|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 14:23:57 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. So when you said "Sarin nerve agent only remains viable for as little as two weeks to maybe four months unless it is properly stored and replaced. The UN inspectors left in 1998 and those munitions were found to have VIABLE Sarin in 2004, SIX YEARS LATER. There is absolutely no way it would have remained viable that long without an active CONTROLLED storage and replacement program." what you meant to add was "unless they made it really well."
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 14:28:39 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. So when you said "Sarin nerve agent only remains viable for as little as two weeks to maybe four months unless it is properly stored and replaced. The UN inspectors left in 1998 and those munitions were found to have VIABLE Sarin in 2004, SIX YEARS LATER. There is absolutely no way it would have remained viable that long without an active CONTROLLED storage and replacement program." what you meant to add was "unless they made it really well." I was succinct in the reply you quoted. It takes a lot longer to type out the full text, link and footnoted post I made in the reply before this.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 14:47:24 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. The 152mm artillery shell found in 2004, which is the weapon you keep referring to as being 'viable', was a binary weapon. That means that it was not 'sarin filled'. So all your points about Saddam's sarin degrading in 2 years are irrelevant. There was no sarin in the shell. Only its precursors. You need to provide evidence that the precursors of sarin also degrade in a similar time frame. Your only source, thus far, for this claim is the moonies. Moreover, you have now acknowledged that sarin can, when made well, last decades. So even if there were a sarin filled weapon found in 2004 (there wasn't) that does not mean that it was made in 2002. Your basis for the 'two year degradation' claim is based upon stuff Saddam made in the 1980s (!!!) and it lasted no more than 2 years because, in the middle of a war with Iran, "Iraq gave priority to speed, volume, and low cost of production over agent quality and shelf-life" (quote from your source). That does not mean that Saddam's chemical agents always had such a short shelf life. You' re assuming that: (i) his technology didn't get any better after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 (ii) that he always prioritized speed, production and low cost over shelf life even when the war with Iran was over (iii) that he never imported sarin made by other nations.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 15:29:41 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. The 152mm artillery shell found in 2004, which is the weapon you keep referring to as being 'viable', was a binary weapon. That means that it was not 'sarin filled'. So all your points about Saddam's sarin degrading in 2 years are irrelevant. There was no sarin in the shell. Only its precursors. You need to provide evidence that the precursors of sarin also degrade in a similar time frame. Your only source, thus far, for this claim is the moonies. Moreover, you have now acknowledged that sarin can, when made well, last decades. So even if there were a sarin filled weapon found in 2004 (there wasn't) that does not mean that it was made in 2002. Your basis for the 'two year degradation' claim is based upon stuff Saddam made in the 1980s (!!!) and it lasted no more than 2 years because, in the middle of a war with Iran, "Iraq gave priority to speed, volume, and low cost of production over agent quality and shelf-life" (quote from your source). That does not mean that Saddam's chemical agents always had such a short shelf life. You' re assuming that: (i) his technology didn't get any better after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 (ii) that he always prioritized speed, production and low cost over shelf life even when the war with Iran was over (iii) that he never imported sarin made by other nations. I am not sure if you just don't understand about Nerve Agent weapons or if you are desperately attempting to clutch at non existant short straws. YOU are the one who kept claiming the Sarin agents in the binary shells were from the Iran Iraq wars and NOW you change that to saying it was done later. So your claims that it was from the Iran Iraq war were wrong. Well, we are making some progress. Now you suggest that "some" Iraqi binary shells had better materials than what the UN inspectors said they did. That's a non existant short straw unless you can show proof as I have done by no less than the UN inspectors. Where is your documented proof? You also suggest that the Sarin could have come from other FOREIGN sources. Well, that goes against you as well. The UN inspectors stated where the Sarin components came from in the shells left over from the Iran Iraq War and it wasn't from foreign sources. The UN inspectors in 1998 CLAIMED all those Sarin binary shells came from that period as well. So what YOU are now suggesting is that Saddam ACTUALLY HAD an ongoing program of obtaining Binary Sarin Components that the UN Inspectors and many people on your side said did not exist. THANK YOU!!
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 15:33:21 GMT -6
And of course, HonkeyB, the down side is you have also agreed that at the very minimum, that Saddam did indeed have a deliberate storage program for Nerve Agent Binary Shells when your side said there was no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 16:01:42 GMT -6
One last point for now. Let's say for the sake of argument that some of the Binary Shell Sarin Agents had been obtained from Russia, North Korea or China prior to 1991.
So where were the REQUIRED climate controlled storage areas for those Binary Sarin Shells to remain viable? The UN inspectors in 1998 mentioned NO SUCH climate controlled storage areas.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 16:04:27 GMT -6
The 152mm artillery shell found in 2004, which is the weapon you keep referring to as being 'viable', was a binary weapon. That means that it was not 'sarin filled'. So all your points about Saddam's sarin degrading in 2 years are irrelevant. There was no sarin in the shell. Only its precursors. You need to provide evidence that the precursors of sarin also degrade in a similar time frame. Your only source, thus far, for this claim is the moonies. Moreover, you have now acknowledged that sarin can, when made well, last decades. So even if there were a sarin filled weapon found in 2004 (there wasn't) that does not mean that it was made in 2002. Your basis for the 'two year degradation' claim is based upon stuff Saddam made in the 1980s (!!!) and it lasted no more than 2 years because, in the middle of a war with Iran, "Iraq gave priority to speed, volume, and low cost of production over agent quality and shelf-life" (quote from your source). That does not mean that Saddam's chemical agents always had such a short shelf life. You' re assuming that: (i) his technology didn't get any better after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 (ii) that he always prioritized speed, production and low cost over shelf life even when the war with Iran was over (iii) that he never imported sarin made by other nations. I am not sure if you just don't understand about Nerve Agent weapons or if you are desperately attempting to clutch at non existant short straws. YOU are the one who kept claiming the Sarin agents in the binary shells were from the Iran Iraq wars No. The shells were from pre- 1991. The Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988. I haven't changed anything buddy. I maintain that these weapons were made before 1991. That's what the CIA said. I don't recall claiming that. The key claim is that they were from pre-1991, whether or not they were from the Iran/Iraq war. Here: “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. That's the quote from YOUR source RF that you used earlier. The only difference is that I READ it. According to it, the Iraqis HAD THE MEANS to produce better long-lasting chemical agents, but since they were using them in a hurry they didn't bother. So they COULD HAVE produced sarin that lasted, perhaps even for decades like the US stuff, especially AFTER 1988, when the war ended. But in any case, IT DOESN"T REALLY MATTER.... ...because the 'viable' weapon you refer to was a BINARY weapon. The shelf-life of sarin is IRRELEVANT to binary weapons - something you still don't seem capable of understanding - because the binary weapons CONTAIN NO SARIN. Only its precursors. I think that there are a lot of unsupported claims in that paragraph, but since pursuing them would take us off on another irrelevant tangent I'm gonna let them slide.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 16:08:05 GMT -6
RF, the bottom line is: The CIA said the weapons found appeared to be pre-1991.
You tried to defeat the CIA's assessment (good luck!) by pointing out that the weapon still had 40% sarin, and so it must either have been produced recently or it must have been stored in special facilities, since the Iraqis had no ability to produce long lasting sarin.
That is wrong in at least two major ways.
1. Your own source said they had the capacity to produce long lasting sarin in the 80s.
2. Not that they needed to. The weapon in question was binary, and so contained no sarin, only its more stable precursors.
Hence no need for storage or recent production. End of argument.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 16:08:29 GMT -6
And of course, HonkeyB, the down side is you have also agreed that at the very minimum, that Saddam did indeed have a deliberate storage program for Nerve Agent Binary Shells when your side said there was no such thing. LOL, I conceded no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 16:10:10 GMT -6
One last point for now. Let's say for the sake of argument that some of the Binary Shell Sarin Agents had been obtained from Russia, North Korea or China prior to 1991. So where were the REQUIRED climate controlled storage areas for those Binary Sarin Shells to remain viable? The UN inspectors in 1998 mentioned NO SUCH climate controlled storage areas. The igoos you spoke of were required to store the low-grade, fast-degrading sarin produced in the Iran/Iraq war. I have seen no evidence that climate controlled environments were needed for storing long-lasting binary weapons.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 16:17:18 GMT -6
Sorry HonkeyB, Binary Sarin shells HAVE to be kept in controlled environments to remain viable. I am not going to post for the second or third time from a knowledgeable source. You saying otherwise not only doesn't make it fact, it makes you appear...... well, I'll let that go.
The CIA said the rounds APPEARED to be from the 1980's and for now the fifth time or so I agree the ACTUAL ARTILLERY SHELL CASINGS could be that old. It does not mean the Binary Sarin Agents inside them are that old. To find out how old the Binary Sarine agents are IN THE SHELLS, the only way is to compare percentages of the Binary Sarin agents what the Iraqi's had and was verified by UN inspectors, how viable they were in 1991 AND OH MY GOSH - SOMEONE WAIVED A MAGIC WAND to make that shell rise up to FOUR TIMES THE PERCENTAGE that other 1980's Binary Shell Casing found actually contained by the general statistics they had. Of course because some of the shells had degraded to less than ONE percent, maybe THEY USED TWO MAGIC WANDS.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 16:32:35 GMT -6
One last point for now. Let's say for the sake of argument that some of the Binary Shell Sarin Agents had been obtained from Russia, North Korea or China prior to 1991. So where were the REQUIRED climate controlled storage areas for those Binary Sarin Shells to remain viable? The UN inspectors in 1998 mentioned NO SUCH climate controlled storage areas. The igoos you spoke of were required to store the low-grade, fast-degrading sarin produced in the Iran/Iraq war. I have seen no evidence that climate controlled environments were needed for storing long-lasting binary weapons. So what? YOU are still claiming the Sarin Binary shells are from the 1980's stocks.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 16:34:27 GMT -6
RF, the bottom line is: The CIA said the weapons found appeared to be pre-1991. You tried to defeat the CIA's assessment (good luck!) by pointing out that the weapon still had 40% sarin, and so it must either have been produced recently or it must have been stored in special facilities, since the Iraqis had no ability to produce long lasting sarin. That is wrong in at least two major ways. 1. Your own source said they had the capacity to produce long lasting sarin in the 80s. 2. Not that they needed to. The weapon in question was binary, and so contained no sarin, only its more stable precursors. Hence no need for storage or recent production. End of argument. So sorry. The UN inspectors said all the 1980's Binary Shells were of the low grade stuff, NOT long lasting stuff you NOW try to claim is true.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 16:58:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:00:55 GMT -6
The igoos you spoke of were required to store the low-grade, fast-degrading sarin produced in the Iran/Iraq war. I have seen no evidence that climate controlled environments were needed for storing long-lasting binary weapons. So what? YOU are still claiming the Sarin Binary shells are from the 1980's stocks. Pre-1991. The war in which Iraq was rushing its sarin together and deliberately disregarding shelf life ended in 1988. After that, I would expect them to prioritize shelf life since new stocks would be stored awaiting a war.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:02:38 GMT -6
RF, the bottom line is: The CIA said the weapons found appeared to be pre-1991. You tried to defeat the CIA's assessment (good luck!) by pointing out that the weapon still had 40% sarin, and so it must either have been produced recently or it must have been stored in special facilities, since the Iraqis had no ability to produce long lasting sarin. That is wrong in at least two major ways. 1. Your own source said they had the capacity to produce long lasting sarin in the 80s. 2. Not that they needed to. The weapon in question was binary, and so contained no sarin, only its more stable precursors. Hence no need for storage or recent production. End of argument. So sorry. The UN inspectors said all the 1980's Binary Shells were of the low grade stuff, NOT long lasting stuff you NOW try to claim is true. The question has been about long-lasting binary weapons from the beginning. From the CIA page that we have been discussing, first paragraph: 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. www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:04:32 GMT -6
Actually, I am thoroughly enjoying the irony that has come out.
The Bush Haters ALL glomed onto the fact the UN inspectors categorically stated ALL of Saddam's Binary Sarin Shells were nothing more than left overs from the 1980's wars. This as late as the 1998 Inspectors.
NOW when we have proof that a Binary Sarin shell was found that could not have been from that time period due to how viable the Sarin Agents were found to be, the Bush haters have to twist and spin.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:06:57 GMT -6
So sorry. The UN inspectors said all the 1980's Binary Shells were of the low grade stuff, NOT long lasting stuff you NOW try to claim is true. The question has been about long-lasting binary weapons from the beginning. From the CIA page that we have been discussing, first paragraph: 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.[/blockquote]
www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html Wait a minute, all you Bush Haters said the UN Inspectors had determined there was NO SUCH THING when they left in 1998.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:09:50 GMT -6
Sorry HonkeyB, Binary Sarin shells HAVE to be kept in controlled environments to remain viable. I am not going to post for the second or third time from a knowledgeable source. You saying otherwise not only doesn't make it fact, it makes you appear...... well, I'll let that go. The CIA said the rounds APPEARED to be from the 1980's and for now the fifth time or so I agree the ACTUAL ARTILLERY SHELL CASINGS could be that old. It does not mean the Binary Sarin Agents inside them are that old. But we must default to that conclusion unless you have evidence that the shells were reopened and refilled. You have presented zero. The CIA made no mention of such a possibility in their report. You're confused again. You keep mixing up binary sarin precursors with the sarin itself. Yes the SARIN the Iraqis produced in the Iran/Iraq war was DELIBERATELY made to have a short shelf life. That sarin degraded rapidly, as it was expected to do. But BINARY WEAPONS DO NOT CONTAIN SARIN. only its precursors. The binary weapon found in 2004, which yielded 40% sarin after remote detonation, would therefore not be subject to the natural degradation of sarin.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:12:02 GMT -6
Sorry HonkeyB, Binary Sarin shells HAVE to be kept in controlled environments to remain viable. I am not going to post for the second or third time from a knowledgeable source. You saying otherwise not only doesn't make it fact, it makes you appear...... well, I'll let that go. The CIA said the rounds APPEARED to be from the 1980's and for now the fifth time or so I agree the ACTUAL ARTILLERY SHELL CASINGS could be that old. It does not mean the Binary Sarin Agents inside them are that old. But we must default to that conclusion unless you have evidence that the shells were reopened and refilled. You have presented zero. The CIA made no mention of such a possibility in their report. You're confused again. You keep mixing up binary sarin precursors with the sarin itself. Yes the SARIN the Iraqis produced in the Iran/Iraq war was DELIBERATELY made to have a short shelf life. That sarin degraded rapidly, as it was expected to do. But BINARY WEAPONS DO NOT CONTAIN SARIN. only its precursors. The binary weapon found in 2004, which yielded 40% sarin after remote detonation, would therefore not be subject to the natural degradation of sarin. I am not the one confused. If anyone is confused, you are. The information supplied stated the BINARY Sarin ARTILLERY SHELLS were stored in refrigerated igloo's.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:12:12 GMT -6
Actually, I am thoroughly enjoying the irony that has come out. The Bush Haters ALL glomed onto the fact the UN inspectors categorically stated ALL of Saddam's Binary Sarin Shells were nothing more than left overs from the 1980's wars. This as late as the 1998 Inspectors. NOW when we have proof that a Binary Sarin shell was found that could not have been from that time period due to how viable the Sarin Agents were found to be, the Bush haters have to twist and spin. Your supposed 'proof' is that the sarin was too viable to have been from that period. But if course it wasn't made in that period. It was made THAT DAY when the shell was remote detonated. That's how BINARY weapons work.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:14:45 GMT -6
Actually, I am thoroughly enjoying the irony that has come out. The Bush Haters ALL glomed onto the fact the UN inspectors categorically stated ALL of Saddam's Binary Sarin Shells were nothing more than left overs from the 1980's wars. This as late as the 1998 Inspectors. NOW when we have proof that a Binary Sarin shell was found that could not have been from that time period due to how viable the Sarin Agents were found to be, the Bush haters have to twist and spin. Your supposed 'proof' is that the sarin was too viable to have been from that period. But if course it wasn't made in that period. It was made THAT DAY when the shell was remote detonated. That's how BINARY weapons work. Yep, that prooves you don't understand what you keep claiming. The Binary Sarin shells Iraq used in the 80's had to be stored in refrigerated igloos to keep them from degrading. The Sarin had not actually been mixed in them either.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:17:47 GMT -6
ALSO, the Binary Sarin shells in STORAGE for 2 years in 1991 had ALSO NOT BEEN MIXED into Sarin when they degraded down to 10 percent to as low as less than 1 percent.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:24:17 GMT -6
You DO realize that Sarin in artillery shells CAN NOT BE MIXED until after they are fired, don't you? If it was already mixed, the artillery crew members would get Sarin poisioning when they fired the rounds.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:27:33 GMT -6
Your supposed 'proof' is that the sarin was too viable to have been from that period. But if course it wasn't made in that period. It was made THAT DAY when the shell was remote detonated. That's how BINARY weapons work. Yep, that prooves you don't understand what you keep claiming. The Binary Sarin shells Iraq used in the 80's had to be stored in refrigerated igloos to keep them from degrading. The Sarin had not actually been mixed in them either. You just made that up. Let's remind ourselves of your source again Mr Fisher: 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. The igloos were used for unary munitions in which the sarin was already present. There is no need for igloos for binary munitions. The stable precursors of the sarin do not degrade in normal conditions, as I have already proved with LINKS.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:30:45 GMT -6
Yep, that prooves you don't understand what you keep claiming. The Binary Sarin shells Iraq used in the 80's had to be stored in refrigerated igloos to keep them from degrading. The Sarin had not actually been mixed in them either. You just made that up. Let's remind ourselves of your source again Mr Fisher: 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. The igloos were used for unary munitions in which the sarin was already present. There is no need for igloos for binary munitions. The stable precursors of the sarin do not degrade in normal conditions, as I have already proved with LINKS. LOL. You don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. You know NOTHING about artillery shells it is very clear to see. The Sarin filled shells were BINARY shells.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:33:01 GMT -6
You DO realize that Sarin in artillery shells CAN NOT BE MIXED until after they are fired, don't you? If it was already mixed, the artillery crew members would get Sarin poisioning when they fired the rounds. Lol. More made up stuff. There are two kinds of weapon used: Unary weapons, in which the sarin is already present. In such weapons, it is necessary to distill the sarin carefully and add stabilizers in order to stave off degradation. If done properly, the unary weapon can have a shelf life of several decades. During the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq skipped the costly distillation process entirely because it expected to deploy its unary weapons within days. To stave off the fast degradation of the unary weapons, the weapons were stored in igloos. These are the weapons that, after 2 years, had less than 10% purity. Binary weapons, in which the sarin is not present, but its precursors are. These weapons require no special storage facilities because the precursors are extremely stable. The sarin is mixed at the time the weapon s deployed, either manually or via a mechanism in the weapon (usually spinning). The weapon found in Iraq in 2004 was just such a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:34:16 GMT -6
You just made that up. Let's remind ourselves of your source again Mr Fisher: 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. The igloos were used for unary munitions in which the sarin was already present. There is no need for igloos for binary munitions. The stable precursors of the sarin do not degrade in normal conditions, as I have already proved with LINKS. LOL. You don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. You know NOTHING about artillery shells it is very clear to see. The Sarin filled shells were BINARY shells. Then why did they need the igloos? The precursors of sarin are very stable, as I have shown with links. Indeed, the POINT of binary weapons is that they are very stable. Modified to add: Besides which, the sentence 'The Sarin filled shells were BINARY shells' is a contradiction. If they were binary shells then they weren't sarin filled.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 15, 2011 17:40:50 GMT -6
LOL. You don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. You know NOTHING about artillery shells it is very clear to see. The Sarin filled shells were BINARY shells. Then why did they need the igloos? The precursors of sarin are very stable, as I have shown with links. Indeed, the POINT of binary weapons is that they are very stable. Modified to add: Besides which, the sentence 'The Sarin filled shells were BINARY shells' is a contradiction. If they were binary shells then they weren't sarin filled. For the third, fourth or fifth time - HEAT (as in the deserts of Iraq) degrades the chemical agents in the binary shells.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 15, 2011 17:57:18 GMT -6
Then why did they need the igloos? The precursors of sarin are very stable, as I have shown with links. Indeed, the POINT of binary weapons is that they are very stable. Modified to add: Besides which, the sentence 'The Sarin filled shells were BINARY shells' is a contradiction. If they were binary shells then they weren't sarin filled. For the third, fourth or fifth time - HEAT (as in the deserts of Iraq) degrades the chemical agents in the binary shells. False. Another CIA document follows. I have highlighted some parts you might be interested in...
STABILITY OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILE
IRAQ HAS A SIZEABLE CW STOCKPILE, AT LEAST SOME OF WHICH CAN SURVIVE
SEVERAL YEARS OF STORAGE.
IRAQ'S MUSTARD, THE CW AGENT MOST USED IN THE WAR WITH IRAN, IS
QUITE STABLE; MUCH OF IT SHOULD REMAIN EFFECTIVE FOR SOME TIME.
THE UNITARY FORM OF IRAQ'S SARIN - ITS PRINCIPAL NERVE AGENT - HAD
A RELATIVELY SHORT SHELF LIFE DURING THE WAR WITH IRAN.
THE IRAQIS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM:
THEY HAVE TRIED TO INCREASE UNITARY SARIN SHELF LIFE BY IMPROVING
THE PURITY OF THE PRECURSOR CHEMICALS AND REFINING PRODUCTION
PROCESSES.
THEY HAVE DEVELOPED AND TESTED BINARY NERVE AGENT ROUNDS FOR
ARTILLERY SHELLS AND BINARY MISSILE WARHEADS AS WELL.
CIA BELIEVES THAT BY NOW IRAQ HAS EITHER INCREASED THE SHELF LIFE OF
UNITARY SARIN OR PRODUCED LARGE QUANTITIES OF BINARY MUNITIONS.
PROBLEMS WITH SHELF LIFE
DURING THE WAR WITH IRAN, IRAQ USED LARGE
QUANTITIES OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST
IRANIAN GROUND FORCES. THE PRINCIPLE
AGENTS USED WERE THE BLISTER AGENT
MUSTARD AND THE NONPERSISTENT NERVE
AGENT SARIN. THE NONPERSISTENT NERVE
AGENT TABUN AND THE PERSISTENT NERVE
AGENT GF WERE ALSO USED.
DESPITE THE GENERAL SOPHISTICATION OF
IRAQ'S CW PRODUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE,
SOME OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL AGENTS HAD A
SHORT SHELF LIFE, MOSTLY OWING TO IMPURITIES
IN THE PRECURSOR CHEMICALS. CIA BELIEVES
THAT SOME SARIN HAD A SHELF LIFE OF ONLY A
FEW WEEKS.
IN
1989 THE IRAQIS DESTROYED 40 OR MORE TONS
OF SARIN THAT HAD DECOMPOSED.
EFFORTS TO LENGTHEN SHELF LIFE
IRAQ HAS TRIED TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IN TWO
WAYS. FIRST, IT ATTEMPTED, WITH FOREIGN
ASSISTANCE, TO IMPROVE THE SHELF-LIFE OF ITS
UNITARY SARIN BY INCREASING, THE PURITY OF
THE PRECURSOR AND INTERMEDIATE CHEMICALS
AND-REFINING PRODUCTION PROCESSES.
SECOND, IT BEGAN TO DEVELOP BINARY
CHEMICAL WEAPONS. IN A BINARY MUNITION,
THE TWO PRECURSOR CHEMICALS ARE STORED
SEPARATELY AND ONLY MIXED TO FORM THE
CHEMICAL AGENT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR
WHEN THE ROUND IS IN FLIGHT. THUS, THE
SHELF LIFE OF THE AGENT BECOMES IRRELEVANT;
MOREOVER, THE MUNITION IS SAFER TO HANDLE
AND STORE. BY 1990 IRAQ HAD SUCCESSFULLY
TESTED 155-MM ARTILLERY SHELLS AND OTHER
BINARY MUNITIONS AND LAUNCHED A BALLISTIC
MISSILE WITH A BINARY WARHEAD AS WELL.
CIA HOLDS THAT THE STOCKS OF SARIN MAY
REMAIN VIABLE WELL BEYOND MARCH. CIA
ANALYSTS BELIEVE THAT THE SHELF LIFE PROBLEM
WAS ONLY TEMPORARY AND THAT THE IRAQIS
CAN NOW PRODUCE UNITARY AGENTS OF
SUFFICIENT QUALITY BY ADDING A STABILIZER OR
IMPROVING THE PRODUCTION PROCESS.
CIA ALSO BELIEVES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF IRAQ'S NERVE AGENT STOCKPILE
NOW CONSISTS OF BINARY CHEMICAL WEAPONS
WHICH WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO
DEGRADATION.
IMPLICATIONS FOR DESERT STORM
THE SHORT SHELF LIFE OF IRAQ'S NERVE AGENTS
WAS NOT A PROBLEM DURING THE WAR WITH
IRAN, BECAUSE IRAQ'S CW MANUFACTURING
FACILITIES WERE ABLE TO PRODUCE LARGE
QUANTITIES OF AGENT SHORTLY BEFORE IT WAS TO
BE USED IN BATTLE. NOW, HOWEVER, DAMAGE
TO MOST OF IRAQ'S KNOWN CW PRODUCTION
FACILITIES IS LIKELY TO HAVE DECREASED ITS
ABILITY TO COME UP WITH FRESHLY MADE
BATCHES OF CW MUNITIONS ON DEMAND.
CIA BELIEVES THAT IRAQ HAS RETAINED SOME
PRODUCTION CAPABILITY BY MOVING SOME OF
THE ORIGINAL PRODUCTION UNITS (UNIVERSAL
PLANTS) FROM SAMARRA TO UNKNOWN SITES
JUST AFTER THE INVASION OF KUWAIT. THEY
STATE THAT THESE PLANTS ARE SMALL, EASILY
MOVED, AND COULD BE RAPIDLY REASSEMBLED
AND MADE OPERATIONAL.
A DURABLE STOCKPILE
WHETHER OR NOT SARIN STOCKS REMAIN VIABLE
OVER THE LONG TERM, ALL BELIEVE THAT IRAQ
HAS A SIZEABLE CW STOCKPILE THAT IS
DURABLE ENOUGH TO SURVIVE SEVERAL YEARS OF
STORAGE IF NOT DESTROYED BY COALITION
FORCES.
WE ESTIMATE THAT IRAQ HAD A STOCKPILE OF
AT LEAST 1,000 TONS OF CW AGENTS AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE CONFLICT WITH THE
COALITION FORCES. WE BELIEVE THE PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS OF THE STOCKPILE ARE MUSTARD
AND NERVE AGENTS.
WE ESTIMATE THAT THE PORTION OF IRAQ'S
MUSTARD STOCKS THAT WAS FRESH AT THE TIME
OF THE INVASION OF KUWAIT WOULD RETAIN ITS
EFFECTIVENESS FOR SOME TIME BEYOND ANY
LIKELY DURATION OF CONFLICT WITH COALITION
FORCES.
CIA BELIEVES THAT LITTLE IF ANY
MUSTARD WAS CARRIED OVER FROM THE END OF
THE WAR WITH IRAN.
www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/cia/19960715/071596_cia_72569_72569_01.html
|
|