|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 19:06:46 GMT -6
Let's actually use the CIA website instead of what you claim it says: Chemical Munitions—Other Finds Introduction Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components. The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device ( IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.•ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared, however, former Iraqi scientists involved with the program admitted that the program was considered extremely successful and shelved for future use. According to the source, General Amer al-Saadi sought to downplay its findings to the UN to avoid heightened attention toward the program. www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.htmlSo, the artillery round was old BUT it had a 40 percent concentration of Sarin still extant. We aren't talking trace elements, here, we are talking about a significant percentage that was still viable. So once again we are back to a shell that had to have been deliberately and carefully stored.........The report goes on to suggest where the shell MAY have come from, but does not make a definitive statement. Actually, the report makes very few definitive statements.......... Look what you quoted.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 19:07:32 GMT -6
Further, we will never know how many of those unmarked WMD shells Saddam was storing in his vast ammo dumps all around Iraq. Since you are so knowledgeable, I'm sure you know the reason why and can explain it to us. Please do so. The reason why what?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 19:11:48 GMT -6
Yes but we were always talking about binary munitions, which you now concede take '5 years' to degrade. Your talk about a few days was misleading. Nonsense, if I were trying to hide something I would not post information. You obviously either didn't understand, again, or are trying to deceive forum members. The five year limit is the BEST limit for the highest quality Sarin WITH the best stabilizing chemicals with the BEST storage facilites. No. The five year limit mentioned in the article you quoted is for binary weapons. That is, weapons which contain only the precursors of sarin, ready to be mixed upon deployment of the weapon. Even if Saddam did not have the highest quality stabilizing chemicals, etc, these binary weapons are not liable to degrade in a few days, as you implied. Given that you are not ignorant about weapons, I can only conclude you were attempting to mislead. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 19:33:48 GMT -6
Let's actually use the CIA website instead of what you claim it says: Chemical Munitions—Other Finds Introduction Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components. The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device ( IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.You'll also note that the CIA refers to the binary weapons being 'long lasting', not to the presence of a super storage facility. Your '5 year limit' from bookrags.com is probably bogus. In any case, your attempt to shift the discussion from the production of wmds to the storage of wmds from pre-1991 is clever, I'll give you that, but not clever enough to diffuse the lies told in the run up to the war, where the administration specifically spoke of the renewed production of chemical weapons. '"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush Sep. 12, 2002 "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." George W. Bush Oct. 7, 2002 "We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program." John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Nov. 1, 2002
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 20:22:45 GMT -6
Let's actually use the CIA website instead of what you claim it says: Chemical Munitions—Other Finds Introduction Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components. The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device ( IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.•ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared, however, former Iraqi scientists involved with the program admitted that the program was considered extremely successful and shelved for future use. According to the source, General Amer al-Saadi sought to downplay its findings to the UN to avoid heightened attention toward the program. www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.htmlSo, the artillery round was old BUT it had a 40 percent concentration of Sarin still extant. We aren't talking trace elements, here, we are talking about a significant percentage that was still viable. So once again we are back to a shell that had to have been deliberately and carefully stored.........The report goes on to suggest where the shell MAY have come from, but does not make a definitive statement. Actually, the report makes very few definitive statements.......... Look what you quoted. I don't know how many times I have to say it. It does not matter how old the shell is, what matters is how viable the Sarin is. Perhaps it has completely slipped your mind or you do not know that Sarin has to be REPLACED in Sarin Shells to keep them viable?
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 20:27:44 GMT -6
Nonsense, if I were trying to hide something I would not post information. You obviously either didn't understand, again, or are trying to deceive forum members. The five year limit is the BEST limit for the highest quality Sarin WITH the best stabilizing chemicals with the BEST storage facilites. No. The five year limit mentioned in the article you quoted is for binary weapons. That is, weapons which contain only the precursors of sarin, ready to be mixed upon deployment of the weapon. Even if Saddam did not have the highest quality stabilizing chemicals, etc, these binary weapons are not liable to degrade in a few days, as you implied. Given that you are not ignorant about weapons, I can only conclude you were attempting to mislead. Shame on you. Well, you once again showed your ignorance. You put Sarin filled BINARY artillery shells out in the hot desert sun for a few hours waiting for an artillery firing mission and it degrades significantly. You cook it there for a few days and they are almost completely no good anymore. So, of course the shells can be ruined in a few hours to a few days.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 21:04:42 GMT -6
No. The five year limit mentioned in the article you quoted is for binary weapons. That is, weapons which contain only the precursors of sarin, ready to be mixed upon deployment of the weapon. Even if Saddam did not have the highest quality stabilizing chemicals, etc, these binary weapons are not liable to degrade in a few days, as you implied. Given that you are not ignorant about weapons, I can only conclude you were attempting to mislead. Shame on you. Well, you once again showed your ignorance. You put Sarin filled BINARY artillery shells out in the hot desert sun for a few hours waiting for an artillery firing mission and it degrades significantly. What do you mean by a 'sarin filled binary artillery shell'? Binary artillery shells are not 'filled with sarin'. The whole point of binary weapons is that the sarin is not produced except when they are deployed. Are you just making this up as you go?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 21:06:23 GMT -6
I don't know how many times I have to say it. It does not matter how old the shell is, what matters is how viable the Sarin is. Perhaps it has completely slipped your mind or you do not know that Sarin has to be REPLACED in Sarin Shells to keep them viable? What is a 'sarin shell'? Are you still talking about binary shells? They do not have sarin in them to begin with, so I don't know what you mean by 'replacing the sarin'.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 21:36:46 GMT -6
Let's actually use the CIA website instead of what you claim it says: Chemical Munitions—Other Finds Introduction Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components. The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device ( IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.You'll also note that the CIA refers to the binary weapons being 'long lasting', not to the presence of a super storage facility. Your '5 year limit' from bookrags.com is probably bogus. In any case, your attempt to shift the discussion from the production of wmds to the storage of wmds from pre-1991 is clever, I'll give you that, but not clever enough to diffuse the lies told in the run up to the war, where the administration specifically spoke of the renewed production of chemical weapons. ' It isn't JUST storage of Sarin WMD munitions. The Sarin has to be REPLACED from time to time to keep the munitions effective. Bogus information on shells lasting only 5 years? How about the New World encyclopedia? This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts do not put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/SarinHere's why the "OLD SARIN Stockpiles from the Iran/Iraq War" is nonsense. During the Iran-Iraq War, for example, Iraq gave priority to speed, volume, and low cost of production over agent quality and shelf-life. As a result, the sarin in Iraqi chemical munitions was only about 60 to 65 percent pure to begin with and contained large quantities of hydrogen fluoride (HF), both because of the synthesis process used and the deliberate omission of the distillation step. Although the Iraqis could have distilled their sarin to remove the excess HF, they chose not to do so because the batches of agent were intended to be used within a few days. To retard the rate of deterioration, sarin-filled shells were stored in refrigerated igloos. Thus, whereas the distilled sarin produced by the United States in the early 1960s has retained a purity of more than 90 percent for three decades, the agent content of Iraqi sarin after 2 years of storage had generally degraded to less than 10 percent and in some cases below 1 percent.30In other words, there could NOT have been a binary Sarin artillery shell filled back in the days of the Iran Iraq war that WOULD STILL HAVE 40 PERCENT ACTIVE SARIN AS STIPULATED IN THE CIA REPORT in 2004. The only possible explanation is that shell had been emptied and refilled with Sarin LONG AFTER the war to still retain 40 percent. www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934404.pdf
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 21:39:16 GMT -6
Well, you once again showed your ignorance. You put Sarin filled BINARY artillery shells out in the hot desert sun for a few hours waiting for an artillery firing mission and it degrades significantly. What do you mean by a 'sarin filled binary artillery shell'? Binary artillery shells are not 'filled with sarin'. The whole point of binary weapons is that the sarin is not produced except when they are deployed. Are you just making this up as you go? Oh, I'm so sorry. I meant the Binary Sarin filled Artillery shells. .
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 21:46:07 GMT -6
I don't know how many times I have to say it. It does not matter how old the shell is, what matters is how viable the Sarin is. Perhaps it has completely slipped your mind or you do not know that Sarin has to be REPLACED in Sarin Shells to keep them viable? What is a 'sarin shell'? Are you still talking about binary shells? They do not have sarin in them to begin with, so I don't know what you mean by 'replacing the sarin'. I am talking about replacing the components in the binary shells to keep them viable. The CIA called one we are discussing as "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile— containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin."
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 21:58:50 GMT -6
Further, we will never know how many of those unmarked WMD shells Saddam was storing in his vast ammo dumps all around Iraq. Since you are so knowledgeable, I'm sure you know the reason why and can explain it to us. Please do so. The reason why what? Why we will never know how many WMD binary artillery shells Saddam had stockpiled.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 22:51:23 GMT -6
You'll also note that the CIA refers to the binary weapons being 'long lasting', not to the presence of a super storage facility. Your '5 year limit' from bookrags.com is probably bogus. In any case, your attempt to shift the discussion from the production of wmds to the storage of wmds from pre-1991 is clever, I'll give you that, but not clever enough to diffuse the lies told in the run up to the war, where the administration specifically spoke of the renewed production of chemical weapons. ' It isn't JUST storage of Sarin WMD munitions. The Sarin has to be REPLACED from time to time to keep the munitions effective. Bogus information on shells lasting only 5 years? How about the New World encyclopedia? This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts do not put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/SarinLol. Here is the paragraph from your original source bookrags.com: Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors. Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Sodium hydroxide can be used in a hydrolysis reaction to destroy sarin converting it to effectively harmless sodium salts.[2].
Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways:
The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process.
Incorporating a stabilizer chemical called tributylamine. Later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (di-c-di), which allowed for GB nerve agent to be stored in aluminium casings.
Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts still refuse to put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years. And here's the new one from 'the new world encyclopedia': Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA (1996), in 1989, the Iraqi Government destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors. Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways. One way is to lengthen the shelf life of unitary (pure) sarin by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. Another way to increase shelf life is by incorporating a stabilizer chemical. Initially used was tributylamine, but later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), which allowed for sarin to be stored in aluminum casings. Finally, stockpiling of sarin can be improved by developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts do not put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.
See any similarities? Basically, you have posted the same article twice and tried to pass it off as two independent sources. It's not even a good source. It's just a wiki, of no particular repute, with no source for the '5 years' claim. Man I wish I could argue with you all the time. This is awesome!
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 23:09:53 GMT -6
Here's why the "OLD SARIN Stockpiles from the Iran/Iraq War" is nonsense. During the Iran-Iraq War, for example, Iraq gave priority to speed, volume, and low cost of production over agent quality and shelf-life. As a result, the sarin in Iraqi chemical munitions was only about 60 to 65 percent pure to begin with and contained large quantities of hydrogen fluoride (HF), both because of the synthesis process used and the deliberate omission of the distillation step. Although the Iraqis could have distilled their sarin to remove the excess HF, they chose not to do so because the batches of agent were intended to be used within a few days. To retard the rate of deterioration, sarin-filled shells were stored in refrigerated igloos. Thus, whereas the distilled sarin produced by the United States in the early 1960s has retained a purity of more than 90 percent for three decades, the agent content of Iraqi sarin after 2 years of storage had generally degraded to less than 10 percent and in some cases below 1 percent.30Your sources are now in contradiction. The other source says that 'Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months.' That's what you needed it to say to support your claim, remember? Now this one says that sarin can retain its quality for several decades. Which is it? Bottom line: The CIA said the weapons found were pre-1991. Your contradictory wikis and your confusion of binary and sarin-filled weapons does not hold up against that. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 23:12:04 GMT -6
What do you mean by a 'sarin filled binary artillery shell'? Binary artillery shells are not 'filled with sarin'. The whole point of binary weapons is that the sarin is not produced except when they are deployed. Are you just making this up as you go? Oh, I'm so sorry. I meant the Binary Sarin filled Artillery shells. . Binary shells are not sarin filled. You need to get an understanding of the topic before we can proceed.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 23:20:06 GMT -6
What is a 'sarin shell'? Are you still talking about binary shells? They do not have sarin in them to begin with, so I don't know what you mean by 'replacing the sarin'. I am talking about replacing the components in the binary shells to keep them viable. The CIA called one we are discussing as "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile— containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin." The weapon yielded a 40% concentration of sarin after it was detonated. It is not stored as 'sarin filled'. The whole point of binary weapons is that you do not do that. "16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device
A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product.
The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals."
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 23:22:17 GMT -6
Why we will never know how many WMD binary artillery shells Saddam had stockpiled. Your question makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 10:01:07 GMT -6
It isn't JUST storage of Sarin WMD munitions. The Sarin has to be REPLACED from time to time to keep the munitions effective. Bogus information on shells lasting only 5 years? How about the New World encyclopedia? This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts do not put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/SarinLol. Here is the paragraph from your original source bookrags.com: Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors. Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Sodium hydroxide can be used in a hydrolysis reaction to destroy sarin converting it to effectively harmless sodium salts.[2].
Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways:
The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process.
Incorporating a stabilizer chemical called tributylamine. Later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (di-c-di), which allowed for GB nerve agent to be stored in aluminium casings.
Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts still refuse to put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years. And here's the new one from 'the new world encyclopedia': Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA (1996), in 1989, the Iraqi Government destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors. Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways. One way is to lengthen the shelf life of unitary (pure) sarin by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. Another way to increase shelf life is by incorporating a stabilizer chemical. Initially used was tributylamine, but later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), which allowed for sarin to be stored in aluminum casings. Finally, stockpiling of sarin can be improved by developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts do not put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.
See any similarities? Basically, you have posted the same article twice and tried to pass it off as two independent sources. It's not even a good source. It's just a wiki, of no particular repute, with no source for the '5 years' claim. Man I wish I could argue with you all the time. This is awesome! No, the joke is on you. It was quite obvious where the information came from in the first source you chose to denigrate and show your ignorance, so I found the original source.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 10:05:37 GMT -6
Lol. Here is the paragraph from your original source bookrags.com: Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors. Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Sodium hydroxide can be used in a hydrolysis reaction to destroy sarin converting it to effectively harmless sodium salts.[2].
Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways:
The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process.
Incorporating a stabilizer chemical called tributylamine. Later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (di-c-di), which allowed for GB nerve agent to be stored in aluminium casings.
Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts still refuse to put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years. And here's the new one from 'the new world encyclopedia': Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA (1996), in 1989, the Iraqi Government destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors. Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways. One way is to lengthen the shelf life of unitary (pure) sarin by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. Another way to increase shelf life is by incorporating a stabilizer chemical. Initially used was tributylamine, but later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), which allowed for sarin to be stored in aluminum casings. Finally, stockpiling of sarin can be improved by developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts do not put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.
See any similarities? Basically, you have posted the same article twice and tried to pass it off as two independent sources. It's not even a good source. It's just a wiki, of no particular repute, with no source for the '5 years' claim. Man I wish I could argue with you all the time. This is awesome! No, the joke is on you. It was quite obvious where the information came from in the first source you chose to denigrate and show your ignorance, so I found the original source. Sorry to burst your bubble chief but the 'original source' is itself just a wiki. If it were wikipedia the editors would have marked the '5 year' claim as needing support. But it's not wikipedia. its a wikipedia wannabe written by Joe Schmo.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 10:15:43 GMT -6
No, the joke is on you. It was quite obvious where the information came from in the first source you chose to denigrate and show your ignorance, so I found the original source. Sorry to burst your bubble chief but the 'original source' is itself just a wiki. If it were wikipedia the editors would have marked the '5 year' claim as needing support. But it's not wikipedia. its a wikipedia wannabe written by Joe Schmo. I don't know if you are lashing out due to ignorance or just trying to cover for what you wish to believe. The original link I found was not the original source. That's why I looked and found the original source of the information and that is: www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/SarinIs that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 10:24:17 GMT -6
Here's why the "OLD SARIN Stockpiles from the Iran/Iraq War" is nonsense. During the Iran-Iraq War, for example, Iraq gave priority to speed, volume, and low cost of production over agent quality and shelf-life. As a result, the sarin in Iraqi chemical munitions was only about 60 to 65 percent pure to begin with and contained large quantities of hydrogen fluoride (HF), both because of the synthesis process used and the deliberate omission of the distillation step. Although the Iraqis could have distilled their sarin to remove the excess HF, they chose not to do so because the batches of agent were intended to be used within a few days. To retard the rate of deterioration, sarin-filled shells were stored in refrigerated igloos. Thus, whereas the distilled sarin produced by the United States in the early 1960s has retained a purity of more than 90 percent for three decades, the agent content of Iraqi sarin after 2 years of storage had generally degraded to less than 10 percent and in some cases below 1 percent.30Your sources are now in contradiction. The other source says that 'Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months.' That's what you needed it to say to support your claim, remember? Now this one says that sarin can retain its quality for several decades. Which is it? Bottom line: The CIA said the weapons found were pre-1991. Your contradictory wikis and your confusion of binary and sarin-filled weapons does not hold up against that. Sorry. No, the sources are not contradictory, but people like you wish to spin them. In reply number 60, you super sized and emboldened this part of the quote: "all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." I don't know if you are not comprehending what you read or are only trying to lash out. The CIA did NOT definitely state the artillery shells were pre 1991, the CIA said they appeared to be. But YOU are trying to change that to a definitive statement they did not make. That is quite clearly deceptive on your part.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 10:39:37 GMT -6
Further, I don't know know how many times we have to go over this. It does not matter when an Artillery Shell Casing/Projectile is made, AS LONG AS IT WAS NOT FIRED and still in good condition, it can be emptied of non viable binary Sarin components and REFILLED with viable Sarin binary components. Is it just because you are ignorant of the fact that the projectiles or shell casings of 152mm and 155mm artillery rounds that Saddam used are SEPARATE projectile/shell casings? The charge that fires them is separate from them. The 152mm artillery rounds the Russians used in WWII were all separate projectiles from the powder/propellant charges and right up to modern day guns. I'm not going to link every 152mm Russian artillery rounds but here is one link to demon state that. warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=254&linkid=2454
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 11:22:15 GMT -6
Sorry to burst your bubble chief but the 'original source' is itself just a wiki. If it were wikipedia the editors would have marked the '5 year' claim as needing support. But it's not wikipedia. its a wikipedia wannabe written by Joe Schmo. I don't know if you are lashing out due to ignorance or just trying to cover for what you wish to believe. The original link I found was not the original source. That's why I looked and found the original source of the information and that is: www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/SarinIs that so hard to understand? Heh. When I said that the original source was a 'wikipedia wannabe' I was referring to the New World Encyclopedia. You thought I was referring back to bookrags.com but I wasn't. I was referring to your latest offering. The New World Encyclopedia is basically a collection of articles lifted wholesale from wikipedia and then modified to suit the aims and 'values' of the founders of the New World Encyclopedia. The founder of the New World Encyclopedia is cult leader Sun Myung Moon, founder of the moonies. Lol. The best part is, this is your self-confessed original source. lmao. Your 'bookrags.com' source was just ripped off from the encyclopedia of the loony moonies. Hysterical. "The New World Encyclopedia is intended for use by teachers and students who are drawn to the ease of use of Wikipedia, but are concerned about quality, consistency, and core values. New World Encyclopedia combines the great benefits of open source internet media with those of traditional and careful editorial supervision by scholars. Here we have the benefit of hyperlinks and greater detail found on-line encyclopedias, combined with the traditional review of facts, grammar, and values.
This encyclopedia transcends the metaphysical assumptions of both the Enlightenment and Modern Encyclopedias. The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon. Thus, scholarly content carries and projects values tied to human purpose, the design of creation found in the world's great religions and spiritual traditions, as well as that which is clearly revealed through science and in the lives and work of people of conscience." www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/New_World_Encyclopedia:AboutSo we're back to square one. I cite the CIA's official website. You cite the moonies. I think this kinda sums up our relationship.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 11:23:40 GMT -6
Your sources are now in contradiction. The other source says that 'Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months.' That's what you needed it to say to support your claim, remember? Now this one says that sarin can retain its quality for several decades. Which is it? Bottom line: The CIA said the weapons found were pre-1991. Your contradictory wikis and your confusion of binary and sarin-filled weapons does not hold up against that. Sorry. No, the sources are not contradictory, but people like you wish to spin them. In reply number 60, you super sized and emboldened this part of the quote: "all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." I don't know if you are not comprehending what you read or are only trying to lash out. The CIA did NOT definitely state the artillery shells were pre 1991, the CIA said they appeared to be. But YOU are trying to change that to a definitive statement they did not make. That is quite clearly deceptive on your part. This does not address the contradiction between your two sources, one of which says sarin can last for decades, the other of which says that it lasts for mere days or weeks.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 11:44:45 GMT -6
Further, I don't know know how many times we have to go over this. It does not matter when an Artillery Shell Casing/Projectile is made, AS LONG AS IT WAS NOT FIRED and still in good condition, it can be emptied of non viable binary Sarin components and REFILLED with viable Sarin binary components. The Bush administration clearly claimed that Saddam was currently producing chemical weapons during the run up to the Iraq war. I.e. that he was producing chemical weapons in 2002, which is why he was an imminent threat, and why we had to go to war. After 8 years in the country, however, and a 1400-man investigation led by the Pentagon and the CIA, the best evidence that you have for Bush's claim are active chemical weapons plants, the remains of bombed chemical weapons plants, chemical weapons deployed by Saddam during combat with American forces, some brand new chemical weapons, stockpiles of the raw materials used by Saddam in the production of chemical weapons, a few old degraded binary weapons that, in the estimation of the US government's civilian intelligence agency, were pre-1991. Since that doesn't support Bush's claim at all, you resort to patching up the story with some made-up bull about Saddam refilling the weapons with his brand new chemical components, even though there is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 11:54:40 GMT -6
Here, RF, is Bush himself admitting that Saddam was not producing chemical weapons.
I post this not because I think you will admit being wrong, but because I want to see what outrageous claim you will make in order to avoid doing so.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 12:00:43 GMT -6
No, the sources are not contradictory, but people like you wish to spin them. In reply number 60, you super sized and emboldened this part of the quote: "all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." I don't know if you are not comprehending what you read or are only trying to lash out. The CIA did NOT definitely state the artillery shells were pre 1991, the CIA said they appeared to be. But YOU are trying to change that to a definitive statement they did not make. That is quite clearly deceptive on your part. This does not address the contradiction between your two sources, one of which says sarin can last for decades, the other of which says that it lasts for mere days or weeks. And in this reply, you tried to use other spin to get away from being caught using your deception.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 12:15:24 GMT -6
This does not address the contradiction between your two sources, one of which says sarin can last for decades, the other of which says that it lasts for mere days or weeks. And in this reply, you tried to use other spin to get away from being caught using your deception. Again you do not address the contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 13:24:39 GMT -6
And in this reply, you tried to use other spin to get away from being caught using your deception. Again you do not address the contradiction. Again, you tried to ignore your earlier deception. I will address what YOU call a contradiction through your ignorance, but it takes much longer to type an explanation than to use spin. Please stand by.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 13:43:00 GMT -6
For the rest of the people on this forum who are open minded, intelligent and not chained to a political dogma, I believe it is important to sum things up. 1. Don’t allow someone to try to play with the facts. 2. Yes, the facts are that in the United States, we have made Sarin Binary Artillery projectiles where some of the rounds remain viable up to 30 years. This is because A. The components were so chemically pure to begin with. B. Stabilizing chemicals were added for long term storage. C. The Binary Sarin Projectiles were stored in expensive and highly safeguarded climate controlled environments. D. The contents of the binary shells were regularly inspected or else they would never know how long the stuff was viable. E. The Binary components were replaced when necessary to ensure they were still viable and also not leaking or corroded. Was this true about Iraq's Binary Sarin shells from the Iran Iraq wars/battles? ABSOLUTELY NOT !! 3. We KNOW that the Sarin Agent used by Iraq in the 1980’s was no where near as pure as the stuff the U.S. made. We KNOW that they did not even refine it as far as they could have done, let alone add chemical stabilizers. We KNOW they used refrigerated igloo’s to try to keep the binary shells viable for only a short while before use. “ During the Iran-Iraq War, for example, Iraq gave priority to speed, volume, and low cost of production over agent quality and shelf-life. As a result, the sarin in Iraqi chemical munitions was only about 60 to 65 percent pure to begin with and contained large quantities of hydrogen fluoride (HF), both because of the synthesis process used and the deliberate omission of the distillation step. Although the Iraqis could have distilled their sarin to remove the excess HF, they chose not to do so because the batches of agent were intended to be used within a few days. To retard the rate of deterioration, sarin-filled shells were stored in refrigerated igloos. Thus, whereas the distilled sarin produced by the United States in the early 1960s has retained a purity of more than 90 percent for three decades, the agent content of Iraqi sarin after 2 years of storage had generallydegraded to less than 10 percent and in some casesbelow 1 percent.”www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934404.pdfPlease notice the term “SHELLS” was deliberately used in this information. Bombs or Rockets are not called shell’s. ONLY Artillery ammunition is referred to as “shells” when talking about Sarin or other Biological or Chemical Munitions. Since they used the term “SHELLS” then that absolutely means BINARY SARIN, ARTILLERY SHELLS OR PROJECTILES. Also, please notice that after TWO YEARS OF STORAGE NO LATER THAN 1991, how HIGHLY DEGRADED these shells were. This is extremely important. That means by 1991 AT THE LATEST, and generally speaking, the Binary Shells had ALREADY degraded to LESS THAN TEN PERCENT and in some cases BELOW 1 PERCENT.. There’s the Bugaboo for Honkey and people like him. Since generally speaking the Binary Shells were ALREADY down to only 10 percent in 1991, ANY IRAQI SHELL left over from 1991 and from the Iran Iraq wars and was found THIRTEEN YEARS LATER COULD NOT BE AS HIGH AS 40 PERCENT AS WAS REPORTED BY THE CIA the 152mm shell was. Honkeyb tries to twist that saying the 152mm was blown up as an IED and could not mix properly. So sorry, HonkeyB. Nuclear, Biological. Chemical Warfare Specialists can tell how potent and viable the components of Sarin are by studying the trace elements of the canisters with the testing equipment they have, even IF the canisters are blown up. That kind of information is vital on the battlefield in modern warfare. No need to have CSI or other laboratories on site. The CIA obviously affirmed the accuracy of the tests, if they did not actually do the tests themselves, by posting the information. 4. Now where did the information in the parentheses in the number 3. point come from? Not from me! The linked site has the footnote it came from this source: United Nations Special commission, “Second Report by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission Established by the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council Resolution 687 (1991 ),” UN Security Council document No. S/23268, Dec. 4, 1991, p. 5. 5. That clearly means only one thing, the Sarin components in that 152mm Artillery shell the CIA found were NOT from the Iraq Iran War time frame. The components HAD to have been replaced in the OLD artillery shell projectile, though the projectile itself may have been as old as the Iran Iraq war. 6. We have been told numerous times by the UN inspectors both from 1998 and when they went in after the 2002 war that supposedly no programs “were found” that Iraq had an ongoing Nerve Agent program. And yet here is the clear proof that both an active Nerve Agent Sarin Binary Shell components replacement program and active Nerve Agent storage program was going on Iraq when they said it did not.
|
|