Experts: Don't Bomb Chemical Weapon Sites in Syria

[damnedifIknow]

You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.

But now there is concern that bombing other sites could accidentally release dangerous chemical weapons that the U.S. military didn't know were there because they've lost track of some of the suspected nerve agents.

Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons — purposely or accidentally — would likely kill nearby civilians in an accidental nerve agent release, create a long-lasting environmental catastrophe or both, five experts told The Associated Press. That's because under ideal conditions — and conditions wouldn't be ideal in Syria — explosives would leave at least 20 to 30 percent of the poison in lethal form.

"If you drop a conventional munition on a storage facility containing unknown chemical agents — and we don't know exactly what is where in the Syrian arsenal — some of those agents will be neutralized and some will be spread," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit that focuses on all types of weaponry. "You are not going to destroy all of them."

*When asked if there is any way to ensure complete destruction of the nerve agents without going in with soldiers, seizing the chemicals and burning them in a special processing plant, Ralf Trapp, a French chemical weapons consultant and longtime expert in the field, said simply: "Not really."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/experts-bomb-chemical-weapon-sites-syria-20115062

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. My bet is on taking out delivery mechanisms....

[HooptieWagon]

2. Pretty tough to take out mortars and shoulder-fired rockey launchers...

with cruise missles. Impossible, in fact.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. ah but that is not how these chemical weapons were delivered...

they were dropped from aircraft.....and the rebels definitely do not have an airforce.

[Barack_America]

4. Not according to the intelligence released by the Obama admin.

Which specifies they believe rockets were used rather than aircraft.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. where does it say that?

[Barack_America]

8. "The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude...

...that the regime used rockets in the attack"

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. see map here:

Yeah all of that was done with rocket propelled grenades..

[HooptieWagon]

7. Chemical weapons can be delivered by a variety of methods.

Artillery, rockets, mortars, aircraft....any means of delivering an explosive can deliver chemical weapons.
In this case, the US alleges rockets, which likely have a very mobile launching device not easily targeted by cruise missles. It would be like trying to take out a RPG with a cruise missle. Might get lucky and hit one...but still dozens left. And more than likely Syrian military has their weapons caches intermixed in residential neighborhoods.

[krispos42]

9. We'd have to land troops and seize the facilities

And hold them until the chemicals can be destroyed or consumed or something.

We probably could do it. Getting the facility would be the hard part, but once seized we could maintain air supremacy over the area. Any approaching military columns would be hammered from the air for miles before being able to begin to engage our defensive troops.

The problem would be keeping the Syrians from shelling the facility with the express intention of hitting the chemical weapons areas... and releasing, among American troops, all the chemicals stored there.


And... that's my armchair general side coming out.