The Redhunter

Toxicity Time

So how long does the stuff last? For how long is it lethel?

Here's a letter from two United Nations weapons inspectors to the President of the Security Council from 1999 (hat tip Jim Gheraghty) . Money quote

550 Artillery shells filled with Mustard 33. Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been "lost" shortly after the Gulf War. To date, no evidence of the missing munitions has been found. Iraq claimed that the chemical warfare agents filled into these weapons would be degraded a long time ago and, therefore, there would be no need for their accounting. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%. Thus, Iraq has to account for these munitions which would be ready for combat use. The resolution of this specific issue would also increase confidence in accepting Iraq’s other declarations on losses of chemical weapons which it has not been possible to verify.

At 94% purity I'm not going to be in that room when the canister is opened, I'll tell you that much.

While searching myself, I found this story from 2001:

VIMY, France - Some 13,000 villagers were hastily evacuated Friday in northern France where explosives and lethal chemical weapons stockpiled in a weapons dump from World War I were suddenly found to be dangerous.

"There's a real and serious risk of a leak causing toxic gas to escape," said Remy Pautrat, the chief local government officer: "The gases ... are lethal."
...

The dump contains 173 tonnes of munitions, among them some 16,000 British, German and French shells, nearly all containing highly toxic mustard gas or phosgene, the two chemicals most widely used in the war, local officials said.

So the French take old chemical weapons seriously, and they ought to know, because almost all of the World War I battles in which it was used was in their country. They've been finding stockpiles of it every since.

Moving the Goalposts

For the past three years we've endured critics say that "there were no weapons of mass desctruction in Iraq".

Now it's going to be "there weren't that many, and they were old and probably not in a condition to be lethel."

But how many is "not many"? Today we know about 500 shells. Jim Geraghty on NRO asks if 500 shells isn't enough for the critics, what amount is enough?

500 shells? Because that's what we're learning today. 700 shells? 1000?

How many of these shells are required before a war opponent rethinks the conclusion that Iraq posed no threat? (Recall that about 15 were used in the massacre of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.)

How many have to be found before the talking point "there were no WMDs in Iraq" gets retired? (I know, never. That will be repeated, and repeated, no matter how many shells get found.)

How much has to be found before a war opponent will say, "Okay, this clearly was a potential threat to the United States and its allies, and we did have to take some action"? I can see how some would say that 500 shells isn't enough. But some amount is enough, and I'd like the anti-war folks to give us a sense of how much is enough by their criteria. If they say that no amount of WMDs could justify the invasion, then we know where they stand.

Threat Analysis

Chemical weapons may be used in one of maybe three circumstances, by a regular military force on the battlefield, by insurgents against a regular military force, and by terrorists against civilian populations.

On the Battlefield

Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is no more, we do not have to worry much about our forces being exposed to chemical attack from other major army units. Even if we had to move against Syria, who has many such weapons, it is difficult to imagine them using them.

I don't have the links to prove it, but as I recall reading, World War I battlefield experience shows that once defenders know that an agressor will use chem/gas, they suit up and casualties are reduced to near 0. However, these suits also reduce effectiveness to a large degree. So, if American troops faced even probable attack by even possibly active chemical agents, whether from terrorists or regular army units, they would probably be forced to suit up. Imagine if our commanders said "oh the stuff is old and won't work", and then one soldier died? Or claimed later that exposure caused his cancer/headaches/etc? You know the result. So, ever-safety consious US commanders would be forced to order troops to suit up if faced with probable attack by even possibly active chem/gas agents. Thus our effectiveness is reduced, which evens the odds somewhat.

Use By Terrorists

Let's remind ourselves of something fundamental; that the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.

Yes, this sounds obvious, but those who casually dismiss the weapons that we have found need to consider the implications if the terrorists find and bring any of this stuff to a western nation and attempt to release it. Why this has not happened yet I do not know, but it would undoubtably sow panic if it did. Attempts to reassure the public that it was old and " less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink" would most likely bring angry responses.

We live in a day when people fret over sacarrine and aspartame in soft drinks, imagine the reaction to news that terrorists had released mustard or sarin.

Unpleasant, but they are things to think about.