02-28-2003, 07:50 PM
Hi,
Gas, as I've said before, is not a problem in the quantities a terrorist can normally deliver. It does require a fair amount to be effective and it does disperse with wind and (most) break down with the UV in sunlight.
A few things SFC Red Thomas (Ret) either didn't know or chose not to say: the military wear combat uniforms with long sleeves and bloused boots to reduce the possibility of coming into contact with chemical agents. In case of potential imminent gas attacks, full protective gear is donned. Civilians don't do or have either. Thus a civilian population is at higher risk.
These are not gasses; they are vapors and/or airborne particles.
This is half wrong, maybe all wrong. A "vapor" is a gas. It is the gas phase of something that is normally (at the given temperature and pressure) a liquid or a solid. I don't think any of the chemical agents are particles (i.e., finely ground solids) since it is harder to make a solid that is as chemically active as a liquid or gas. And he left out what most of the "gases" really are, namely aerosols. Which is a fancy word for small drops of liquid suspended in air. That is, AFAIK, the most common form for chemical agents since it gives easier handling and denser storage with almost the same coverage as a gas.
Also, being vapors and airborne particles, the agents are heavier than air,
Right but for the wrong reason. As I said above, vapors *are* gasses. There is no reason to say that vapors are heavier than air, there are some that are there are some that aren't. The reason chemical agents are heavier than air is because they are designed that way. If a chemical agent were lighter than air, when released it would float *up* into the atmosphere. Not a whole lot of enemies up there to attack. And a much bigger volume to disperse into.
This stuff won't work when it's freezing,
Unless he is talking about the freezing point *of the agent*, temperature has nothing to do with its effectiveness. The reactions occur on the skin or in the lungs of a human, which are at a pretty constant temperature. The freezing point of the agent could well be below the coldest temperature naturally occurring anywhere on Earth. I think he's got two concepts confused. Someone said "freezing point" and he though it meant of water.
Attackers have to get this stuff on you, or, get you to inhale it, for it to work.
Yes, clearly it has to come into contact with you to work. It doesn't work by "action at a distance". However, the implication that you have to walk into a cloud of this stuff is also wrong. A number of chemical agents, dispersed as aerosols, are designed to coat structures. These agents condense on the structure much as water vapor condenses to form dew. Droplets of these condensed agents then can survive for a long time in shady areas. Even days after an attack, rubbing up to one of those areas can cause harm.
This man is clearly not a weapons designer, nor a chemist, nor (as Occhi points or re using mustard gas) even well informed in the history of gas usage. More knowledgeable than the media? Sure, but my cats meet that criterion. An expert? Maybe on battlefield precautions (which is what a DI teaches), but clearly not on chemical weapons in general.
OK, let's go to nukes. Which are not typical terrorist devices. The ability to make nukes requires a large infrastructure that is not portable and not easily hidden. However, we may be entering an era when nukes might be purchasable.
These are the only "real" weapons of mass destruction on Earth.
Bad start. Biologicals have the ability to do considerably more damage than nukes in the hands of terrorists. Again, for tactical purposes he is right. But clearly he doesn't realize that terrorism is strategic and not tactical in nature. The destruction of the WTC, or of a nightclub or a bus, does not have any *tactical* purpose.
Any nuclear weapons used by terrorists will be low yield devices and EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse and it will fry every electronic device for a good distance.
The strength of EMP from a device is highly dependent on the yield of the device. The EMP effects he describes are only important for a very high yield device. For a low yield device, to be close enough that the EMP is significant means you are close enough to be dead. What he average person doesn't realize is that the range in yield of nukes varies by over a factor of a thousand.
I am not going to bother saying anything else about nuclear. It is clear that SFC Red Thomas (Ret) knows nothing about it, again, other than the dubious information given to the troops during the cold war for battlefield conditions. He completely ignores the difference between clean weapons and dirty, the difference in effects from an air burst and a ground burst, etc. What he offers is the pap given to the troops. It *might* help them survive tactical weapons, but if not -- well they were "disposable" assets anyway, only meant to hold the Soviet tank advance back long enough for the "real" forces to get into action (i.e., the BIG nuclear option).
Finally there's biological warfare. There's not much to cover here. Basic personal hygiene and sanitation will take you further than a million doctors. Wash your hands often, don't share drinks, food, sloppy kisses,etc., ...with strangers. Keep your garbage can with
a tight lid on it, don't have standing water (like old buckets, ditches, or kiddy pools) laying around to allow mosquitoes breeding room. This stuff is carried by vectors, that is bugs, rodents, and contaminated material. If biological warfare is as easy as the TV makes it sound, why has Saddam Hussein spent twenty years, millions, and millions of dollars trying to get it right? If you're clean of person and home, eat well and are active, you're
going to live.
Holy crap, Batman!! He's gone from a little knowledge to complete ignorance. Is he talking about biological weapons or STD? I don't think he has a clue. The holy grail of bio weapon research is an organism that: (1) is infectious for at least a couple of days before the carrier shows symptoms, (2) is transmitted through the air, (3) has a very high mortality rate even with treatment, and (4) can be vaccinated against with a high probability of immunity or greatly reduced symptoms. This is *not* plague transmitted by fleas or malarial mosquitoes. Nor is it a few letters with a white powder in it.
Frankly, I think SFC Red Thomas (Ret) is just as ignorant and just as useless as the media and the politicians. While they overstressed the problem, he confuses it with something entirely different. The reaction of a military force on the battlefield and that of civilians in their home is, of necessity must be, different. He is a product of the "one size fits all" mentality and his size is just as much wrong as what he is speaking against.
--Pete
Gas, as I've said before, is not a problem in the quantities a terrorist can normally deliver. It does require a fair amount to be effective and it does disperse with wind and (most) break down with the UV in sunlight.
A few things SFC Red Thomas (Ret) either didn't know or chose not to say: the military wear combat uniforms with long sleeves and bloused boots to reduce the possibility of coming into contact with chemical agents. In case of potential imminent gas attacks, full protective gear is donned. Civilians don't do or have either. Thus a civilian population is at higher risk.
These are not gasses; they are vapors and/or airborne particles.
This is half wrong, maybe all wrong. A "vapor" is a gas. It is the gas phase of something that is normally (at the given temperature and pressure) a liquid or a solid. I don't think any of the chemical agents are particles (i.e., finely ground solids) since it is harder to make a solid that is as chemically active as a liquid or gas. And he left out what most of the "gases" really are, namely aerosols. Which is a fancy word for small drops of liquid suspended in air. That is, AFAIK, the most common form for chemical agents since it gives easier handling and denser storage with almost the same coverage as a gas.
Also, being vapors and airborne particles, the agents are heavier than air,
Right but for the wrong reason. As I said above, vapors *are* gasses. There is no reason to say that vapors are heavier than air, there are some that are there are some that aren't. The reason chemical agents are heavier than air is because they are designed that way. If a chemical agent were lighter than air, when released it would float *up* into the atmosphere. Not a whole lot of enemies up there to attack. And a much bigger volume to disperse into.
This stuff won't work when it's freezing,
Unless he is talking about the freezing point *of the agent*, temperature has nothing to do with its effectiveness. The reactions occur on the skin or in the lungs of a human, which are at a pretty constant temperature. The freezing point of the agent could well be below the coldest temperature naturally occurring anywhere on Earth. I think he's got two concepts confused. Someone said "freezing point" and he though it meant of water.
Attackers have to get this stuff on you, or, get you to inhale it, for it to work.
Yes, clearly it has to come into contact with you to work. It doesn't work by "action at a distance". However, the implication that you have to walk into a cloud of this stuff is also wrong. A number of chemical agents, dispersed as aerosols, are designed to coat structures. These agents condense on the structure much as water vapor condenses to form dew. Droplets of these condensed agents then can survive for a long time in shady areas. Even days after an attack, rubbing up to one of those areas can cause harm.
This man is clearly not a weapons designer, nor a chemist, nor (as Occhi points or re using mustard gas) even well informed in the history of gas usage. More knowledgeable than the media? Sure, but my cats meet that criterion. An expert? Maybe on battlefield precautions (which is what a DI teaches), but clearly not on chemical weapons in general.
OK, let's go to nukes. Which are not typical terrorist devices. The ability to make nukes requires a large infrastructure that is not portable and not easily hidden. However, we may be entering an era when nukes might be purchasable.
These are the only "real" weapons of mass destruction on Earth.
Bad start. Biologicals have the ability to do considerably more damage than nukes in the hands of terrorists. Again, for tactical purposes he is right. But clearly he doesn't realize that terrorism is strategic and not tactical in nature. The destruction of the WTC, or of a nightclub or a bus, does not have any *tactical* purpose.
Any nuclear weapons used by terrorists will be low yield devices and EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse and it will fry every electronic device for a good distance.
The strength of EMP from a device is highly dependent on the yield of the device. The EMP effects he describes are only important for a very high yield device. For a low yield device, to be close enough that the EMP is significant means you are close enough to be dead. What he average person doesn't realize is that the range in yield of nukes varies by over a factor of a thousand.
I am not going to bother saying anything else about nuclear. It is clear that SFC Red Thomas (Ret) knows nothing about it, again, other than the dubious information given to the troops during the cold war for battlefield conditions. He completely ignores the difference between clean weapons and dirty, the difference in effects from an air burst and a ground burst, etc. What he offers is the pap given to the troops. It *might* help them survive tactical weapons, but if not -- well they were "disposable" assets anyway, only meant to hold the Soviet tank advance back long enough for the "real" forces to get into action (i.e., the BIG nuclear option).
Finally there's biological warfare. There's not much to cover here. Basic personal hygiene and sanitation will take you further than a million doctors. Wash your hands often, don't share drinks, food, sloppy kisses,etc., ...with strangers. Keep your garbage can with
a tight lid on it, don't have standing water (like old buckets, ditches, or kiddy pools) laying around to allow mosquitoes breeding room. This stuff is carried by vectors, that is bugs, rodents, and contaminated material. If biological warfare is as easy as the TV makes it sound, why has Saddam Hussein spent twenty years, millions, and millions of dollars trying to get it right? If you're clean of person and home, eat well and are active, you're
going to live.
Holy crap, Batman!! He's gone from a little knowledge to complete ignorance. Is he talking about biological weapons or STD? I don't think he has a clue. The holy grail of bio weapon research is an organism that: (1) is infectious for at least a couple of days before the carrier shows symptoms, (2) is transmitted through the air, (3) has a very high mortality rate even with treatment, and (4) can be vaccinated against with a high probability of immunity or greatly reduced symptoms. This is *not* plague transmitted by fleas or malarial mosquitoes. Nor is it a few letters with a white powder in it.
Frankly, I think SFC Red Thomas (Ret) is just as ignorant and just as useless as the media and the politicians. While they overstressed the problem, he confuses it with something entirely different. The reaction of a military force on the battlefield and that of civilians in their home is, of necessity must be, different. He is a product of the "one size fits all" mentality and his size is just as much wrong as what he is speaking against.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?