Syrian civil war

[kgambit]

 

Links?

http://www.opcw.org/news/article/the-sarin-gas-attack-in-japan-and-the-related-forensic-investigation/

Too many details but the essentials are somewhere in the forensics section.

 

 

I'll concede that the Sarin liquid in Tokyo was not pure, I never disputed that.  My sources say 35% with the composition spelled out as follows.

 

Sarin 35%  

diethyl-aniline DEA (10%),

hydrogen methylphosphonofluoridate MPF (10%),

DIMP (1%),

DFP (0.1%)

petroleum ether (hexane) 43%.

 

Everything except the hexane is either a precursor (MPF), a reagant (DEA) or a byproduct (DIMP & DFP). The diethyl-aniline for example was used to neutralize the acid formed during two steps of the synthesis.  The DEA was a substitute because the AUM chemist couldn't get access to the correct base.  Using DEA reduced the purity of the final liquid.

 

The hexane was added after the synthesis was complete to make the resulting liquid easier to carry and become widespread. The dilution of the sarin liquid by the addition of the hexane is not a byproduct of synthesis: it is a direct result of the choice of the mode of dissemination and delivery.  

 

If you factor the dilution into account, the synthesized purity of the sarin was 61% not 35%.   

 

In Tokyo the sarin liquid was placed in 11 plastic bags; 2 were never punctured and one was punctured a single time and was recovered half full.  At best, that's 77% efficient and combined with the reduction from dilution you get a final delivery system efficiency of (.35/.61) x (.77) = .44  or 44%. 

 

In fairness, the % of DEA and hexane are wildly different between two souces (but strangely the % of the combination doesn't).  It does change the numbers but it's not that important compared to the effects of aerosol delivery systems as I maintained earlier.

 

Sarin gas doesn't quite follow Huber's law but it's close.  Huber's law generally states that the lethal exposure time is inversely proportional to the concentration of gas. So yes, a purer Sarin sample would have increased casualties.  The higher the concentration, the less time you can spend before exposure is lethal. The trick with Sarin is that its lethality also increases with higher concentrations and shorter exposure times.  The goal should be to increase concentrations so the lethal exposure time doesn't give your intended victims opportunity to flee the scene and limit their exposure.  Aerosols do the trick. 

 

There are two major advantages to delivering sarin through an aerosol. An aerosol greatly increases the exposed surface of the liquid.  Anyone who has studied first year thermodynamics knows that the evaporation rate of a liquid is directly proportional to the exposed surface area.  Aerosols also introduce a far greater percentage of the liquid to the atmosphere in a given amount of time (at least when compared to the couple of dozen punctures from Tokyo). 

 

Don't believe me?  Try this thought experiment: 

 

Take a pool of liquid (for the sake of argument assume it's a disk and the height is proportional to the radius).  The volume of the liquid is always proportional to radius^3 and the surface area is always proportional to radius^2.  Now turn that one big pool into 27,000 little pools; each with 1/27,000 of the volume of the original. There is still the same amount of liquid but the total surface area of all those little pools is 30 times greater than before.  That increased surface area translates to an evaporation rate that is 30 times greater than the single puddle.  That gets the liquid in gaseous form a LOT faster than allowing it to evaporate thru a couple of dozen punctured holes as in Tokyo, thereby creating a much higher concentration in a very short time.     

 

So you tell me which is likely to have the biggest impact?  Increasing the purity of the sample (and the subsequent concentration) by a factor of 3 and delivering it ala Tokyo or taking the original sarin and delivering it via aerosols with at least a 30 fold increase in concentration ?  I maintain its the latter.

 

"Robert Kupperman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, for example, was quoted as saying that "Had the terrorists come up with a decent aerosol delivery system,...they would have killed 300 people or more"   Interviews with {aum} indicated that they had originally planned to aerosalize the sarin but for some reason didn't carry through."    from  http://dead-planet.net/chemical-terrorism/canada/postscr_e.html

 

"Perhaps the most important factor in the effectiveness of chemical weapons is the efficiency of dissemination."  from  http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html

 

 

 

EDIT: @Kgambit:

 

I don't believe there's the stomach in the West for intervention. I don't believe Turkey in particular is up for it, given they could be shelled, and have their aircraft targeted with state of the art SAMs. Therefore what could the rebels really lose? Only the logistic support they currently (appear to ) enjoy. And that would only isolate the moderates, not the extremists.

 

 

France is doing a lot of saber rattling, so who knows?  The possibility of western intervention could entail more arms, a no-fly zone and other bennies ....  hard to say though.

Edited August 23, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

*I don't understand Assad's reluctance to let the UN inspectors into the area either.

 

It isn't an area he controls and by most reports has not controlled for a year, presumably they would have to take the pressure off while the inspectors were there. More fundamentally- and assuming he didn't do it- it seems likely that there are suspicions on the Syrian side about the timing in a more specific way than others might have, he may have concerns that despite not having done it there might be credible evidence that he had ie a proper 'frame job'; or that the inspectors may be biased. There's no doubt that there are groups arrayed against Assad that are capable of doing a frame job, in both the sense of not being too worried about Martyrs going to heaven and in terms of being able to provide the needed supplies and expertise. And, of course, there's the slippery slope argument. Vary their mandate to look at this incident, next it will something else and before you know it you have UN teams, potentially infiltrated liberally by western spies, all over the place looking at everything when there's no doubt at all that's there is stuff he wants kept secret.

[kgambit]

 

*I don't understand Assad's reluctance to let the UN inspectors into the area either.

 

It isn't an area he controls and by most reports has not controlled for a year, presumably they would have to take the pressure off while the inspectors were there. More fundamentally- and assuming he didn't do it- it seems likely that there are suspicions on the Syrian side about the timing in a more specific way than others might have, he may have concerns that despite not having done it there might be credible evidence that he had ie a proper 'frame job'; or that the inspectors may be biased. There's no doubt that there are groups arrayed against Assad that are capable of doing a frame job, in both the sense of not being too worried about Martyrs going to heaven and in terms of being able to provide the needed supplies and expertise. And, of course, there's the slippery slope argument. Vary their mandate to look at this incident, next it will something else and before you know it you have UN teams, potentially infiltrated liberally by western spies, all over the place looking at everything when there's no doubt at all that's there is stuff he wants kept secret.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification on the area.  I knew if was generally eastern Damascus but the front lines can be fairly fluid.  Interesting rundown. 

[Walsingham]

I knew it wasn't Assad controlled, but my understanding was that he was obstructing the team anyway.

[Woldan]

USA buys 592,825 AK Magazines

[Gfted1]

Im a bit surprised that we don't have piles of those laying everywhere.

[Walsingham]

Im a bit surprised that we don't have piles of those laying everywhere.

 

I have the same problem with elastic bands. I know I have thousands, but never when I need them.

[Woldan]

They should have bought them 592,825 tonnes of rocks instead, those rebels can't hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn but they're pretty good at volley-headshooting moving people with stones from various distances.  Of course they have thousands of years of target practice under their belts. 

Edited August 24, 2013 by Woldan

[Walsingham]

It strikes me that we could contribute military capability, and do so without contributing to terrorism, if we gave the rebels field dressings, combat first aid training, body armour, and good boots. Moreover, speaking purely as the Uk, this would boost UK manufacturing into the bargain.

[Woldan]

 if we gave the rebels field dressings...

 

 

I hate the term ''rebels'', it seems that the biggest part of the army opposing Assad consists of war tourists and Al-Qaeda trash from all over the world with the goal to create another terror Islam token country to fight the evil West.

And its painful to watch that America is supporting and probably going to fight on the wrong side. 

[Walsingham]

 

 if we gave the rebels field dressings...

 

 

I hate the term ''rebels'', it seems that the biggest part of the army opposing Assad consists of war tourists and Al-Qaeda trash from all over the world with the goal to create another terror Islam token country to fight the evil West.

And its painful to watch that America is supporting and probably going to fight on the wrong side. 

 

 

I think you are underestimating the State Department  and CIA if you believe they don't know that the rebels are fractured.

 

However, I also think you are mistaken if you think the only rebels are war tourists et al. I don't know the figures, but there must be tens of thousands in the field, and they could hardly have all bussed in. Also, just watch the interviews available with foreign fighters. They often make remarks indicating how isolated they are from normal Syrians.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Zoraptor]

The last figures I saw and which I thought credible (so take with a grain of salt) was around 1/3 of the rebels being broadly in the 'jihadi' groups. The problem though is a bit like that in the Spanish Civil War where theoretically the communists were a relatively small proportion of the Republican side- but they had most of the well armed and more successful units as they were actively supplied by their benefactor, and got a lot of extra volunteers due to their underlying philosophy. So you had a general shift into communist affiliated units even amongst those who were not communist simply due to them being more effective, plus committed communists from other countries being attracted as well- replace communist with jihadi and you've got pretty close to the Syrian situation. For the last year or so probably 3/4 of the time you hear about the rebels doing well, as opposed to losing, it's Al Nusra or similar doing well.

 

The west may hope that arming the rebels more generally will help even out the balance a bit more. It's pretty forlorn though, there's already a fair bit of infighting between theoretically allied rebel groupings, much of the attractiveness the rebels had for minorities is going if not gone (eg Kurds vs AlQ, whatever Turkey may say there's likely to be kurdish formations from Iraq or Turkey fighting against the 'rebels' soon if not already) and it seems that die has already been cast.

[Walsingham]

Like Zor I have difficulty viewing this outside the lense of the Spanish civil war. But I'd also put it in context of the Sov-Afghan war, when it comes to understanding the dynamics of how foreign support works.

[BruceVC]

The last figures I saw and which I thought credible (so take with a grain of salt) was around 1/3 of the rebels being broadly in the 'jihadi' groups. The problem though is a bit like that in the Spanish Civil War where theoretically the communists were a relatively small proportion of the Republican side- but they had most of the well armed and more successful units as they were actively supplied by their benefactor, and got a lot of extra volunteers due to their underlying philosophy. So you had a general shift into communist affiliated units even amongst those who were not communist simply due to them being more effective, plus committed communists from other countries being attracted as well- replace communist with jihadi and you've got pretty close to the Syrian situation. For the last year or so probably 3/4 of the time you hear about the rebels doing well, as opposed to losing, it's Al Nusra or similar doing well.

 

The west may hope that arming the rebels more generally will help even out the balance a bit more. It's pretty forlorn though, there's already a fair bit of infighting between theoretically allied rebel groupings, much of the attractiveness the rebels had for minorities is going if not gone (eg Kurds vs AlQ, whatever Turkey may say there's likely to be kurdish formations from Iraq or Turkey fighting against the 'rebels' soon if not already) and it seems that die has already been cast.

Its a pity that Assad refused to make any meaningful political changes, Syria is also a vivid reminder of what happens without Western intervention and a civil war is allowed to be dragged on. As I mentioned in the past Libya is a good example of how the West can assist with regime change

[josan motierre]

The more I hear of the Syrian Civil War the more clear it becomes to me that the Assad Regime is simply the lesser of two evils. The Rebels are far too splintered to warrant backing. Even though there are some good rebels they are far too few. You'll end up with another Egypt if the Assad Regime falls - if you're lucky.

 

Intervention doesn't win 'the west' any allies. Even if you carry a drowning country out of the water, it'll still be your fault later that they have to dry themselves or that you didn't leave them a big enough towel to do it with. Let the Middle East deal with it. I don't think any of them helped bail out Greece.

 

These countries aren't even ready for democracy. They lack the human rights framework underneath to support it properly. Don't agree? Egypt is proof. Tunisia is proof. I think some of these countries need to find their own way without outside help.

[BruceVC]

The more I hear of the Syrian Civil War the more clear it becomes to me that the Assad Regime is simply the lesser of two evils. The Rebels are far too splintered to warrant backing. Even though there are some good rebels they are far too few. You'll end up with another Egypt if the Assad Regime falls - if you're lucky.

 

Intervention doesn't win 'the west' any allies. Even if you carry a drowning country out of the water, it'll still be your fault later that they have to dry themselves or that you didn't leave them a big enough towel to do it with. Let the Middle East deal with it. I don't think any of them helped bail out Greece.

 

These countries aren't even ready for democracy. They lack the human rights framework underneath to support it properly. Don't agree? Egypt is proof. Tunisia is proof. I think some of these countries need to find their own way without outside help.

 

 

All countries are ready for Democracy but in the Middle East  it won't be the implementation of it that we are use to as Westerners, but that's fine. They need there own version of Democracy

 

Also the Arab League doesn't have a military intervention force so they would need the West or the UN to get involved in Syria.

Edited August 25, 2013 by BruceVC

[josan motierre]

All countries are ready for Democracy but in the Middle East  it won't be the implementation of it that we are use to as Westerners, but that's fine. They need there own version of Democracy

 

Also the Arab League doesn't have a military intervention force so they would need the West or the UN to get involved in Syria.

 

 

I'm just not sure about it, Bruce. An intervention might end the civil war, but it won't fix the rest of the problems. At least under Assad the extremists were kept in check... democracy in Egypt put the extremists in power. The extremists are worse than any regime. Since the rebels are also these extremists, by supporting them, you're assuring that people like the Muslim Brotherhood will try to drag the country back into the dark ages.

[BruceVC]

 

All countries are ready for Democracy but in the Middle East  it won't be the implementation of it that we are use to as Westerners, but that's fine. They need there own version of Democracy

 

Also the Arab League doesn't have a military intervention force so they would need the West or the UN to get involved in Syria.

 

 

I'm just not sure about it, Bruce. An intervention might end the civil war, but it won't fix the rest of the problems. At least under Assad the extremists were kept in check... democracy in Egypt put the extremists in power. The extremists are worse than any regime. Since the rebels are also these extremists, by supporting them, you're assuring that people like the Muslim Brotherhood will try to drag the country back into the dark ages.

 

 

That's true to a certain degree, the Free Syrian Army (rebels) do have elements of Al-Qaeda in there units and this is very concerning. But that wasn't always the case in Syria. In the beginning of the conflict the rebels were almost entirely pure Syrian but as the conflict went on foreigners have joined them and so has the Al-Qaeda type influence. If Russia and China hadn't blocked Western involvement through the UN security council this conflict would have been over long ago and  we would have seen a very different political landscape to what we would now see if the rebels suddenly win and get to govern Syria.

 

So who knows what the future holds

[Walsingham]

I think you must be careful when comparing evils. I don't think there's any serious doubt that Assad's regime has done some literally (at least for this forum) unspeakable things to stay in power.

 

I would also encourage you chaps to read up on England's 'glorious revolution' of 1688. As I'm doing at the moment. We had a savage civil war, ending with a bunch of religious nutters in power then. Then came the 'restoration' and within a relatively short space of time England was not only a monarchy again, but so unpoliticised and peaceful it was almost unrecognisable. [i'm chiefly referring to Simon Schama here, but supported by a bunch of stuff from the perspective of the evolution of the British Army]

[obyknven]

 that people like the Muslim Brotherhood will try to drag the country back into the dark ages.

 

But it's what Westlings want for Middle East. For yourself they want science, military robot's, nuclear power and  space exploration, for Third world they want religious fundamentalism, stupidity and medieval level of technologies. It's obvious, all  countries invaded by Westlings fall into religious fundamentalism, their education system replaced by religious education ( where you don't find real knowledge ), Westerns intelligence services periodically kill Iranian scientists (Iranian's are "bad', they make researches and dont want be retarded medieval fanatics ), it's Western systematic politic, they do this in past times (XIX-XX centuries) and they do this today.

 

[obyknven]

US military expert say GTFO about intervention into Syria.

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ru/2013/08/think-defence-blog-on-syria.html

via Think Defence.

Would it be enough to use TLAM’s to take out much of the regimes air force and infrastructure then use Patriots on the boarder to enforce no fly zone’s for rebel controlled areas then start arming the moderate parts of the opposition forces as well as imbedding SF. I am sure such a policy could turn the tide quite quickly even without allied air strikes?

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is obviously the regimes supplies of chemical weapons. Could we secure these amid the type of anarchy we saw in Iraq and Libya after the fall of those regimes? The US estimated it would take 50,000 troops to secure these stockpiles. How quickly could we mount such a large operation and would the regime disperse them when it saw us building up for an invasion.

Could securing the boarders and enforcing a no fly zone with patriots help us to stop any way ward chemical weapons from leaving Syria?

That's just a snippet (read it all here) but the thing that bothers me about this is that I always get the feeling that when Europeans talk about military actions, its always with a nod toward US participation in a fight that they deem necessary.

 

For example, in the first paragraph he talks about TLAM strikes into Syria. The Brits have TLAMS but they don't appear to have a large stockpile, via Wikipedia...

 

On 19 March 2011, 124 Tomahawk missileswere fired by U.S. and British forces (122 US, 2 British) against at least 20 Libyantargets around Tripoli and Misrata.%5B12%5D

So in Libya, that most joint of military missions...a mission that the Europeans almost pushed us into, the Brits fired 2 missiles to our 122 on the opening night. Lets be honest. That's American firepower at play, not British.

 

Those Patriot Missile Batteries that he's talking about are from the US Army. He talks about assembling a force of 50,000 troops to secure the chemical stockpiles but even if the Brits were to provide half the force it would strain their Army to the breaking point.

 

The Brits are great allies but this nonsense has to stop. Europeans complain that we act as if we're the world police yet at the same time act as if they're the final arbitrators of a just cause and that our forces exist to serve their needs when they see a fight worth having.

 

Perhaps I'm cold and heartless but I could actually care less about Syrians dying in a chemical attack. Death is death, whether from a bullet, a knife or a chemical attack. We're dealing with barbaric people on both sides of that conflict and what the American/European people fail to realize is that this is just another example of sectarian violence mixed in with a civil war. Islam might be peaceful but the different sects of that religion are from from it.

 

Syria is none of our business. The Middle East is toxic and we should declare it a quarantine zone. If the Brits and the rest of the EU want the Syria fight then I say have a good one...but we'll sit this out.

[Wrath of Dagon]

In Syria we have extremists on both sides. On Assad's side we have Iran and Hezbollah, on the rebel side we have MB and Al Qaeda (MB is indigenous btw, and if you think there's an iota of difference between them and AQ, you only have to consider that AQ leader Zawahiri's brother was just arrested fighting for the MB in Egypt). So there are no good options, it's kind of like The Witcher.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

 Westlings

 

 

"Westlings"?

 

~

 

EDIT: More to the point, what kind of 'analyst' thinks we should "quarantine" the Mideast?

 

Good luck with that, genius.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Walsingham

[obyknven]

 

Westlings

 

"Westlings"?

 

Western weaklings.

[Walsingham]

 

 

Westlings

 

"Westlings"?

 

Western weaklings.

 

 

Oh, I see, a portmanteau. Very teenage Russian girl.