Interesting Factoid on Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 02:39pm

The following article was snipped from 'For Your Information,' a section of historical trivia within the larger magazine 'Strategy & Tactics'. The relevant pessage was edited by Ty Bomba.

Saddam Hussein's reconquest of the Kuridsh areas of Iraq in March 1991 was aided by the use of white flour. That was because the fear initially generated by his use of chemical weapons against those people in the previous decade remained strong. On several occasions his forces were able to cause panicked flight among Kuridhs fighters and civilians simply by sprinkling that otherwise harmless substance from helicopters.

As to why the tactic wasn't utilized this time around, we have to consider that Iraq's air force was nowhere to be seen - usually below ground, as well as above!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-26 02:55pm

The point of the 1988 chemical attack was to suppress the Kurdish rebellion through a demonstration that Saddam could simply wipe them all out. It worked, and its not surprising there was panic the next time around.

However there would be no reason to use such a pure terror tactic against American, British and other nations forces since they'd simply throw on there masks and grab there chemical weapons detectors. They're not going to be panicked and when they find out its flour there all going to laugh.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 03:28pm

However there would be no reason to use such a pure terror tactic against American, British and other nations forces since they'd simply throw on there masks and grab there chemical weapons detectors. They're not going to be panicked and when they find out its flour there all going to laugh.

I simply offered an explanation in case somebody wanted to raise the issue.

In any case, this just begs whether certain African leaders will smarten up and let fly with flour - it's a cheap way to win major battles, of course.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-26 03:34pm

Axis Kast wrote:
In any case, this just begs whether certain African leaders will smarten up and let fly with flour - it's a cheap way to win major battles, of course.

Not unless the people have already witnessed a chemical attack very recently, otherwise your just wasting good flour on a mission when you should be dropping real bombs.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 03:42pm

You don't think helicopters dropping white powder over a battlefield would cause severe panic?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-26 03:47pm

Axis Kast wrote:You don't think helicopters dropping white powder over a battlefield would cause severe panic?

Would you risk a helicopter being downed for a flour drop mission? It would work only once anyway.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 04:00pm

In Africa? I might. You don't even need to forgo bombs; just load some in one of the doors.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-26 04:11pm

Well it may cause some confusion I guess. But if you don't mix it up with some real chemical weapon sorties, they'll wise up pretty quick.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 04:22pm

One, good hit is all they really need - or a few small hits in isolated areas before word can spread.

I agree it's a very temporary measure, but consider the effect. Eritrea and Ethiopia engaged in trench war a few years back - what would have happened if one or the other side had used this practice during a major offensive?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-08-26 04:30pm

Axis Kast wrote: I agree it's a very temporary measure, but consider the effect. Eritrea and Ethiopia engaged in trench war a few years back - what would have happened if one or the other side had used this practice during a major offensive?

The battle would have promptly stopped as soldiers in both sides put down their weapons and start filling their helmets and other containers with that precious flour.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-26 05:01pm

Axis Kast wrote: I agree it's a very temporary measure, but consider the effect. Eritrea and Ethiopia engaged in trench war a few years back - what would have happened if one or the other side had used this practice during a major offensive?

Jack shit. Back in 1935 the Italians made massive use of chemical weapons to bring victory over Ethiopian troops, but dispute their total lack of any protection whatsoever they kept fighting for months more and a very active resistance that sprang up which also had to be basically wiped out with even more mustard gas. They're not going to be panicking from some flour. Not unless it's also used in combination with real chemical attacks anyway, which is basically what Iraq was doing, the 1991 rebellion was only a few years after the 1988 gassing after all.

Say first you use some gas, then you drop flour and leaflets on other units saying "surrender or next time it will be the real thing" now that might work.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 06:12pm

Jack shit. Back in 1935 the Italians made massive use of chemical weapons to bring victory over Ethiopian troops, but dispute their total lack of any protection whatsoever they kept fighting for months more and a very active resistance that sprang up which also had to be basically wiped out with even more mustard gas. They're not going to be panicking from some flour. Not unless it's also used in combination with real chemical attacks anyway, which is basically what Iraq was doing, the 1991 rebellion was only a few years after the 1988 gassing after all.

Say first you use some gas, then you drop flour and leaflets on other units saying "surrender or next time it will be the real thing" now that might work.

What, all of a sudden the artillery barrage stops, helicopters fly overhead and dump white powder, and you're not going to run? With the kinds of troops - or rather, children - they were fielding against one another?!

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-08-26 06:53pm

You're assuming they have enough instruction to even recognize a chemical attack.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-26 06:56pm

Axis Kast wrote:
What, all of a sudden the artillery barrage stops, helicopters fly overhead and dump white powder, and you're not going to run? With the kinds of troops - or rather, children - they were fielding against one another?!

You're making extremely stupid assumptions. Why the fuck would anyone run from white powered that does absolutely nothing? The only reason they would is if they had already experienced a chemical attack, the last time that happed in Ethiopia was about 1937.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 10:33pm

You're assuming they have enough instruction to even recognize a chemical attack.

Both countries have something approximating modern infrastructure. It is very unlikely they'd be utterly without some kind of opinion.

You're making extremely stupid assumptions. Why the fuck would anyone run from white powered that does absolutely nothing? The only reason they would is if they had already experienced a chemical attack, the last time that happed in Ethiopia was about 1937.

If it's dumped far enough back from the front lines, it could spark mass panic. If you found white powder in an envelope, wouldn't you recoil in horror, too? Now think of the impact of seeing it come at you during battle - and being without recourse but retreat.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-08-27 06:43am

Axis Kast wrote:
You're assuming they have enough instruction to even recognize a chemical attack.
Both countries have something approximating modern infrastructure. It is very unlikely they'd be utterly without some kind of opinion.

You misunderstand, without being racist, I'm talking about the average African conscript army, populated largely by uneducated soldiers with a strong tribal sense. It is highly unblikely they can recogniza a chemical attack, much less take the proper measures against it, besies, this is Africa, you want to survive, you don't walk around with a rubber suit.

The officer corp may be more educated, but do you think they keep their troops properly trained and informed on the standard practices of modern day armies?

You're applying a western standard (higher levels of education and 24-hours news services), to a non-western way of life (less than 10% ever make it to University, and as to the news... well...).

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-27 10:17am

You misunderstand, without being racist, I'm talking about the average African conscript army, populated largely by uneducated soldiers with a strong tribal sense. It is highly unblikely they can recogniza a chemical attack, much less take the proper measures against it, besies, this is Africa, you want to survive, you don't walk around with a rubber suit.

Most of the militaries we're talking about have fought long enough to be familiar with something approaching the modern art of war. That is most true in Ethiopia or Eritrea (with a history of suffering chemical attack), where trench warfare was a constant.

If their officers flee, many troops would likely flee as well, mind you.