, creating sarin. Upon impact with the ground - or in the air, if a timed fuse was used - a burster charge would break the shell, releasing the sarin gas. ;)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

[OB Kenobi]

Just heard on the Polish news.
This time by Polish forces. Not much but still-chemical weapon.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040701/pl_afp/us_iraq_rumsfeld_weapons&cid=1521&ncid=1473


"He pointed out that his troops in Iraq had recently come across -- I've forgotten the number, but something like 16 or 17 -- warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas," Rumsfeld told Newradio 600 KOGO of San Diego, California, in an interview aired Wednesday.

Oh Rummy, there you go telling fibs again. I wonder what you're going to say when Saddam calls you as a witness during the trial.

Rumsfeld: "Uh, well, yes, tehcnically, and I emphasize that word, technically, I did authorize, or what some may consider authorize, the shipment of the WMD to Saddam but... ok, I look at it... I mean, we think... uh, let's see, I did not have ****** relations with... uh, not that's not it... what was the question?"

[Black Dots]

Are you saying that an IED could not be properly rigged to attain a devastating effect with WMD warheads?

Certainly an airburst would optimize dispersion, perhaps even in moderate winds....

Remember the Sarin attack in the Tokyo subway, certainly no airburst, yet catastrophic in confined environments!

Only if the sarin was still potent.

Check it out:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-17-sarin_x.htm

"The sarin agent has a limited shelf life unless stored under carefully controlled conditions"

"Two U.S. soldiers, members of a military bomb squad, were treated for exposure to sarin. Officials said there were no serious injuries."

If you blow up a warhead with old, unkempt and impotent chemicals, it seems the results do not constitute "mass destruction."

[He219]

It seem that you are focusing only on the previous IED event near the Baghdad International Airport around May17. How have you come to the conclusion that there no active WMD's whatsoever ? Iraq began producing sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

As for making IED's with WMD capable munitions, it can certainly be done without destroying the reactive agents in an unimaginative explosion.

I'm certainly not going to write an essay on how they can be employed against us.

;)

[Secret Squirrel]

It seem that you are focusing only on the previous IED event. How have you come to the conclusion that there no active WMD's whatsoever ? Iraq began producing sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

As for making IED's with WMD capable munitions, it can certainly be done without destroying the reactive agents in an unimaginative explosion.

I'm certainly not going to write an essay on how they can be employed against us.

;)

Fair enough. Ok, what type of chemical are you talking about? It wouldnt make sense to produce Sarin as a finished product; it serves no purpose to produce it that way because of the way it has to be delivered. The two chemicals are put into shells in two sections because it mixes during flight, making it potent (sarin has an extremely high rate of evaporation), before either exploding on the ground or in the air. Generally, a volley of 6 to 12 shells would be fired in a certain area to overlap bursts for affectiveness. Blowing up a shell with these two chemicals 1) doesnt mix the chemicals and 2) burns off much of the chemicals.

[seruriermarshal]

It seem that you are focusing only on the previous IED event. How have you come to the conclusion that there no active WMD's whatsoever ? Iraq began producing sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

As for making IED's with WMD capable munitions, it can certainly be done without destroying the reactive agents in an unimaginative explosion.

I'm certainly not going to write an essay on how they can be employed against us.

;)

Fair enough. Ok, what type of chemical are you talking about? It wouldnt make sense to produce Sarin as a finished product; it serves no purpose to produce it that way because of the way it has to be delivered. The two chemicals are put into shells in two sections because it mixes during flight, making it potent (sarin has an extremely high rate of evaporation), before either exploding on the ground or in the air. Generally, a volley of 6 to 12 shells would be fired in a certain area to overlap bursts for affectiveness. Blowing up a shell with these two chemicals 1) doesnt mix the chemicals and 2) burns off much of the chemicals.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040521/bok.gif