[antimedia] antimedia: How dangerous were the 500 shells found inIraq?....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Very good 

-----Original Message-----
From: antimedia-bounces at lists.powerblogs.com
[mailto:antimedia-bounces at lists.powerblogs.com] On Behalf Of Email
subscription to blog articles
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:52 PM
To: antimedia at lists.powerblogs.com
Subject: [antimedia] antimedia: How dangerous were the 500 shells found
inIraq?....

Posted by antimedia:
How dangerous were the 500 shells found in Iraq?....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1151110331.shtml


   ....According to the [1]Chemical Weapons Convention, sarin is defined
   as a weapon of mass destruction. The only question, then, is how
   viable would the sarin in binary artillery shells be, if those shells
   were as much as 18 years old.
   I'm no expert, but it would appear that the sarin shells found in Iraq
   were [2]very dangerous. (Apparently, [3]so were the mustard shells,
   according to UNMOVIC in 2003.)

     Efforts to lengthen shelf life
     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

   If the issue of shelf life is irrelevant, then the sarin in binary
   artillery shells is just as viable today as it was when the shell was
   first put together, no matter how long ago that was. In fact, the
   sarin doesn't really exist until the two precursors, methylphosphonyl
   difluoride and a mixture of isopropyl alcohol and isopropyl amine, are
   mixed together. All someone would have to do is repackage the
   precursors in a form that was more usable (e.g. two glass jars taped
   together with a grenade attached), and a large number of people could
   be killed by the release of the gas.
   The left, of course, is [4]dismissing the claim as ridiculous.

     MSNBC's Keith Olbermann ridiculed the finding of "WMD: weapons of
     minor discomfort," snidely suggesting "you might get a burn if you
     rub these weapons directly onto your skin."

   I wonder if Mr. Olbermann would be willing to test his theory?

References

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
   3.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/223oxbku.a
sp?pg=1
   4. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060623.asp#1

_______________________________________________
antimedia mailing list
antimedia at lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/antimedia