% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

УСУ Message Board

  • tiger850 tiger850 Sep 4, 2013 7:31 PM Flag

    OT: Syria...

    Never Ever Ever get involved with a civil war. Turn it around. What if USA military attacked the Tea Party or Jews, Or Blacks, or Indians or Illegals. Then Syria gov says we need to go in and bomb the USA, they clearly are out of control. UH you think that would be helpful or has any logic? It is absolutely insane that we attack a country and say it is not war. Christ are we that ignorant and arrogant? Have our leaders gone totally insane? How about we treat the chemical weapons attack with more precision. With the agreement of UN/NATO/Russia that the people that made the decision to use chemical weapons and the people that deployed them get punished like a war crime? Who or what would we bomb anyway Camels, Palm Trees, Sand? How will that "punish somebody" and defer future use. IF an attack spills into USA land then we would have to take action. Until then stay out. BUT....Do Not Tread on US. What about Proper Rules of engagement? Our leaders couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag much less play this international chess war. Australia is looking better. OK I'm done ranting...YOU?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • World War 2 saw the major combatants unwilling to use gas on a large scale against foes who could retaliate in kind. There was no net advantage. And even though the new nerve gases proved more lethal than the Great War toxins, they were eclipsed by dramatic arrival of the Atomic bomb. Who cared about Sarin when there were nukes?

      And so chemical weapons lay in a kind of limbo. Too lethal to use with precision, too weak to compete with nukes. The interesting thing about the chemical weapons allegedly employed by the Syrian government against civilians, as described in a report of Richard Lloyd of Tesla Laboratories and Theodore Postol of MIT is how successful their users have been at creating a new niche. The chemical weapons examined were much more effective against civilian targets than if normal, military style gas shells were used.

      What made the difference was the innovative dispersal system. The WMDs examined are simply a pipe rocket with a small metal barrel at the end. The tip of the pipe contains a small bursting charge rigged to go off at a height above the ground by the action of an altimeter thus peeling back the barrel of Sarin and showering it down on the unfortunates below.

      The drum device contains 18 times the more chemical payload than a 155 mm artillery shell. The Telegraph says that’s the reason why the civilian casualties were so high compared to previously observed attacks. “Prof Charles Postel, a US expert, said that the ‘very effective, very deadly’ rockets would have been capable of carrying up to 20 times more sarin than initially assumed. ” To delivery gas artillery shells, you need a precision manufactured artillery piece, trained gunners and shells manufactured to close tolerances just to deliver a pittance. Those are hard to come by. With the barrel rocket you just fill her up by the gallon — in this case estimated at 50 liters — and let ‘er fly.

    • nicely put! LOL to ya, nick

    • PS...before we attack, force the idiots in US Gov look up the word ESCALATION.