Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: tekbspa!andromeda!g02b!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Chemical Warfare in Iraq
Message-ID: <1990Aug15.032334.26592@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Aug 90 03:23:34 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 57
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: tekbspa!andromeda!g02b!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell)
Bill, here is an article for sci.military:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, the Iraqis have two types of chemical agent: Mustard gas and the
first generation Nerve agents, which were developed before/during WWII. I've
heard Tabun and Sarin mentioned, both of which are non-persistent nerve agents.
Non-persistent means that they don't stay lethal for a long time.  Much has
been written about the various protective measures that individual troops 
must employ to protect themselves from chemical attack. The current US
chemical protective gear is very effective, when used properly, in pro-
tecting soldiers against attack.  It is made of activated charcoal and
specially treated cloth, so that it is not quite as bad as a rubber
suit, but it is bad enough in hot weather.  

The US has a couple of kinds of gas masks and they are very effective, but
very good at making you feel claustrophobic. I had to make a five mile forced
march in one during the summer in North Carolina (it was an overcast day,
fairly warm, but not awful) and by the end of the march, I was ready to throw
the thing away because I was sweating heavily and felt as though I couldn't
breath.

However, there are a number of tactical considerations to remember about
employing chemical weapons in combat:

1. Unlike any other weapons I know of, chemical weapons don't produce ANY
casualties if the troops are properly prepared.  So they must either be
used against unprepared troops/civilians OR they must be used in combination
with other weapons or an attack by troops.

2. If chemical weapons are used in the attack, remember that the attacking
force must be able to operate in a chemical environment also. For the Iraqis,
this means that they would be wearing the Soviet protective gear, which is
even hotter and more difficult to operate in than ours. 

3. Modern tanks and other armored vehicles are essentially 'chemical proof'
in that they are air-tight and they maintain a higher pressure inside
than outside.  This means that tanks/armored vehicle crews don't need
the chemical protective suits, even though they would wear gas masks.
Whether they would wear the suits depends on current doctrine, which
I am not up on. (When I rode in the M60 tank, it was not airtight or
overpressured, so we didn't have a choice)  However, the point is that
armored vehicle crewmen are much less subject to the effects of operating
in a chemical environment than the 'Poor Bloody Infantry'.

4. Weather, wind and climate have a degrading effect on chemicals.  
A strong wind can blow away the chemicals; rain can wash them away
and sun can break down the chemicals so that they aren't as active.
I don't know how subject the Iraqi chemicals are to degradation, but
they must be employed very selectively and very carefully.

In WWI, where chemical weapons were used extensively, the experience was
that initially, casualties were high because troops were unprepared. When
troops got prepared, chemical weapons became more trouble than they were
worth.