Syria and Iran working together on Chemical Weapons

[Straha]

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Defence Weekly report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.

The report comes on the heels of criticism leveled by the Syrians at the United States, accusing it of spreading "false" claims of Syrian nuclear activity and cooperation with North Korea to excuse an alleged Israeli air incursion over the country this month.

According to globalsecurity.org, Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), - an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons - or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kipper War. Globalsecurity.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.

Posted without comment as I have not yet read the report in Jane's Defence.

[K. A. Pital]

If Syria is not a signatory to CWC, why must it not develop chem weapons?

[Starglider]

If Syria is not a signatory to CWC, why must it not develop chem weapons?

Because it's in the Axis of Eeeeevil and chemical weapons are WMDs and thus Syria must be 'liberated' by a coalition of the willing before it kills every man, woman and child in Israel and/or supplies Al-Qaeda with enough chemical weapons to take out the entire population of several major US cities. Or so Fox News will say.

[Duckie]

Thankfully, civilized countries like America don't have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons and constant research going on into them, along with the ability to begin mass production at any moment's notice if nescessary.

[Starglider]

Thankfully, civilized countries like America don't have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons

The CWT requires the destruction of all chemical weapon agents, dispersal systems, chemical weapons production facilities by April 2012. So far the US is mostly on track and has destroyed 45% of its pre-1997 stockpile (~31,500 tons of nerve and mustard agents), though they've requested extensions due to 'environmental concerns' (to be fair, safely destroying large quantities of extremely deadly nerve agents is a tough job on a relatively limited budget).

along with the ability to begin mass production at any moment's notice if nescessary. Rolling Eyes

I actually doubt the US has any particular provision to do this because chemical weapons are just not terribly useful for any battles the US military is likely to be fighting in the near future. I'm sure more military-knowledgable members of the board can expand on this.

[MKSheppard]

Thankfully, civilized countries like America don't have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons and constant research going on into them, along with the ability to begin mass production at any moment's notice if nescessary.

We're in the process of destroying our chemical weapons; but process is slow, due to there being so much of it, and NIMBYs protesting the incinerators.

As for "begin mass production at any moment's notice if nescessary"; you can do that at any moderately advanced chemical factory.

Fun Fact; the germans built a huge chemical weapons plant before WWII to serve as a backup in case the main ones were bombed. It never produced a ton of gas; but post-war made artificial sweetners.

[Duckie]

Thankfully, civilized countries like America don't have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons and constant research going on into them, along with the ability to begin mass production at any moment's notice if nescessary.

We're in the process of destroying our chemical weapons; but process is slow, due to there being so much of it, and NIMBYs protesting the incinerators.

We still have massive stockpiles left, though.

As for "begin mass production at any moment's notice if nescessary"; you can do that at any moderately advanced chemical factory.

Fun Fact; the germans built a huge chemical weapons plant before WWII to serve as a backup in case the main ones were bombed. It never produced a ton of gas; but post-war made artificial sweetners.

Which just goes to prove that research (DARPA) and ability to produce (anything vaguely industrial) doesn't nescessarily condemn a country.

[Starglider]

Which just goes to prove that research (DARPA) and ability to produce (anything vaguely industrial) doesn't nescessarily condemn a country.

Attempting to mount a warhead on a missile does not sound like defensive research to me.

[Duckie]

Attempting to mount a warhead on a missile does not sound like defensive research to me.

I didn't say defensive research, I said research.

Regardless, if the Syrians want to invest in Chemical weapons, I support them all the way (not only out of a Legal perspective, but because short of Bioweapons or the Swiss Navy nothing is less effective than Chemical ones.)

[Duckie]

Ghetto Edit- Better that they have a bunch of scary sounding small scale weapons than a bunch of actually useful things like modern armoured vehicles or better equipment or training for their troops.

[MKSheppard]

I support them all the way (not only out of a Legal perspective, but because short of Bioweapons or the Swiss Navy nothing is less effective than Chemical ones.)

Uhm.

The targets of these attacks aren't troops highly trained in defensive chemical protective tactics, and with MOPP suits, but basically civilians. I know that every Israeli house has a defensive citadel, but not all of them will be as well built, or maintained due to lazyness; plus, you can always preceede the chemical attack with a HE one to break windows to let the gasses in.

[Duckie]

I support them all the way (not only out of a Legal perspective, but because short of Bioweapons or the Swiss Navy nothing is less effective than Chemical ones.)

Uhm.

The targets of these attacks aren't troops highly trained in defensive chemical protective tactics, and with MOPP suits, but basically civilians. I know that every Israeli house has a defensive citadel, but not all of them will be as well built, or maintained due to lazyness; plus, you can always preceede the chemical attack with a HE one to break windows to let the gasses in.

I'm not an expert, but a far more effective explosive-based missile will fuck up your day just as bad as difficult-to-disperse chemical weaponry as far as I can tell. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with the chemical rockets- they're more horrifying, but also you have a vastly greater chance of never experiencing it.

Also, we're talking a lose-lose scenario. If Syria attacks Israel, civilians are going to die either way. From a utilitarian perspective, why not let them get the least effective weapons possible? Certainly chemical weapons are not better at causing casualties than conventional ones.

[MKSheppard]

I'm not an expert, but a far more effective explosive-based missile will fuck up your day just as bad as difficult-to-disperse chemical weaponry as far as I can tell.

Ever try decontaminating an area contaminated with persistent chemical weapons like mustard? Not Fun.

Certainly chemical weapons are not better at causing casualties than conventional ones.

Actually, they are quite effective at causing casualties....on unprotected, untrained personnel.

[Duckie]

Well, if that's true I'd certainly concede.

[Starglider]

Nerve gases convert an inaccurate short ranged ballistic missile from a weapon that may kill a few civillians if you get lucky to one capable of killing hundreds of civillians or unprepared soldiers. They aren't really useful for the US because the US has plenty of precision weapons (and the recon assets to target them), ample delivery capability and no real desire to kill civillians. For mass destruction, should that ever be desireable, the US has nukes.

Syria does not have any of these things; chemical weapons really do upgrade the ability of its primitive missiles to threaten Israeli civillians and troop barracks, though I suspect only from 'nuisance' to 'minor', given the relatively low numbers of missiles, short ranges and ongoing deployment of a pretty effective missile defence system.

[Adrian Laguna]

I actually doubt the US has any particular provision to do this because chemical weapons are just not terribly useful for any battles the US military is likely to be fighting in the near future.

Lies, chemical agents can be very useful. Any scenario where you want a building intact but everyone in it dead is one asking for some nerve gas. The best example would be the enemy holed-up in a place with religious or historical significance, such that damaging it will piss-off the natives.

[Starglider]

Lies, chemical agents can be very useful. Any scenario where you want a building intact but everyone in it dead is one asking for some nerve gas. The best example would be the enemy holed-up in a place with religious or historical significance, such that damaging it will piss-off the natives.

For some bizarre reason the world media would pounce on this comendable piece of efficiency as a horrible inhumane act, likely much worse than just losing some ancient building no one in the US cares about. Use of chemical weapons by the US for any purpose would be a major news story due to the rareity alone, and a source of worldwide condemnation and rhetoric about escalating the violence, before you even consider the casualties. So no, it does not make sense to use them, no conceivable building is going to be that important.

[Adrian Laguna]

Lies, chemical agents can be very useful. Any scenario where you want a building intact but everyone in it dead is one asking for some nerve gas. The best example would be the enemy holed-up in a place with religious or historical significance, such that damaging it will piss-off the natives.

For some bizarre reason the world media would pounce on this comendable piece of efficiency as a horrible inhumane act, likely much worse than just losing some ancient building no one in the US cares about.

Stupid humans and their illogic. Though granted this wouldn't be a problem the United States had had a more... liberal attitude toward atomics and chemical agents back during the start of the Cold War. What's several tens of thousands of irradiated Koreans and Chinese between rival super-powers?

[Ace Pace]

The targets of these attacks aren't troops highly trained in defensive chemical protective tactics, and with MOPP suits, but basically civilians. I know that every Israeli house has a defensive citadel, but not all of them will be as well built, or maintained due to lazyness; plus, you can always preceede the chemical attack with a HE one to break windows to let the gasses in.

Every Israeli house, after a specific date. My house for example, has no 'citadel', and in case of a chem warfare bombing, I'll be restricted to doing a variaty of emergency measures, or going down to the slightly better defended community shelter.

[Sea Skimmer]

I trust Janes not at all. Syrian and Iran have little reason to need to work together anyway, Syria is believed to have had VX nerve gas for some time now, and Iran could developed it readily enough if it desired that capability. A few more exotic nerve agents now exist, but the practical advantages are not very great. Joint work on warheads for Sarin nerve gas, a very simple and well known agent, is especially unlikely if you ask me.

I’m sure both nations have gas, but they aren’t likely to be investing too heavily in it right now, because it’s only real value is in massacring civilians and that’s just not that useful. It will get you nuked. Against military targets, a cluster bomblet warhead will be more valuable.

Syria does not have any of these things; chemical weapons really do upgrade the ability of its primitive missiles to threaten Israeli civillians and troop barracks, though I suspect only from 'nuisance' to 'minor', given the relatively low numbers of missiles, short ranges and ongoing deployment of a pretty effective missile defence system.

Israel has some fairly effective missile defense weapons in terms of the individual systems, but they don’t have nearly enough of them to effectively cover all major urban centers and military bases, particularly if a Syrian missile attack concentrated on just one point. Arrow deployment for example, as far as I’m aware, is still just three batteries.


As for US chemical weapons, we couldn’t use them if we wanted. Not a single chemical weapon in the US inventory is anywhere close to being within its designed lifespan, and most of the remaining munitions are so dangerous they cannot even be move from the military bases they are currently stored on. That means they have to be destroyed in place, which has forced the military to build multiple complexes for destruction, which in turn has meant the process is much slower then it could have been thanks to limited funding and endless political crap.

[TheMuffinKing]

We must also remember the areas these weapons will be used in. These chem warfare weapons' effects will be greatly reduced by the arid environment and prone to inaccuracies due to wind dispersal, rain(?), temperature, etc.

Unless they have a very persistent weapon that gets released in a dense urban area, not much will happen. Chem warfare is a great terror weapon, and like many of you said, most effective against an unprepared/untrained opponent.

[Lonestar]

Well, if that's true I'd certainly concede.

Even on trained, well equipped forces...unless you think that operating in a airtight suit that gets well over 100 degrees inside is not going to hamper fighting ability.

[Straha]

I trust Janes not at all. Syrian and Iran have little reason to need to work together anyway, Syria is believed to have had VX nerve gas for some time now, and Iran could developed it readily enough if it desired that capability. A few more exotic nerve agents now exist, but the practical advantages are not very great. Joint work on warheads for Sarin nerve gas, a very simple and well known agent, is especially unlikely if you ask me.

I'm not going to defend the article as I haven't read it yet. But Syria and Iran have had a close relationship since the Iranian revolution and it's been looking like the relationship has been becomming closer of late, especially militarily. Why they would test this is (unless the article brings up anything especially specific to this test) a question though, especially since there's evidence that Iran has had some sort of chemical weapons since the Iran-Iraq war. The only thing that can come to mind is that Iran does have a fixation on Chemical weapons, which is understandable considering what they went through during the Iran-Iraq war, and that could be effecting how they view this...

I'm going to try and get my hands on the magazine sometime today and read the article.