Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
29. Chlorine as a Warfare GAS???? Who went to a Swimming pool and tried to steal the cylinders?
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 05:43 PM
Sep 2014

If you understand the history of Chlorine as a Warfare Gas (described below) you quickly come to the conclusion any Chlorine was probably produced when someone tried to steal some cylinders and accidentally punched a hole in one in an enclosed space. That is where Chlorine is at its best as a gas, something rare in the combat in Syria.

Chlorine was suggested as a weapon during the US Civil War, but the North decided against using it. The main problem was chlorine, while it does seep into trenches, requires a solid concentration to be effective. It is hard to achieve that level of Concentration except by using tubes to provide the gas i.e. Chlorine is pumped from a cylinder then flows into the trenches of your opponent.

Unlike Mustard and the WWII era Nerve gases, Chlorine is a difficult gas to use effectively in combat. Thus after WWI rarely used (and even during WWI, dropped out of favor within a year of being used).

The main problem is the level of Chlorine needed to kill, about "Chlorine required a concentration of 1,000 parts per million.

Compare to Cyinde which is fatal at 226 parts per million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

But Nerve gas (Sarin) is 26 times as deadly as Cyanide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

i.e. Sarin is deadly at 10 parts per Million, 100 times more deadly then Chlorine.

A Second problem, related to the first, is how do you get the concentrated needed? During WWI, that was done with tubes. The Germans built tubes right up to the British Lines and unleashed the Chlorine gas that then rolled to the British lines. It took 168 TONS of chlorine to achieve the effect, but it was an effect that was NOT long lasting.

The third problem is Chlorine gas can be removed by breathing throw a wet rag. The Chlorine reacts to the water, staying in the wet rag held over your month while you breath in Oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine#Use_as_a_weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I

For these reasons no one used Chlorine after WWI, The use of Chlorine after WWII has tend to be home ground terrorists NOT anyone doing actual fighting (Who tend to have access to better weapons, such as a rifle and in the minds of some experts on Gas Warfare, using a shovel would be more effective then using Chlorine Gas).

In 1915 the Shock value of Chlorine Gas was tremendous, but that was over within days once the limitations of Chlorine were known.

Thus I can NOT see Syria using Chlorine Gas. It is most effective against dug in positions with people who have no access to water or any form of first aid kit. Worse you can see it coming, it is NOT a colorless gas like other gases, it has its own distinct color thus easy to spot and stay out of.

Could someone being using Chlorine Gas? Yes, but I just can NOT believe anyone with any knowledge of Gas Warfare using it given its limitations.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I have it on good authority that this is just neo-con propaganda spouted by the MSM... brooklynite Sep 2014 #1
You forgot about WMD in Iraq already???? grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #2
It is as much ignoring proof to say that chemical weapons were NOT used in Syria as to argue karynnj Sep 2014 #10
Not false, but suspect, to be sure. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #25
Likely, we will continue to hear anti-Assad propaganda until we are at war with Syria. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #3
Real Heavy Duty Neo-Con Propaganda, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #4
as I said, some will be true. I find it funny that I just posted grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #19
I don't consider the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to be a propaganda source. pampango Sep 2014 #6
Whatever gets us to take out Assad. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #9
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is not out to 'get' Assad. pampango Sep 2014 #11
I agree. But let us remember that the neocon plan is to take out Assad, and the grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #13
+1 "truth is the first casualty of war" KurtNYC Sep 2014 #15
I appreciate you accepting the OCPC's motives. I doubt that many liberals support Assad either pampango Sep 2014 #16
Why? For oil again? Cayenne Sep 2014 #14
It's all part of their "New World Order": grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #17
How convienient, the timing on this 'report', indeed. Paging Judith Miller, paging Judith Miller. Purveyor Sep 2014 #5
Would some delay in its release resulted in better timing? When would have been a pampango Sep 2014 #12
NYT's and their Reporting "Sources (on WMD)" should always be viewed KoKo Sep 2014 #21
True. Not so much the OCPC. n/t pampango Sep 2014 #31
Chlorine = the new yellowcake! woodsprite Sep 2014 #7
I believe the yellowcake was a Bush/Cheney invention never verified by any independent authority pampango Sep 2014 #8
But they don't know WHO used it. KurtNYC Sep 2014 #18
"...its full report is understood to leave little doubt that the Syrian government was responsible." pampango Sep 2014 #20
Responsibility in an area where Rebels had access to chemicals could also mean KoKo Sep 2014 #22
Luhan needs to make up his mind then because he said KurtNYC Sep 2014 #23
Yes, I'm sure we can trust them when they tell us they've given all of it to us. 7962 Sep 2014 #24
Luhan says his agency verified and confirmed it but now implies Assad used chlorine KurtNYC Sep 2014 #28
Its not whether I believe Luhan, its whether ANYONE can believe Assad 7962 Sep 2014 #36
Apples And Oranges, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #27
Sir...it might have been seen as WMD of a lesser resort..Primative.. KoKo Sep 2014 #34
It Has Been Used As a Weapon Of War In The Past, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2014 #35
Back to being the US thats at fault, huh? It never ends around here. 7962 Sep 2014 #37
It's reading information from various points of view and not just USA MSM... KoKo Sep 2014 #38
Wasn't chlorine one of the thngs that sanctions banned Iraq from having? arcane1 Sep 2014 #26
I don't think so karynnj Sep 2014 #30
Chlorine as a Warfare GAS???? Who went to a Swimming pool and tried to steal the cylinders? happyslug Sep 2014 #29
"Thus I can NOT see Syria using Chlorine Gas." Believe what you will. The OCPC disagrees with you. pampango Sep 2014 #32
In Short, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #33
It comes down to this, then. Who would you see replacing Assad...who was just re-elected? KoKo Sep 2014 #39
I Expressed An Opinion On The Utility Of Chlorine As a Weapon, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2014 #40
You've not always been clear on your opinion.... KoKo Sep 2014 #42
Events, Ma'am, Are Not So Organized As All That The Magistrate Sep 2014 #44
It's a horrible death. A tanker spilled in my hometown on the freeway. The survivors ended living freshwest Sep 2014 #41
cheap and used a lot in all countries. They've used chlorine before to kill people. Sunlei Sep 2014 #43
So, is the idea to fight Assad and IS simaltaneously? daleo Sep 2014 #45
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Watchdog Agency Concludes...»Reply #29