4 ms·

Whether the chemical weapon in question is stored in individual mines or steel containers isn't really an issue compared to other factors like where they're sto

Whether the chemical weapon in question is stored in individual mines or steel containers isn't really an issue compared to other factors like where they're stored (above-ground in a building versus a deep bunker, etc.) when they're planning an airstrike for something like this. A conventional Tomahawk carries ~1,000 pounds of high explosive. In the initial 5 seconds, the explosion's temperature can reach above 263 °C to 290 °C.[0] The boiling point for sarin is 147 °C, and it decomposes very quickly at that temperature. If you can penetrate to where it was stored, the odds are very good that sarin (along with most other chemical weapons) will decompose immediately in the explosion, or at the very least, have the process greatly accelerated. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive) 1. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sarin#section=Odor https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sarin#section=Odor

Zenst 10y ago
Yes the aspect about how it was stored is a factor and if ammo box with mines, that is a lot of thermal shielding and maybe enough to enable the contained Sarin to avoid direct exposure and enough thermal insulation to curtail reaching that magic 147°C. Even the aspect of how stored, could increase the prospect of some being thrown clear by the initial impact/explosion. Let alone what was used in the airstrike and its characteristics. So still reasonable doubt. I really hope they do a forensics upon that impact sight of Chemical Weapons and get to the truth sooner rather than later.
- Bluestrike2 10y ago
  Perhaps. Compared to how the OPCW suggests that chemical weapons are normally incinerated and/or neutralized, airstrikes are by no means the preferred solution. But when you don't have physical access, and your main concern is preventing their use against civilian populations, they're one of your few tenable options. The number of missiles used might indicate that stockpiles were targeted multiple times to compensate for such possibilities. That said, the mission planners would likely--as a worst-case scenario--prefer to have the Syrians have to cordon off a contaminated base than risk the possibility of a future CW attack on civilians.
  - Zenst 10y ago
    You right, but the whole aspect of airstrikes in civilian high density area's in itself for me raises as many red flags as chemical weapons use. I know why they do it, and wars are alas still measured upon how many combatants you loose, over any innocents loss of life. That needs to change.

Zenst 10y ago

Yes the aspect about how it was stored is a factor and if ammo box with mines, that is a lot of thermal shielding and maybe enough to enable the contained Sarin to avoid direct exposure and enough thermal insulation to curtail reaching that magic 147°C. Even the aspect of how stored, could increase the prospect of some being thrown clear by the initial impact/explosion. Let alone what was used in the airstrike and its characteristics. So still reasonable doubt. I really hope they do a forensics upon that impact sight of Chemical Weapons and get to the truth sooner rather than later.

Bluestrike2 10y ago
Perhaps. Compared to how the OPCW suggests that chemical weapons are normally incinerated and/or neutralized, airstrikes are by no means the preferred solution. But when you don't have physical access, and your main concern is preventing their use against civilian populations, they're one of your few tenable options. The number of missiles used might indicate that stockpiles were targeted multiple times to compensate for such possibilities. That said, the mission planners would likely--as a worst-case scenario--prefer to have the Syrians have to cordon off a contaminated base than risk the possibility of a future CW attack on civilians.
- Zenst 10y ago
  You right, but the whole aspect of airstrikes in civilian high density area's in itself for me raises as many red flags as chemical weapons use. I know why they do it, and wars are alas still measured upon how many combatants you loose, over any innocents loss of life. That needs to change.