Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Chemical Warfare in Iraq
Message-ID: <1990Aug24.034250.1079@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 24 Aug 90 03:42:50 GMT
References: <1990Aug15.032334.26592@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug21.024814.1230@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)

In article <1990Aug21.024814.1230@cbnews.att.com>, convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) writes:
> My question is this: is the US equipped to use chemical weapons?

According to the AP, no.  As you note, the binary weapons were never
constructed, and the remaining stocks of chemical weapons aren't
very usable.  The munitions are often leaky, and they're not in any
form usable in this environment (wrong caliber shells, etc.).

That said, I'm quite certain that the U.S. government would not use
chemical weapons even if it could, and even in response to first
use by Iraq.  Tactically, they might be useful.  Strategically, they'd
lose the war, and several subsequent ones.  The reasons are left as
an exercise for the reader...