U.S. and Allies strike Syria’s chemical weapons program

[gnomefromnome]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43762251

 

[gnomefromnome]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...unter-any-u-s-missile-strike-syria/516756002/

 

[Corsa]

Everyone including Russia knew it was coming via the Presidents Twitter account.
And I support the allied strikes as the world cannot tolerate the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

 

[Rage Racer]

According to the RF Defence Ministry (and some other informers in Syria), the Syrian air defence has shot down 71 missiles of 103 (69%).

16 missiles were launched at Homs province, 3 hit, no serious damage. 3 people (reportedly, civilians) were wounded.

Some Tomahawks hit the "research centre where chemical weapons were developed" in Damascus. I thought there should be a leak of lethal poison gases that would kill dozens around in that case.

Like one blogger said, "Looks like an American schoolboy with a gun or a Jihadi truck driver in Europe does a lot more damage than a strike of a hundred cruise missiles."

Perhaps, the real purpose of the strike was to test Syria's anti-air capability.

SAM systems at work:

 

[Dennisch]

And according to Syria, they shot down roughly 30% of the missiles.

Both sides are a bunch of ****ing liars. Better to just look the other way until the rockets hit closer to home.

 

[Vegard]

Edit: Removed to avoid taking the thread off topic.

 

[Famine]

Some Tomahawks hit the "research centre where chemical weapons were developed" in Damascus. I thought there should be a leak of lethal poison gases that would kill dozens around in that case.

Chemical weapons tend not to persist in the face the heat caused by a thousand pounds of high explosives and incendiary charges.

Or "fire burn the gas".

 

[TenEightyOne]

The French have published their report on the chemical attacks.

 

[Rage Racer]

Eastern Ghouta, Aftaris, an area cleared from the moderate jihadists. Apparently, the guys were doing a scientific research work here:



You know, this makes me think of this...
On other side of the world, on the north of the Korean peninsula, there's a fat Asian guy who owns nuclear weapons against all international laws. Recently, he started talking and expressed a possibility to give them up.

He keeps his country isolated, but he certainly watches the news. And looking at what's happening on the Middle East, I'm guessing that he'll rethink of doing so. Once Kim loses his nukes, the US will say he still has them anyway, and bomb the 🤬 out of him. That's how he can see this.

So, by showing force and playing a tough guy with Syria, Trump might lose something big in the game with DPRK, when he had a chance to have it denuclearized.

 

[ryzno]

Eastern Ghouta, Aftaris, an area cleared from the moderate jihadists. Apparently, the guys were doing a scientific research work here:



You know, this makes me think of this...
On other side of the world, on the north of the Korean peninsula, there's a fat Asian guy who owns nuclear weapons against all international laws. Recently, he started talking and expressed a possibility to give them up.

He keeps his country isolated, but he certainly watches the news. And looking at what's happening on the Middle East, I'm guessing that he'll rethink of doing so. Once Kim loses his nukes, the US will say he still has them anyway, and bomb the 🤬 out of him. That's how he can see this.

So, by showing force and playing a tough guy with Syria, Trump might lose something big in the game with DPRK, when he had a chance to have it denuclearized.

Well if Kim doesn't lie like Assad did I doubt that will happen.

 

[Milouse]

According to the RF Defence Ministry (and some other informers in Syria), the Syrian air defence has shot down 71 missiles of 103 (69%).

Not to fight around these numbers, but France minister of armies just stated that each of the (french) missiles hit their target.
May decoy missiles have been used?

Like one blogger said, "Looks like an American schoolboy with a gun or a Jihadi truck driver in Europe does a lot more damage than a strike of a hundred cruise missiles."

This quote is incongruous since one of the objective of the strike was to avoid killing people.

 

[Robin]

The UK parliament is going to be livid that they were not given a vote on this. Like Iraq the PM has yet again decided alone (well, with a small war cabinet) but unlike Iraq we are essentially fighting Russia on another countries soil. I really hope she knows what she's doing because the chance of escalation is pretty high.

 

[Rage Racer]

Well if Kim doesn't lie like Assad did I doubt that will happen.

You're saying this like the US cannot lie.
Come on, we all remember "Saddam's chemical weapons".

Once Kim loses his nukes, it won't really matter if he lies or not. Just tell what you need to tell on the TV, repeat N times, and the people will believe. The recent events prove that it works.

Not to fight around these numbers, but France minister of armies just stated that each of the (french) missiles hit their target.
May decoy missiles have been used?

Decoy cruise missiles? I don't know what's the strategic reason to use them in this case. Normally, decoy missiles are used to uncover the enemy air defense, and destroy it with the next strike, by anti-radar missiles. But here, the AA troops weren't the target.

Unless they wanted to save some money and take a large part of decoys among 100+ real missiles as you suggest.

P.S. This is claimed to be one of Trump's nice and smart missiles:

Chemical weapons tend not to persist in the face the heat caused by a thousand pounds of high explosives and incendiary charges.

Or "fire burn the gas".

But what if there weren't any incendiary charges in the storage?
That means they knew it was dangerous?

 

[Famine]

But what if there weren't any incendiary charges in the storage?

The... what?

The missiles bring the fire with them. That's what they're for. Each Tomahawk carries a thousand pounds of fire.

 

[UKMikey]

The President is drawing some fire of his own for use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" with reference to this airstrike.

 

[Joey D]

Did Trump get approval from Congress to launch the strike? I haven't seen anything related to that yet. There's a couple stories saying he didn't, but it seem iffy. If he truly didn't it makes this Tweet all the more face-palmy:



And it looks like Trump is a true politician, needs to flip-flop whenever it suits him.





Attacking Syria makes zero sense to me. Yes, it's horrible what the country is doing to its own people, but it's not the US's fight to have. I don't know what that strike cost, but I'm guessing it was a fantastic use of my tax dollar /s

 

[Rage Racer]

The... what?

The missiles bring the fire with them. That's what they're for. Each Tomahawk carries a thousand pounds of fire.

The warheads are normally high-explosive, not incendiary. In theory, the version with cluster warhead can contain incendiary elements.

But there's one more thing. The substance that Assad allegedly used in Douma was chlorine. So, we can assume that the target was a cholrine storage.
But chlorine doesn't burn in oxygen! You need hydrogen for a thermal initiated reaction with chlorine. At least 1/35.5 of the mass of chlorine stored there to have it all consumed for burning (it would be hydrogen burning in chlorine - the latter would be the oxidant). How would they load hydrogen into a cruise missile and manage enough of it to go into contact with the chemical weapon?

Either Pentagon allowed deaths from a gas leak to happen or (more likely, IMO) they knew that there were no chemicals over there.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But chlorine doesn't burn in oxygen!

It will however burn alongside oxygen in highly exothermic oxidisations that can be triggered by explosions. The high heat emanation from a missile strike site precludes the nightmare scenario of a cloud of cold chlorine gas rolling out, dispersion would be massive.

 

[Famine]

The warheads are normally high-explosive, not incendiary.

...

Have you seen what happens when a Tomahawk, carrying 1,000lb of high explosives hits a target? I'll give you a clue: a giant honking ball of fire.

But chlorine doesn't burn in oxygen!

Yeah, we're not talking about putting a lit flame to chlorine in oxygen and seeing if it burns. The explosive burns the oxygen, generating a 2,000-degree ball of fire, 100 feet wide. At that temperature, chlorine would burn literally everything it contacted - particularly iron and steel, once over 300 degrees.


Or, basically, missile bring fire, fire burn poison gas.

 

[Rage Racer]

It will however burn alongside oxygen in highly exothermic oxidisations that can be triggered by explosions. The high heat emanation from a missile strike site precludes the nightmare scenario of a cloud of cold chlorine gas rolling out, dispersion would be massive.

Yeah, we're not talking about putting a lit flame to chlorine in oxygen and seeing if it burns. The explosive burns the oxygen, generating a 2,000-degree ball of fire, 100 feet wide. At that temperature, chlorine would burn literally everything it contacted - particularly iron and steel, once over 300 degrees.

Chorine can react with iron under heating. But it requires at least 2/3 of the molar quantity of the chlorine to consume all of it. Or, let's count...

Spoiler

2Fe + 3Cl2 => 2FeCl3

2 * 56 = 112 g/mole
3 * 35.5 * 2 = 213 g/mole
112 / 213 = ~0.526

0.526 kg of pure iron for every kilogram of chlorine stored there. If there was a tonne of chlorine stored, there must be at least 526 kg of iron around, in all ways of possible dispersion, to consume all of the chlorine in burning. Chlorine is normally stored in steel tanks, can they be that heavy? That's not something one would count on when planning a strike into that place to avoid the release of poison gas.

And yes, steel. As you know, steel is an alloy of iron and carbon (and, optionally, a small bit of other elements). Carbon doesn't react with chlorine. And for iron, it's even harder to be burned by chlorine when it's in alloy.

Or, basically, missile bring fire, fire burn poison gas.

The fire brought by a missile is a different reaction (of explosive with oxygen), and chlorine won't take part in it. No matter how high the temperature is, chlorine won't burn unless there's something it can interact with in the given conditions.

 

[Famine]

Chorine can react with iron under heating.

Not "can". "Does". Vigorously. The chlorine-iron reaction is a significant one, not least in terms of how much of a problem it is in industry. Chlorine has to be kept below 300 degrees if it is anywhere near steel.

If there was a tonne of chlorine stored, there must be at least 526 kg of iron around, in all ways of possible dispersion, to consume all of the chlorine in burning. Chlorine is normally stored in steel tanks, can they be that heavy? That's not something one would count on when planning a strike into that place to avoid the release of poison gas.

I'm just curious if you know what large, industrial and military buildings are made of and reinforced with...

Incidentally, a block of steel measuring 40cm along each side would weigh half a tonne. A standard 55 gallon drum weighs about 18kg empty, so 30 of them would make up your half tonne.

And yes, steel. As you know, steel is an alloy of iron and carbon (and, optionally, a small bit of other elements).

2% carbon. Two.

Carbon doesn't react with chlorine.

Don't know who told you that one, but literally anything that will react with oxygen will react with chlorine - and a few things that don't will also react with chlorine. And fluorine will react with just about anything at all.

There's so many carbon-chlorine compounds I can't even start to tell you where you're wrong with this one. I mean... have you heard of the ozone-destroying CFCs - or "chlorofluorocarbons"? How about pesticides like DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). Got any windows in your house? Do they have PVC (polyvinylchloride) frames?

You've got some funny chemistry text books...

The fire brought by a missile is a different reaction (of explosive with oxygen), and chlorine won't take part in it.

It's a 100-foot wide, 2,000-degree fireball! Of course chlorine takes part in it. There's not much that wouldn't - I mean, that's the point of the missile...

No matter how high the temperature is, chlorine won't burn unless there's something it can interact with in the given conditions.

And, it turns out, chlorine is one of the most reactive elements in the periodic table, so what it can interact with is "just about anything". That's why it dissipates so quickly after deployment.

Also I reckon that at a couple of hundred million degrees, it'd undergo fusion, so even if you weren't so hideously wrong in the first place you should be careful about chucking terms like "no matter how high the temperature is".


Hitting a chlorine storage facility with a Tomahawk cruise missile will, almost inevitably, destroy all of the chlorine because of the giant, honking fireball. That's the point of firing that missile at it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No matter how high the temperature is, chlorine won't burn unless there's something it can interact with in the given conditions.

That's kind of the point - in the immense explosive pressure/heat of a missile strike such things can occur. That heat and explosive capability also disperses the chlorine which has zero environmental persistence.

 

[Michael88]

I'm no rocket or explosives expert but having seen missile impacts I highly doubt the split second of heat and pressure is enough to simply burn tons and tons of chlorine - or other chemical agents that aren't severely flammable. If they dropped something like a white phosphorus bomb that actually burns very hot for several seconds I would believe it but a regular missile strike would disperse the gas, not burn it.


Cruise Missile Impact:

 

[Sanji Himura]

Did Trump get approval from Congress to launch the strike?

He really doesn't need approval if they gave it in 2001 (the justification that Bush used to go to Iraq after Afghanistan). It is also the same justification that Obama used to go INTO Syria the first time. No, sir, what is good for the goose is good for the Gander. (edit to add) Add that to the fact that Syria has been declared a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and has been since the list's inception in 1979. (source)

As far as the UK and France is concerned, their respective representative bodies IS going to raise hell, and rightfully so. There is no such law in their books. As far as Theresa May is concerned specifically, she should fear Parliament as they COULD pass a vote of No Confidence.

 

[Rage Racer]

I'm just curious if you know what large, industrial and military buildings are made of and reinforced with...

Incidentally, a block of steel measuring 40cm along each side would weigh half a tonne. A standard 55 gallon drum weighs about 18kg empty, so 30 of them would make up your half tonne.

Perhaps.
But do you seriously think that all of the chlorine would go into contact with the metal and be consumed to burn this metal, and not fly away from the building destroyed by few missiles, which have to come from outside?

Don't know who told you that one, but literally anything that will react with oxygen will react with chlorine - and a few things that don't will also react with chlorine. And fluorine will react with just about anything at all.

There's so many carbon-chlorine compounds I can't even start to tell you where you're wrong with this one. I mean... have you heard of the ozone-destroying CFCs - or "chlorofluorocarbons"? How about pesticides like DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). Got any windows in your house? Do they have PVC (polyvinylchloride) frames?

You've got some funny chemistry text books...

I mean the elemental carbon! The one contained in the steel!

Of course I know of carbon-chloride compounds. There are MANY of those. The simplest that comes to my mind is tetrachloromethane (CCl4). But it's NOT recieved by reaction of elemental carbon and chlorine! It's an organic compound, and it's produced by a reaction of chlorine with methane - another organic compound. And so are other organochlorides (like the ones you've mentioned).

You seriously don't understand the difference between the elemental form of carbon (that is found in coal and contained by steel) and carbon atoms in organic compounds??

Many organic substances can react with chlorine, but such reactions are not so easy to carry out even in laboratory conditions (in many cases they require UV light or a catalyst), and take hours to complete. And you're talking about a spontaneous reaction triggered by a missile explosion here, and destroying all the gas before it's released into atmosphere.

On a cite note - chlorine can react with carbon monoxide (I hope you understand that it's different from carbon) that is produced by burning, and yield phosgene - even more potent gas than chlorine itself. However, it needs activated carbon as a catalyst, and no more than 200 C temperature (or the product will collapse back into Cl2 and CO).

It's a 100-foot wide, 2,000-degree fireball! Of course chlorine takes part in it. There's not much that wouldn't - I mean, that's the point of the missile...

There's no such substance as "fireball". It's a reaction of another substance (PBX in Tomahawk's warhead case) with oxygen, producing oxides of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen (yes, water) and releasing a large amount of energy. But that energy won't make chlorine burn in the air! Even if you set the whole world afire with nukes and 🤬 - you can't burn what can't burn. Like you can't burn water (without fluorine, of course).

And, it turns out, chlorine is one of the most reactive elements in the periodic table, so what it can interact with is "just about anything". That's why it dissipates so quickly after deployment.

You have to find that "just about anything" somewhere. The closest "about anything" that persists everywhere around (and in all ways of possible dispersion) is the air. Air consists of nitrogen, oxygen and argon. None of these interact with molecular chlorine. And no need to tell me about ammonium chloride or oxygen-containing organochlorides - they are produced by different reactions, from different precursors.

Of all halogens, only fluorine can directly react with oxygen (being the oxidant - oxygen will burn in fluorine, producing OF2). Fluorine is extremely reactive. Chlorine is very reactive, too, but NOT like this.

Also I reckon that at a couple of hundred million degrees, it'd undergo fusion, so even if you weren't so hideously wrong in the first place you should be careful about chucking terms like "no matter how high the temperature is".

Fusion? Nuclear fusion? Or fusion of Cl2 into larger molecules? Well I've never read about that, so I won't argue about what I don't know.
Anyway, it's not our case.

Hitting a chlorine storage facility with a Tomahawk cruise missile will, almost inevitably, destroy all of the chlorine because of the giant, honking fireball. That's the point of firing that missile at it.

If there was a storage of organophoshorus poison agents (sarin, soman, VX, Novichok, etc) or other organic poisons (like BZ), there would be less questions - vast majority of organic compounds are flammable, and would burn easily in the air. Unlike chlorine.

However, even they have some exceptions - for example, mustard gas doesn't react after short heating even to 300 C, and it's considered to be immune to detonation.

That's kind of the point - in the immense explosive pressure/heat of a missile strike such things can occur. That heat and explosive capability also disperses the chlorine which has zero environmental persistence.

What things? Reaction with the air?
Dispersed chlorine, even if it's spread by explosion, can still do a lot of trouble before it interacts with surrounding water, turns into acids and lays on the ground. Otherwise it wouldn't be weaponized.

If they dropped something like a white phosphorus bomb that actually burns very hot for several seconds I would believe

That would make sense - chlorine interacts with elemental phosphorus (which the white phosphorus is one of the forms of). But still, a lot of it would be needed. And it's a solid substance, so I suppose a lot of gas would still escape from a destroyed building.

 

[Famine]

You seriously don't understand

I'm a biochemist*.

A 1,000lb explosive charge burning at 2,000°C will destroy a stockpile of chlorine-based chemical weapons, short of several tons of the stuff. Any that isn't burned into oblivion will be vaporised into the atmosphere. This seems like the same thing as deploying it, if you don't understand how poison gas works - it's deployed in a specific location and disperses from there, affecting those nearby until it reaches too low a concentration to be effective; explosive vaporisation instantly reduces the concentration to ineffective levels. Just like nerve agents smeared on door handles, concentration near the target is the key, and if you don't hit the right concentration, it doesn't work.

Put down the propaganda doubt-sowing cheat sheet and step away from the discussion.


*I'm not now; these days I write about cars, but I grew up learning this stuff back when Putin was still an FSB agent and al-Assad was looking into people's eyes - and then got two degrees in biochemistry fields. As a nerd who grew up in Sheffield, then still the steel capital of the world, I learned about steel-making before I learned what my penis was for.

 

[Tornado]

I love the implication that multiple world governments carried out a cooperative military action that they warned in advance would be done, but no one in their respective militaries ever bothered to check if fire can burn first.

 

[Spurgy 777]

@Rage Racer You're clearly well out of your depth, probably best you stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

 

[Rage Racer]

I'm a biochemist.

Well, I'm not an office clerk, either.

Fine, I might ask my current scientific director (a professor, a Doctor of Chemical Sciences) if chlorine can burn from an explosion, once he's not busy.

 

[Famine]

Would that be Professor Wikipedov?