Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Stupidvisors working...a political debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="av8torntn" data-source="post: 341774" data-attributes="member: 8259"><p>I would also like you to consider this from emedicine.</p><p> </p><p>In unitary agents, the chemicals were produced in a plant, loaded into the missile, and stored in a ready-to-use fashion. This method has several drawbacks. Because the munitions are highly toxic, storage, handling, and deployment need to be performed with extreme caution. Unitary weapons therefore pose a considerable risk to the ground crew and others who work with the chemicals. </p><p> </p><p>The concept of binary weapons began to develop in the 1960s. Binary weapons involve nontoxic precursors that can be loaded in munitions. Once deployed, the precursors mix and develop the nerve agent.</p><p> </p><p>1991: Iraq declares to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) a different binary munition concept. The projectiles would contain only 1 canister with a single precursor. Before use, the munition would be opened, and the second precursor would be added. The chemical reaction then starts just prior to the munition release.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I only bring this up because I think it is very important how this weapon is stored and I am bored. The path the Iraqi Government was taking would seem to lead to a very, very long shelf life. I know wiki says five years but I would however advise caution when placing your faith in something you read on the internet about chemical weapons. For all we know they may not have even produced the second part of the puzzle. </p><p> </p><p>I ask this in a humble way. Do you really believe the reason no Soldiers died in the sarin IED attack in Iraq in 04 was because it was degraded? I have my reason to ask this. I know it is possible to find articles on the internet to defend whatever position you take but I just would like to know what you believe no reason to link to any article you think proves your point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="av8torntn, post: 341774, member: 8259"] I would also like you to consider this from emedicine. In unitary agents, the chemicals were produced in a plant, loaded into the missile, and stored in a ready-to-use fashion. This method has several drawbacks. Because the munitions are highly toxic, storage, handling, and deployment need to be performed with extreme caution. Unitary weapons therefore pose a considerable risk to the ground crew and others who work with the chemicals. The concept of binary weapons began to develop in the 1960s. Binary weapons involve nontoxic precursors that can be loaded in munitions. Once deployed, the precursors mix and develop the nerve agent. 1991: Iraq declares to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) a different binary munition concept. The projectiles would contain only 1 canister with a single precursor. Before use, the munition would be opened, and the second precursor would be added. The chemical reaction then starts just prior to the munition release. I only bring this up because I think it is very important how this weapon is stored and I am bored. The path the Iraqi Government was taking would seem to lead to a very, very long shelf life. I know wiki says five years but I would however advise caution when placing your faith in something you read on the internet about chemical weapons. For all we know they may not have even produced the second part of the puzzle. I ask this in a humble way. Do you really believe the reason no Soldiers died in the sarin IED attack in Iraq in 04 was because it was degraded? I have my reason to ask this. I know it is possible to find articles on the internet to defend whatever position you take but I just would like to know what you believe no reason to link to any article you think proves your point. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Stupidvisors working...a political debate
Top