WMDs, Nerve Agents, and Organophosphates (about those Iraqi "pesticides"...) |
Posted on 05/18/2004 8:21:40 AM PDT by JohnGalt
Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
In Baghdad, officials said the bomb was apparently left over from the Saddam era. They said two members of a military bomb squad were treated for "minor exposure" -- but that there were no serious injuries.
One official says the shell apparently contained two chemicals that are designed to combine and create sarin -- but that they didn't mix properly.
Thank you for that information which does not surprise most of us but will surprise Galt who is convinced sarin is not considered a WMD (according to some article he will link that is not a Department of Defense or official link, btw).
Classic line.
Well, Rumsfeld is correct...
It could be tabun, it could be VX, or some other nerve gas (soman, or phosgene). One thing for sure - those EOD guys were exposed to SOME sort of gas.
It is a WMD and it was found in Iraq.
That pretty much clears up the condemnation of George Bush by the entire free world that there was no WMD in Iraq.
Whether a single shell or a garge full it is still WMD.
WMDs, Nerve Agents, and Organophosphates (about those Iraqi "pesticides"...) |
In laboratory parlance, its the difference between sensitivity and specificity.
Screening tests, ie . field tests, are by design very sensitive -- they have a very low false negative rate, which is what you want if you're looking through a broad range of materials for a weapon. However, the down side of any extremely sensitive test is a lack of specificity ( ie, a high false positive rate ). In this case pesticide residues cause a false positive test -- pesticides are incidentally very closely related to nerve agents chemically.
A highly specific test is the second tier test for all the samples that test positive on the screen. It will be designed to have a very low false positive rate, and very specifically identify chemical weapons, and weed out the 'pesticide' residue samples that are flagged as positive in the first screen.
Its a scientific method with broad usefulness.
Not that it matters. But the current talking points are that we are in Iraq to build democracy and never went in for WMD.
The latest is that this dud shell is at least 13 years old if not older.
But I guess that proves this administration's case for why 10,000 Americans are mauled and injured, another near 800 dead, and some (conservative estimate- 6000 Iraqis are dead and countless more wounded)- not to mention the billions of tax dollars being wasted.
But lets wait and see. I supect this story (like most other Fox stories on WMD) will be gone within days. Memory hole.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
You have a memory problem, friend.
The reasons why we went into Iraq have not changed. We went in to depose a brutal dictator, free a people, remove a regime that has been deemed a danger through their previous use of force and WMD to the region and the United States by the collective wisdom of three administrations, and try to provide a role model for the Middle East.
The bar keeps getting raised higher and higher by the naysayers. Now the WMD have to be current. They can't be old. As though old sarin doesn't kill as easily as new sarin.
And if this story disappears, despite the evidence that the find was indeed sarin, it will be because it suits the agenda of the media.
Rumsfeld was only stating the obvious "full analysis is needed to reach definite conclusion". AP is spinning it to be more that he said.
Typical. Media. Bias.
And besides, an artillary shell with *2* chemical chambers is DEFINITELY a chemical weapon. That is how modern chemical weapons work (ie "binary chemical weapons").
Whether Sarin (which it almost certainly is) or something else, it will be found to be a chemical warhead.
Why didn't one of Iraqs neighbors sign on to this latest endevour to take down the "threat" that was Sadaam? Even W's dad had help from every nation (including Syria) in the 1st Gulf war (excluding Iran).
Lower the bar?
Did you read Powells speech to the UN or Bush to Congress?
You are the ones lowering it all the time!
Two Shells?
I agree but I don't actually believe that all of these "false positives" are false positives. I believe they are true positives. High sensitivity in the interest of caution in the field is great and all but an ROC curve with a spike at specificity=1 would be totally worthless. ;-)
What seems to be going on is like you say, that they have some field tests for "pesticide-like" substances. The field test comes up positive but some later screening test fails to identify the substance.
But that doesn't mean the substance was REALLY a "pesticide"! Pesticides stored in camoflaged drums near military installations? Why?? Are we required to turn off our brains when thinking about these matters??
The more likely explanation is that designing a substance which would be explainable as merely a "pesticide" (or explainable in some other way) to inspectors was a primary design criterion for all Iraqi CW scientists. Think of it this way: suppose they did have ongoing CW programs. If so, it would be almost certain that they would "camoflage" it so as to be invisible to (perhaps not-very-motivated) inspectors. Indeed, it stretches credulity to suggest that this would not be a feature of a hypothetical Iraqi CW program. The idea that Iraqi CW programs (assuming they had them) would take place in buildings labelled "Iraq Chemical Weapons Research Facility", and would labor long and hard, investing many man-hours and petrodollars, to create substances which all known tests would identify as "chemical weapon and nothing else" and thus would be immediately confiscated, is just absurd. How stupid are we supposed to believe these hypothetical Iraqi CW scientists were, anyway?
Its a scientific method with broad usefulness.
Of course, but that usefulness does not extend to ferreting out prohibited activity in the arena of chemical weapons, which is by its very nature likely to be designed to come up "false positive" on whatever test is in use.
Other country's were making a LOT of money off the Oil for Food scam, including Saddam's neighbors.
Saddam's neighbors were also concerned that we wouldn't finish the job, again, and they would have to live next door to Saddam for another 30 years.
As well, the world has changed since 1991. Terrorism has gained a stranglehold on those countries that it didn't have 13 years ago.
Two shells, mustard gas, and the majority probably shipped to Syria as the satellite photography reflected.
Age of shell is irrelevant. It is not the case that Saddam was allowed to have undeclared, unaccounted-for chemical weapons as long as they are old. Also the shell being old doesn't mean the chemicals inside it were.
I supect this story (like most other Fox stories on WMD) will be gone within days.
You might be right, it might be buried like other stories about WMD finds. Being buried doesn't make a story untrue.
Why didn't one of Iraqs neighbors sign on to this latest endevour to take down the "threat" that was Sadaam?
Because they knew we would take care of it and this way they wouldn't have to put their asses on the line, they could play "good cop". Also because by this point he was a bigger threat to us than to his neighbors. Our 12-year siege of that country effectively displaced Saddam's anger and ambitions away from his neighbors, and those neighbors were perfectly happy with the protection arrangement whereby we pay the costs and receive all the fallout. What is the big mystery here?
Two Shells?
Two is greater than Zero, which is the number of WMD-containing shells the anti-war folks have been pretending exist in Iraq. The anti-war folks are thus proven incorrect.
Oh.
Prof. Kantorek,
Sarin is not a weapon of mass destruction.
I posted this to make fun of the soccer moms and girly men who get so excited when a bomb goes off that injured our troops to demonstrate the hysterical nature of the phonycons and payroll patriots like yourself.
And see the tagline.
Man. The media's
bad enough. Why help them out?
President Bush needs
a press advisor
a million times better than
whomever he's got . . .
Sarin is not a weapon of mass destruction, Comrade Orwell.
Huh?
I don't want to get into the semantics; I don't care what the hell you call it, sarin is a substance which Saddam was prohibited from having, anti-war folks insisted that no such substances existed (because Bush lied), yet now it has turned up. Spin that how you like.
Points well taken...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.