Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Chemical weapon attack in Syria

605 replies to this topic
Irviding
  • Irviding

    Hopped off the plane at LAX, with a dream in my cardigan

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#601

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:37 PM

The article you posted above from a sensationalist anti-America blog? That has nothing to do with UN security council policies.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#602

Posted 11 September 2013 - 06:32 PM

Right, as I promised some references and information sources:

Rand's recently analyses- as good a starting point as any, expert comment and analysis.

Global Security article on Syrian weapons of mass destruction. Quoted directly from this source, in relation to Syrian chemical weapon delivery mechanisms

  • Four SSM brigades: 1 with FROG, 1 with Scud Bs, 1 with Scud Cs, and 1 with SS-21s.
  • "several thousand aerial bombs, filled mostly with sarin," and between 50 to 100 ballistic missile warheads.
  • New long range North Korean Scud Cs, with ranges of up to 600 kilometers and possible nerve gas warheads.
  • May be converting some long range surface-to-air and naval cruise missiles to use chemical warheads.
  • SS-21 launchers and at least 36 SS-21 missiles with 80-100 kilometers range.
  • Scud B launchers and Scud B missiles with 310 kilometers range.
  • Short range M-1B missiles
  • SS-N-3, and SSC-1b cruise missiles.
  • Su-24 long range strike fighters.
  • MiG-23BM Flogger F fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-20 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-22 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Multiple rocket launchers and tube artillery.

The only capability of which amongst that list the rebels have been demonstrated to have are MRLS, and then only in small numbers.

Terse Examiner article

Stratfor analysis- this is of particular interest.

RUSI Syrian crisis briefing paper

Chatham House comment on security Syrian chemical weapons

Global Post analysis comparing Syrian chemical weapons attack with Halabja

Arms Control confirmation of the use of Sarin by Saddam Hussein in 1991- this provides a detailed breakdown of the capability requirements to conduct such an attack as we saw in Syria and strongly supports the idea that the required capability for the attacks is only possessed by the Syrian regime and/or their military forces.
  • Eutyphro and Irviding like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#603

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:21 PM

Man, I bet ^this guy^ is just a barrel of laughs on a night out..

 

His intriguing and fascinating social qualities make even the thought of discussing Stick Insect fertility seem remotely interesting.

 

Bravo sir.

  • Irviding likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    Hopped off the plane at LAX, with a dream in my cardigan

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#604

Posted 11 September 2013 - 11:07 PM

Right, as I promised some references and information sources:

Rand's recently analyses- as good a starting point as any, expert comment and analysis.

Global Security article on Syrian weapons of mass destruction. Quoted directly from this source, in relation to Syrian chemical weapon delivery mechanisms
 

 

  • Four SSM brigades: 1 with FROG, 1 with Scud Bs, 1 with Scud Cs, and 1 with SS-21s.
  • "several thousand aerial bombs, filled mostly with sarin," and between 50 to 100 ballistic missile warheads.
  • New long range North Korean Scud Cs, with ranges of up to 600 kilometers and possible nerve gas warheads.
  • May be converting some long range surface-to-air and naval cruise missiles to use chemical warheads.
  • SS-21 launchers and at least 36 SS-21 missiles with 80-100 kilometers range.
  • Scud B launchers and Scud B missiles with 310 kilometers range.
  • Short range M-1B missiles
  • SS-N-3, and SSC-1b cruise missiles.
  • Su-24 long range strike fighters.
  • MiG-23BM Flogger F fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-20 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-22 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Multiple rocket launchers and tube artillery.

The only capability of which amongst that list the rebels have been demonstrated to have are MRLS, and then only in small numbers.

Terse Examiner article

Stratfor analysis- this is of particular interest.

RUSI Syrian crisis briefing paper

Chatham House comment on security Syrian chemical weapons

Global Post analysis comparing Syrian chemical weapons attack with Halabja

Arms Control confirmation of the use of Sarin by Saddam Hussein in 1991- this provides a detailed breakdown of the capability requirements to conduct such an attack as we saw in Syria and strongly supports the idea that the required capability for the attacks is only possessed by the Syrian regime and/or their military forces.

 

brb jacking these sources for a paper i have due in november


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#605

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:08 AM

Man, I bet ^this guy^ is just a barrel of laughs on a night out..
 
His intriguing and fascinating social qualities make even the thought of discussing Stick Insect fertility seem remotely interesting.
 
Bravo sir.

You don't appear familiar with how discussions work, do you? Someone asked me for sources for their own personal reading:

As above really. I'm not denying that forces opposed to Assad may have obtained chemical weapons and used them in other instances but for an attack of this scale to take place you would probably need a majority airborne deployment or the use of theatre-level ballistic missiles like the SS-1 Scud and given that the rebels are known not to possess any air-to-ground combat capability and would struggle to use a Transporter-Errector-Launcher even if they did possess one-and I've seen no evidence they do-the only rational conclusion in the absence of any new evidence that fundamentally disputes either of these capability assessments is that the regime did it.

 
My knowledge of military technique is practically 0. I see you making a lot of claims concerning weapons and such. Could you post links that could help me learn about these matters so I can verify your claims?

So kindly toddle of back to whatever rock you crawled out from under and leave the adults to their discussion.
  • Irviding likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#606

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:35 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 12 September 2013 - 12:36 PM.

Thanks, cool  :^:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users