Home » Air » Air Force Developed Bombs Capable of Destroying Syria’s Chemical Weapons

Air Force Developed Bombs Capable of Destroying Syria’s Chemical Weapons

by Kris Osborn on August 30, 2013

B-2The U.S. Air Force has spent years developing so-called “Agent Defeat Weapons” designed to target and destroy stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons without dispersing or releasing them to surrounding areas, service officials said.

“The U.S. Air Force has Agent Defeat Weapons designed to limit collateral damage and effects,” Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy told Military​.com. “The munitions are PAW (Passive Attack Weapon) and Crash Pad.”

Both of these weapons would be carried by aircraft such as the F-15 or F-22 fighter jets and B-2 or B-1 bombers. It’s likely the Air Force would deploy the weapons from a B-2 or F-22 to take advantage of their radar-evading stealth technology considering the advanced air defense systems in Syria.

Could these weapons be used if a strike on Syria is ordered? Air Force officials would not comment upon whether the Agent Defeat Weapons were part of the discussion or strategic calculus regarding Syria.

An official with the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, did not offer any specifics regarding planning details or ongoing considerations – but did tell Military​.com that planning sessions, meetings and considerations were currently underway.

“The Joint Staff continues to meet and plan in order to provide the best possible military advice and options to the President. It would be inappropriate to speculate on what decision the President might make and what military options might be used in support of that decision. The U.S. military remains postured to provide a range of military capabilities as directed by the President,” said Cmdr. Scott McIlnay, spokesman with Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon.

The CrashPad, or BLU-119/B weapon is a high-heat explosive bomb designed to incinerate chemical agents before they can be harmful, according to defense officials and DoD documents.

The weapon is a 420-pound, high-heat incendiary weapon with what’s called a “blast-fragmentation” warhead. The Crash Pad is built from an existing standard MK 84 bomb body. The “PAD” in CrashPad stands for “Prompt Agent Defeat,” referring to the weapon’s ability to destroy chemical and biological agents without causing contamination, official documents describe.

The Passive Attack Weapon, or PAW, involves firing a host of steel and tungsten penetrator rods to create a “kinetic energy” battlefield effect without using an explosive. The weapon, first used to knock out antennas in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, is among the weapons used to advance what strategists call “effects based warfare.”

The idea with effects-based warfare is to achieve a strategically valuable battlefield “effect” without necessarily having to damage or attack large portions of the infrastructure of the attacked country or area. The PAW penetrator rods, which range from several inches to more than one-foot, can disable an enemy fuel tank, antenna or helicopter without necessarily damaging people.

One analyst said if the PAW were to be fired from a high enough altitude and was able to travel with enough terminal velocity – it could destroy chemical weapons stockpiles without releasing contaminants.

“When you hit something at high velocity, what you get is a flash of incredible heat in a confined area extremely fast. That can vaporize everything in small area,” said Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank.

Goure likened the effect to the impact of so-called “Sabo” Kinetic Energy 120mm tank rounds fired by the U.S. Army’s M1Abrams tank.

“A Sabo round is essentially the same thing, a combination of spalling and heat effects. The round melts its way into the tank,” he said.

Being able to generate enough heat sufficient to incinerate or neutralize the harmful agents is an essential ingredient to the success of Agent Defeat Weapons, according to military officials and scientists.

“Most agent defeat options—including nuclear weapons and high-explosives—neutralize chemical or biological agents by raising the target’s temperature. Thus, to assess any weapon’s effectiveness, we must first determine the threshold temperature for rapid agent neutralization,” Brookings Institution Scientist Michael A. Levi said in written testimony to the National Academy of Sciences, 2004.

Share |

{ 135 comments… read them below or add one }

moondawg August 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm

This cannot be so. Our president and Sec. State say differently.

Reply

Globalstrat August 30, 2013 at 6:52 pm

since when did what either of those (whoever fills those positions through history) think or say mean jack?

Reply

Luke August 31, 2013 at 1:56 pm

And you're going to believe them?

Reply

ChuckL September 3, 2013 at 6:55 pm

That's enogh for me to believ it. If they both deny it , it must be true.

Reply

Baduyo September 5, 2013 at 12:03 pm

The ideal weapon to remove the danger of Chemical or Bio agents is call a 50 Megaton Weapon; Makes a nice glowing parking lot also that in a few thousand of years can be used for parking; and remember with proper protection, one can drill thru glass

Reply

Nadnerbus August 30, 2013 at 5:46 pm

I'm sure the AF has some cool tricks up their sleeve for situations like this, but I just don't see how you can possibly be sure that you have accomplished the task of eliminating chemical agents without some boots on the ground. I'm not naive, I know there are probably already some SF types there. But if you are going to strike into a nominally sovereign nation and you want to make sure the chems have been eliminated, I would think you would need a fair number of troops to secure the sites, while specialists inspect them and ensure destruction.

If you don't, how the hell can you ever be really sure of your BDA and know that you have accomplished the goal?

If you do put even a moderate force on the ground to do all this, it greatly complicates the task, and increases risks. I would think you would need at least a ranger battalion to insert by helicopter to secure the site. To send them in, you are going to have to make sure IADS and ground forces in the vicinity are eliminated. You will need a QRF of Marines or big Army ready to go if the Rangers get bogged down, etc.

I am obviously not a military strategist, so can anyone tell me where I am wrong and this can be done with out larger engagement?

Reply

octopusmagnificens August 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm

There are some boots on the ground: Al Qaeda fighters.

Reply

citanon August 30, 2013 at 8:05 pm

They cannot go after the CWs correctly without boots on the ground. It's at least a division sized operation – ie, a full scale invasion.

Right now they can only hit delivery mechanisms (Syrian Air Force) from the air. One would hope that they are also taking this opportunity to train and arm a serious moderate opposition force.

It is beyond folly at this point to hand wring about the dangers of arming the opposition when very well armed and financed Al Qaeda fighters are taking over the opposition and the regime is morphing into an even greater monstrocity.

If neither of the above are acceptable victors, then there has to be a 3rd army capable of defeating both Assad and then immediately after, the Jihadists. This has to be done before the entirety of Syria's opposition decides we are worthless and radical Islam is the one true banner.

What a f***ing mess.

Reply

Nadnerbus August 30, 2013 at 8:16 pm

See, I don't think there is any way to achieve a politically palatable outcome. The aftermath is going to be a giant mess, and the US can't achieve a goal of "better outcome" because there isn't one.

To me the only legitimate military mission here is to make sure chemical weapons don't fall into jihadi hands. That is the only legitimate mission of national self interest that I see. And air strikes just can't do that. For all we know, we blow apart the facilities holding them, and it just makes a hole for the jihadis to sneak in and take the left overs.

The whole thing sounds half baked to me, I just hope the people making the calls know what they are doing. Obviously they are better informed on this stuff than I am, so maybe it is the right call.

Reply

Bb September 4, 2013 at 1:00 pm
therock September 1, 2013 at 1:18 am

Thermite plasma. But it's only in the test phase…Hummel knows this. We are dealing with one smart SOB!

Reply

Nadnerbus September 1, 2013 at 3:39 am

Sean Connery is probably too old to take on this mission. Nick Cage is going to have to go it alone this time.

Reply

Ranger Rick September 8, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Daniel Craig might be up for the task. He appears much more fit than Nicholas Cage.

Reply

Frank Schiffel September 1, 2013 at 9:09 pm

Without knowing CW dispersals, there are other things to target. If we want to take out CW, that is going to mean 80k boots on the ground. I don't care if other nations walk around our craters. There are others that want this SOB hanging from a light post. We can buy the gas for the IDF for all I care in this one. As far as BDA, we have at least 2 U-2s in the area.

Reply

obama 2nd class September 2, 2013 at 4:43 pm

Were already there ! Sounds like nothing more then phosphorus bombs

Reply

Reserm August 30, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Totally agree. In Iraqi freedom the US was not able to disable all of the scud missile launchers. There is no way to pinpoint every chemical loaded round or filled tank and destroy them.

I do not see a strategic importance high enought to use and risk F22s and B2s.

Also… This is not a situation in which you want a prompt victory by the opposition that is so divided and infiltrated by jihadists.

I expect a limited attack for three days. Damaging the sirian command structure, arm stockpile and first of all the airforce and airports would put the regime in a difficult situation by loosimg a safe supply channel from Iran and close air support/bombing capability.

Hopefully this will weaken Assad and give a chance to put pressure on the regime for some sort of transition.

Reply

IknowIT August 30, 2013 at 6:51 pm

Er, to what? Islamist control? That'll be really good.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE August 31, 2013 at 11:24 am

But how dangerous is it for B-2s and F-22s? Heck, its worse for F-15s. Air superiority over Syria hinges on taking out its SAM systems. The only way you can do that is to stealthily get in, drop some bombs, and get the crap out. While the F-15E can do the bomb dropping, it can't exactly be stealthy. F-22s aren't really going to be very good for air to ground. B-2 is the only plane left (F-35s are far from being ready for something like this). Maybe cruise missiles are the only way…..

Reply

Frank Schiffel September 1, 2013 at 9:04 pm

I agree, use Navy and AF standoff assets, don't even launch from near his national boundaries. Level everything not near a population center. Send hm a photo of his palace with crosshairs on it when we're done.

Reply

Bob Bousquet August 30, 2013 at 6:20 pm

If we have expended good money to develop this weapon, & it is deigned that we will be making these strikes; then let's not get "cold feet" & "blink" on this. Beyond this, I would be pressing Turkey to weigh in & support this, along with France. Turkey has, most probably, the largest & best equipped military in this region; & they have a very contentious situation along their border with Syria….

Reply

Chris Parmele September 1, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Israel is the best equipped in this region..

Reply

timothyj999 September 5, 2013 at 9:18 am

"We should use the weapon because we HAVE the weapon" is a very dangerous line of thinking.

Also, the weapon itself isn't the most important consideration. Gas shells are small and easily moved. In order to strike effectively, we would need very specific and up to date intelligence on the location of the shells–something I doubt we have. If we were to strike the gas weapons specifically, and we only destroy a portion, it could very well prompt them to use the ones they have remaining.

A military move in Syria has unintended consequences written all over it–and almost all of them are worse than doing nothing.

Reply

platypusfriend August 30, 2013 at 6:27 pm

s/Sabo/Sabot/

Reply

WulfTheSaxon August 30, 2013 at 8:09 pm

Plus the comparison isn’t exactly valid in the first place. The CBU-107 PAW is subsonic*, and certainly not comparable to an M829, which uses [pyrophoric] depleted uranium. I could understand comparing a Mach 5 (?) CBU-97/CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon with a M829, but not this.

Reply

Paul August 31, 2013 at 2:01 pm

sed 's/Sabo/Sabot/'

Reply

blight_ September 2, 2013 at 4:07 pm

sed is your friend

Reply

WulfTheSaxon August 30, 2013 at 6:42 pm

There seems to be some confusion between CrashPAD and the BLU-119/B Shredder (which is a modified BLU-109, not Mark 84)… See http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/11/secret-ro

Reply

Ben August 30, 2013 at 6:50 pm

"The PAW penetrator rods, which range from several inches to more than one-foot, can disable an enemy fuel tank, antenna or helicopter without necessarily damaging people."

Somebody's going to have to explain this one to me: How can a spray of near supersonic foot long tungsten rods not utterly destroy a human being? Did DARPA finally create pure magic?

Reply

WulfTheSaxon August 30, 2013 at 7:58 pm

I think the idea is that they don’t create a shockwave that could destroy nearby buildings, unlike explosives. In 2003, they were used to destroy an antenna next to the Iraqi Ministry of Information without harming the Ministry of Information itself.

Reply

Ben August 30, 2013 at 8:13 pm

I can get behind that.

Reply

SJE September 3, 2013 at 9:30 pm

Better to be behind the penetrator rods than in front of them: definitely agree

Reply

Steve September 4, 2013 at 3:06 am

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Reply

Baduyo September 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm

they are invisible so they don't hurt people;

Reply

hunter76 August 30, 2013 at 11:09 pm

This magic bullet doesn't seem real to me. At best this is a faint to deceive our enemies.

Reply

greg September 1, 2013 at 2:00 am

How can it be a faint when it's already been used in combat?

Reply

ShellfishJellooFarts September 4, 2013 at 9:17 am

feint

Reply

blight_ September 4, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Feints aren't for the faint of heart.

Reply

Rest Pal September 4, 2013 at 12:51 pm

which one?

those happened in your dreams don't count.

Reply

Rest Pal September 4, 2013 at 11:42 am

LOL … "a faint to deceive our enemies."

more like a "faint" to deceive the American people. And I'll bet the farm it rarely fails (just look at yourself).

To the extent that the American people might be tired of war or afraid of casualties, they are indeed the enemies of the Establishment.

Reply

David August 30, 2013 at 11:50 pm

I don't understand how someone dying from a chemical attack is any different than someone dying from a bullet or bomb? It didn't seem to bother anyone when Syrian civilians were dying from bullets. Why is Obama got his panties in a twist? Dead is dead.

Reply

orly? August 31, 2013 at 1:47 am

Ask WWI survivors, or better yet, Holocaust survivors/liberators.

Reply

IknowIT August 31, 2013 at 6:57 am

Hmm- there were ones shot and ones gassed? Which one would you like to blow your dumb answer out of the water? Or, should I read deeper into that answer and ask if you are in the "whatever's better for Israel camp?"

Reply

blight_ September 2, 2013 at 4:03 pm

The German camp system was divided into death-by-work/typhoid/dysentery and death-by-various-nefarious-industrial-systems camps. Do you suggest that the latter is more evil than the former? Both are evil regardless of the means chosen to kill Jews, Roma, Slavs, LGBTQetc, political prisoners, cognitively defectives.

Dialing back to WW1 survivors, these would be the people who got their lungs shredded by mustard gas and probably pushed hard for "peace in our time" until they got Chamberlain?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE August 31, 2013 at 11:25 am

Well. Chem weapons are much more destructive per gallon than a case of bullets. Release a toxin, and you can take out way more people than before.

Reply

Rest Pal September 3, 2013 at 10:49 pm

Why did the US supply chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 80's then?

Reply

yogiberra111 August 31, 2013 at 11:33 am

Chemical weapons are different because they are indiscriminate killers over widespread and unpredictable areas. They are as likely to kill civilians as combatants. They are weapons of widespread extermination. Same with biological weapons and nukes. That is why they are viewed very differently. Yes, civilians are killed, sometimes in great numbers, during most wars. But WMD's make it too easy, too tempting to kill lots of people in a hurry. Its better that you have to work harder, and maybe think, before you kill lots of innocent people.

Reply

yogiberra111 August 31, 2013 at 11:49 am

Also, the particular chemical agent used in Syria was Sarin. That agent was developed by the Nazis during WWII. However, the Nazis never used chemical weapons during the war. They kept them on hand in case the allies used them first. Hitler specifically ordered that they not be used. You know that CWs are different if even Hitler was against using them.

Reply

Joseph Senko August 31, 2013 at 5:36 pm

They are considered the poor man's atomic bomb.

Reply

blight_ September 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Sarin and Zyklon B were both developed as pesticides pre-WW2; because you know, Germany was /the/ premier spot for organic chemistry research for decades, and probably still competes with the United States even today in terms of quality researchers. They weren't explicitly designed to kill people, but when ACh inhibitors designed for insects happen to have good specificity to ACh receptors in people, well…

Reply

Rest Pal September 1, 2013 at 1:09 am

America had actively supplied chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein for use against the Kurds and the Iranians in 80's.

What have you ever said about that?

Did you urge the UN to bomb the US?

Reply

Rest Pal September 1, 2013 at 1:05 am

The NATO-backed rebels were most likely the ones that had used chemicals. Anyone who has followed the current events with open eyes can identify the same old hallmarks of the US-NATO false flag ops used to start the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan

Propaganda campaigns across US mainstream media (e.g. Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS etc) have been a very accurate predictor of the hidden evil agenda being covertly carried out.

When you see negative "news" about Syria every other day for months

Reply

worldlypatriotusaveteran September 1, 2013 at 6:19 pm

Here's one possible explanation:

Conventional bullets and bombs are NOT prohibited by international conventions and norms.

Chemical and biological warfare are prohibited by the 1925 "Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare," commonly referred to as the Geneva Protocol.

According to the White House, the signatory nations of the Geneva Protocol represent 98% of the world's population.

Hence, the world has already condemned the use of these weapons.

To ignore the Geneva Protocol, and do nothing, would set a dangerous precedent. Other nations, who currently would never consider using chemical or biological weapons, may be emboldened by the world's inaction against Syria.

Whether you are for or against a USA-led military strike, to do nothing, or merely placing additional formal UN economic sanctions on Syria, are not the answer.

Dictators and despots fear very little, but two things they DO understand and fear are violence and potential destruction of their military capabilities.

Reply

blight_ September 2, 2013 at 4:05 pm

They're already emboldened by the thought that if their country is invaded, noble freedom-fighting patriots will bleed the occupier and fill his national cemeteries, and keep the Chinese flagmakers going. They'll just buy tons of AKM's, RPG's, Komets and anti-tank mines and hand them out like hotcakes when Americans cross the line of departure.

Reply

Rest Pal September 3, 2013 at 12:36 pm

For your information, the US has been the biggest violator of the Geneva Convention.

That you are still relying on the White House – a long-proven source of lies (Iraq, Afghanistan, 9-11, Libya, Sudan) – for information shows us just how appalling ignorant, naive, and brain-washed you really are.

The link below is for your reflection and edification:

U.S. implicated in chemical attack in Syria:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/debatableopinion/debata

Reply

Chris August 31, 2013 at 4:53 am

Hmm, this is one of the worst-written articles I've seen on DT, I'm afraid. It's 'sabot', not 'Sabo', and they do NOT 'melt' their way through a target – the detonation of a HEAT warhead produces a stream of fine particles that punch through armour through kinetic energy alone – no melting. And too-many uses of 'so-called'; in all cases, that IS what the thing is called!

Reply

IknowIT August 31, 2013 at 7:00 am

HEAT is not a kinetic energy round, so I think you might have misread something. On the other hand, not sure if yo can have a HEAT round in a sabo configuration- you tankers will have to tell me.

Reply

RWB123 August 31, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Chris has the correct spelling – it's sabot, with a silent 'T' at the end.

And no, there are no HEAT rounds in a sabot configuration. It would be kind of pointless to even consider such a thing. Sabot rounds get their penetration from the sheer speed with which they strike the target. So smaller the cross section to cause wind drag the better. HEAT rounds get their penetration from the Monroe/Neumann effect and the larger the diameter of the charge (and the greater the cross section/wind resistance) the better.

Reply

drone September 1, 2013 at 1:20 pm

Actually, the current M830A1 120mm HEAT round is a subcaliber discarding sabot projectile: http://www.atk.com/products-services/120mm-m830a1

While the added velocity does not enhance penetration, indeed the reduced diameter of the warhead technically reduces it, but the smaller frontal area means that it has a flatter trajectory and therefore easier to shoot accurately at longer ranges.

Reply

Mystick August 31, 2013 at 4:15 pm

"Sabot" also doesn't refer to the projectile itself, but rather the device used to stabilize the projectile while it is within the "launch system" of whatever is moving it downrange…. a gun barrel, deployment tube, whatever, maintaining chamber pressure during deployment, where applicable. The sabot then falls away from the projectile after it leaves the barrel either via drag or centrifugal forces longitudinally, mechanical separation, or in sections radially, via drag or centrifugal forces..

Hence, the APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot)

Reply

ronaldo September 1, 2013 at 3:13 pm

I agree ! Seems they do a poor job of editing the stories they publish.

Reply

Kimberly September 3, 2013 at 6:55 pm

I agree with you Chris.

Reply

basesurge August 31, 2013 at 7:14 am

'A Sabo round is essentially the same thing, a combination of spalling and heat effects. The round melts its way into the tank,” he said'

"Sabot" has a "T" in it.

It's French – yea…

Reply

blight_ September 2, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Like other 'murrican words, like bouillabaisse. :D

Though terms like fougasse might be more appropriate for the military set, and the latin abatis, and abattoir…

Reply

timothyj999 September 5, 2013 at 9:21 am

Yeah, this article is full of technical mistakes. You would think they would assign someone with some military background, or at least someone who had ever read a Tom Clancy novel. The word 'sabot' is very common military jargon–getting it wrong is a big miss by the author and his editor.

Reply

Parrotnorth August 31, 2013 at 7:33 am

Since the Syrian's know we are coming I find it hard to believe any WMDs are now stored in any quanity worth the use of a bomb on. I would have scattered them all over the place. Maybe even sent some back to Iraq.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE August 31, 2013 at 11:26 am

nuke 'em.

Reply

Hibeam August 31, 2013 at 9:14 am

Our bombs are capable. Our leadership not so much.

Reply

Frank Schiffel September 1, 2013 at 9:00 pm

That's what some people said about Bush. Look where that got us. Destroying CW means its going to be in a bunker. If its outside Assad is dumber than Saddam.

Reply

N. B. Forrest August 31, 2013 at 10:35 am

According to Drudge, the military is a little cash strapped; hey buddy, can you lend me a bomb or two??

Reply

Vpanoptes August 31, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Might get a few from the Brits….

Reply

Baduyo September 5, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Reminds me of our bombing missions in Laos/Vietnam; Sending an F4c out with just two bombs and sometimes homemade napalm; We could always borrow from China to pay for the new war; They will be more than happy to provide us with a trillion or two at a fair interest rate and collateral.

Reply

Matt Course August 31, 2013 at 12:16 pm

How about just not going in anyone think of that why do we need to go in to syria and do anything what are the Exec's motives for this, I don't think it's A good idea at all maybe I'm wrong but that's how I feel, at this time we don't even have solid evidence as to who used WMD's so what up with even thinking about A strike on their country ????

Reply

charlie August 31, 2013 at 12:29 pm

Excellent idea Matt. STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WHOLE MESS. If anyone needs to be concerned it's the Israeli's and I'm sure they've been monitoring the situation have all their options considered and are ready to deal with it..

Reply

Z99 August 31, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Let Allah sort 'em out. We don't need another war in the Mideast. Especially with a country allied with Russia and Iran. Even china doesn't want us doing anything. nope nope nope nope

Reply

Jim Collins September 8, 2013 at 6:06 am

We signed treaties, signed by former presidents and ratified by the senate,one was called the fourth Geneva protocol then came the anti chem and bio treaties.Sixty nine percent of the public thinks we should not go. I ask which is more important our honor or present public opinion? If the answer is present public opinion then we don't need the Executive branch to make tough decisions, or even congress all we will need is pollsters. I propose that we honor our word and trust that the guy with 7,000,000,000 lives on his mind will give it some thought.

Reply

peters September 10, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Collins, those who oppose Obama's war effort are over 80% and as high as 90%+ in some states.

Using your argument, the US should be the first country to be bombed by the international community because the US is the largest producer of chemical weapons, has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and is the largest arms dealer in the world.

Reply

Stephen Platt August 31, 2013 at 3:14 pm

A. Proof that Syria detonated the gas: There is no proof.
Obama claims to have Syrian voice communications.
However he will not release them to the American public. Why?
1. A shot across the bow is a threat; it does no damage.
2. In Obama-speak, he means to bomb alleged Syrian
chemical weapons sites.
3. Co-lateral damage. If he does hit a chemical storage
site, they may detonate, causing more civilian death and injury.
4. Any US strike gives Assad the opportunity to detonate the
chemicals, and blame resulting civilian death and injury on
the US. World-wide condemnation of the US would
result.
5. Assad could retaliate and overwhelm the US Embassy in Syria. Remember what happened when our embassy in Libya was attacked.
6. US missiles may miss their targets and destroy civilian
population. Assad could bomb his own people and blame
it on US missiles.
7. If the US strike escalates into a war, the US will own it, just like
Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not want to pay in US lives and money for another damned war!

Reply

Mystick August 31, 2013 at 4:23 pm

Chemical weapons usually aren't "detonated", but rather "deployed", "delivered", or "dispersed".

The whole point of this article is to acknowledge that the Air Force has researched weapon systems that are capable of neutralizing the chemical agents thermally, or otherwise destroying the delivery or storage systems in-place with a smaller dispersion footprint than either designed delivery or dispersion through common explosives(without thermal effects)

Reply

hibeam August 31, 2013 at 11:04 pm

How will the US Air Force respond to chemical weapons smuggled into US cities and used as blackmail? You could drive a herd of elephants from Mexico into Tucson undetected.

Reply

oblatt1 September 1, 2013 at 3:47 am

Ask for more money for long range bombers of course.

Reply

blight_ September 2, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Clearly more SWAT teams to be used on raids on Americans homes will do the trick

Reply

Rest Pal September 1, 2013 at 12:47 am

US air force is just BS'ing when it claims that it has any "specially designed weapons" to take out Syrian "chemical stockpiles".

They just want the funding and help their buddies in the military industrial complex get paid tens of billions of easy taxpayer money. In the process, a brutal dictator who is "friendly" with the West may be installed in office and give some US companies a second chance to rob Syrian citizens, i.e. a copycat of operations the NATO crime syndicate has pulled in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc.

Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton should also be arrested and prosecuted along with Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, GW Bush etc for lying to the American people and advocating / participating in war crimes against civilians in the Middle East.

Reply

ChuckL September 3, 2013 at 7:04 pm

You forgot to include the Indonesian Muslim masquerading as the President of the Unted States

Reply

Rest Pal September 3, 2013 at 7:51 pm

My bad.

Obama is hereby included in the list ( regardless of his religion, party, and citizenship).

Dan Dewey September 3, 2013 at 6:11 pm

I would think the HE would detonate from heat before the chem could be neutralized by heat

Reply

Rest Pal September 1, 2013 at 12:33 am

Not only is there no proof of Syrian government involvement in the alleged chemical attacks, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the NATO-Israel supported rebels were the real culprits.

Why would the Assad govt use chemical weapons when it's winning, and has allowed UN inspectors inside the country?

Such ultra-lame false flag tactics and saturated non-stop propaganda in the US media may work on the uninformed and uneducated Americans (with degrees or not). But the rest of the world know better. Even the UK parliament is having a hard time approving another illegal, unilateral military operation.

Obama is getting more and more pathetic and criminal every year.

An impeachment might be in order, even by the lowest-in-the-world US standard of official accountability.

Reply

Rest Pal September 3, 2013 at 12:44 pm

A report linking the US to the use of chemical weapons in Syria:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/debatableopinion/debata

"… the media has spread new proofs of the U.S. intelligence involvement to chemical attack near Damascus. Hacker got access to U.S. intelligence correspondence and published U.S. Army Col. ANTHONY J. MACDONALD’s mail. Macdonald is General Staff Director, Operations and Plans Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence the Army Staff. It’s about chemical attack in Syria.

In the message August 22 Eugene Furst congratulates Col. on successful operation and refers him to Wasington Post publication about chemical attack in Syria. From the Anthony’s wife dialog with her friend it’s clear the video with the children killed in the chemical attack near Damascus was staged by U.S. Intelligence.

Published data indicate Washington is willing to do anything to achieve its goals in the Middle East. Support for the Syrian opposition with political means and weapons hasn’t brought the expected results."

Reply

ChuckL September 3, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Your evidence is what?

Reply

Rest Pal September 3, 2013 at 10:40 pm

See below.

You may also use google but make sure to avoid mainstream US media – they are puppets of the government and military for the most part.

Reply

Rest Pal September 4, 2013 at 2:42 pm

forgot to mention that the US (Obama, McCain, other lying politicians) and the media etc) have provided NO evidence whatsoever to support their accusation of Syrian government's use of chemical weapons.

All they got is their usual BS claims. Since US politician and US media have zero credibility (some would say negative credibility), the usual presumption applies – it's a false flag operation by the US or some NATO lapdogs.

Now the presumption seems to have been verified by strong circumstantial evidence of US military involvement in planting false evidence against the Syrian government.

Reply

Jacob August 31, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Have we actually tested this "agent defeat weapon" to see if it actually will work as intended? This is the first I've heard of this weapon, and I would imagine that our government would be extremely reluctant to put sarin or VX precursors in the middle of a test range and hit them with a bomb, for fear that something might go wrong.

Reply

Ben August 31, 2013 at 11:03 pm

What better way to test such a bomb than on a country full of america-haters? Win-win no matter what, right?

Joking aside, I wonder the same thing. I find it hard to believe that they would completely destroy the chem agents, but they probably get rid of most of it. Likely a "lesser of two evils" option.

Reply

Frank Schiffel September 1, 2013 at 9:02 pm

there are people that do this well.

Reply

Watersisland September 3, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Gee! That's a great idea Jacob. Since this is the first that YOU'VE heard about it….they've probably been hoping it would not catch your attention and thus your scrutiny. Submit your ideas to the DOD and the Pentagon…."Hey guys….neato idea—lets test it first".
On second thought….continue scrubbing those latrines and be grateful they lowered the standards to even allow you to join.

Reply

Baduyo September 5, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Remember the "Peter Principal" If things can go wrong, they probably will

Reply

Lucinda Salazar August 31, 2013 at 7:02 pm

I am so afraid this is going to go so wrong!!!! I think everyone should go to confession as soon as possible and ask GOD for forgiveness!!!! This may lead to the end of the world!!!!!

Reply

Rob August 31, 2013 at 9:12 pm

The USAF…Ya gotta be in awe of them…(The tip of the spear…).

Reply

dr September 2, 2013 at 12:11 am

Just Nuke the bastards

Reply

TheDude September 22, 2013 at 12:17 am

You gotta nuke somethin'.

Reply

Richard September 2, 2013 at 8:39 am

Unfortunately, there is no one to get behind who can replace Assad. He kept the peace with Israel all these years. What comes next will be true savages.

Reply

Watersisland September 3, 2013 at 9:33 pm

And so the Syrians shouldn't be permitted freedom from tyranny and to control their own destiny…..so that Assad may pacify the Israelis? Let the Israelis deal with that.

Reply

Jeff M September 2, 2013 at 12:25 pm

Advanced air defenses haha, that is just a joke these days, did anybody not see what the champ missile can do? These "air defenses" are cold war era junk! Radar sites are the easiest target to destroy. There are untold ways to defeat these S-300 sam sites, simply flying a stealth weapon to them is probably just the cheapest.

Reply

Lance September 2, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Nice but the president said it will be a Cruise Missile attack for now so no fixed wing manned planes will be used. I dont know why you think a NFZ will be used now in this conflict your wrong.

Reply

wmcritter September 3, 2013 at 9:02 am

Can we drop one on the White House and eliminate the toxic agents that are currently stored there?

Reply

Kjon24wr September 3, 2013 at 10:30 am

wmcritter … good point ;-) LMAO :-D Ponder this: If "Progress" is defined as moving ahead, what does "Congress" mean ?!

Reply

d. kellogg September 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm

In this era of so much fiscal concern and "where are we going to get the money to fund our military effectively enough?",
it's odd that our president is so eager to waste even more financial resources in this proxy-war-turning-hot-soon.

Sad thing is, all weekend on various TV news, we hear of the surrounding neighbor countries and so mant Arab nations decrying, "something must be done!"
Perhaps this time we (the West and Europe) need to take a stance back and let Syria's Arab neighbors handle the situation.

Reply

SJE September 3, 2013 at 9:41 pm

Letting Syria's arab neighbors handle it? The gulf arabs are handling the situation by funding the Sunni elements, and ramping up the radicalism. This is guaranteed to keep everyone else (Shia, Druze, Kurd, Christians, Jews, Alawites, Alevis, moderates) siding with Assad just to keep from be slaughtered. The Alawites remember what is was like for centuries under the Ottoman Turks, when they were second class citizens, as the non-Sunni in the gulf arab states.

I'm not saying the USA needs to go in, but its hard to believe that the arab states are helping the situation.

Reply

amazed108 September 4, 2013 at 11:36 am

Has anyone noticed any any convoy going to Iraq? Maybe the Syrians would return the WMDs to their friends in Iraq to put them out of harms way just like so many of you believe Saddam did. Maybe we should be using these weapons on trucks heading east.

Reply

ch1ch2 September 4, 2013 at 12:08 pm

Why are we not hearing any mention of Russia's treaty/agreement to defend Syria?

Reply

Rest Pal September 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm

probably because the US media and government, under the control and influence of big oil & defense lobbyists, have long decided to get directly involved (in fact, the US has never stopped funding and arming the gangsters / terrorists / rebels in Syria).

Therefore, reporting Russia's intention to defend Syria might intimidate the soldiers and diminish public support for another illegal war. That's why the US military staged a chemical attack on Syrian women and children, then blame Assad for the atrocities (same line of strategy used to drag the US into the Vietnam War).

Reply

Mark September 4, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Could this prophecy be that which is coming to pass?
Isaiah 17:1
Proclamation Against Syria and Israel 17 The burden against Damascus. "Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city, And it will be a ruinous heap.
Jeremiah 49:23-27
23 Against Damascus. "Hamath and Arpad are shamed, For they have heard bad news. They are fainthearted; There is trouble on the sea; It cannot be quiet.
24 Damascus has grown feeble; She turns to flee, And fear has seized her. Anguish and sorrows have taken her like a woman in labor.
25 Why is the city of praise not deserted, the city of My joy?
26 Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, And all the men of war shall be cut off in that day," says the Lord of hosts.
27 "I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, And it shall consume the palaces of Ben-Hadad."
NKJV
Amos 1:5
5 I will also break the gate bar of Damascus, And cut off the inhabitant from the Valley of Aven, And the one who holds the scepter from Beth Eden. The people of Syria shall go captive to Kir," Says the Lord.
NKJV

What do you think?

Reply

Rest Pal September 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm

the Lord sounded pretty violent.

but then, as far I as I'm concerned, Bible = Boring Babble.

don't waste your time reading the Bible. Go for a date, or go to the gym, or go read a novel, …

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 5, 2013 at 10:25 am

"What do you think?"

That you should get out in the fresh air more.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Will September 4, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Will September 4, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Dwebb September 4, 2013 at 7:26 pm
Torrance September 4, 2013 at 8:31 pm

Let me get this. We spent billions of dollars and ten years on incinerating our chemical weapons stockpiles and all we needed to do was drop a bomb on them?

Reply

George N Roll September 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm

Syria's use of chem weapons in nothing compared to what happened in Iraq. Tens of thousand of Kurds and Iranian soldiers were killed by the use of chemical agents, yet we did nothing to punish Sadam till President Bush took action years later. Where was the moral outrage then? Why didn't we attack Iraq when this happened?
Syria is in a serious civil war many thousand of bombs rockete and over 100,000 deaths so far a few dozen cruise missiles thrown in at empty buildings and vacant airfields will do nothing to change anything. The goal is not to effect regime change well what will be accomplished? Nothing except Asad will probably use more chem weapons to show he is not intimidated, Iran may take actions the chefs may start showing up in the hands of terror groups used against Israel Jordan, or other friendly nations. So why throw a few missiles at a nation that won' t care? Will it make President Obama seem more statesman like more credible or just lost in the failed area of foreign policy? It is my belief that this is political theater not the foreign policy of a super power.
George N. Roll Ltc. (ret) USAF PhD candidate, MS MPA

Reply

Ben Leonard September 4, 2013 at 11:05 pm

THEY GOT THEM,AND I SAY USE THEM.THE LONGER THEY WAIT THE LONGER IT GOING TO GO ON.:BOMB THE HELL OUT OF THEM

Reply

ABDELKADER HAMDAOUI September 5, 2013 at 7:43 am

Make sure we target the Russian and the Chinese embassies while we are at it, just as we did in Yugoslavia. Embarking upon a belligerent act on false pretenses again and getting away with it just because as a big bully we can on behalf of our paymasters the Saudis. A bunch of gangsters that's what we have become.

Reply

Dick September 5, 2013 at 11:04 am

First if we violet a foreign country by bombing it is technically an act of war. Second these people have been fighting among themselves for hundreds of years. When and if this may develop into an actual security threat to the homeland then we can blow someone out of the water so to speak.

Reply

Nelson September 5, 2013 at 11:35 am

One thing of which we can be quite certain is that if there is ANY way for Obama to screw this up, he'll find it.
That alone is enough reason to stay out of Syria.
But most important…. Why does Obama feel necessary to intercede here, but stayed away fro Benghazi where the United States WAS attacked?

Reply

DB Cooper September 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm

The developers must be Sci-FI readers. In one book metal spikes were shot out of cannon like devices to acheive hyper velocity speeds to penetrate deeply buried bunkers and caves where civilians were hiding and kill them the same way the authors describe destroying the chemical weapons..

Reply

alaa September 9, 2013 at 10:31 am

Does US emperor wants to test their new technologies on Syrian people?
What if some of those poisons were released?
US admin. is guilty same as Russian… both are fighting each other using the Syrian blood…. the first used AlQaeda and supported them, the second the russian used Assad regime and supported him
In Syria there are humans Mr Obamam https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4945542

Reply

Ted Ward September 13, 2013 at 11:47 am

Why waste such a high tech weapon on such a low tech problem. The russkies will just easily monitor the flight activities with various radars until they figure out a way to defeat the stealth properties of the aircraft. They did this in Kosovo and eventually succeeded in shooting down an F-118. Better to send in a few hundred drones with standoff weapons. Save the best for more serious problems that we hope never arise, but as history shows, do arise.

Reply

Rest Pal September 13, 2013 at 12:56 pm

LOL. The F-22s and B-2s have no stealth properties to the Russians.

Reply

Jim September 25, 2013 at 5:20 pm

@Jacob; there is a range within CONUS that is designed for testing ordnance and other measures against live agents such as sarin, VX, and mustard. Also, the Brookings Institute scientist quoted at the end of the article speaks of determining 'the threshold temperature for rapid agent neutralization', which is somewhat confusing since there is quite a bit of data available on the physical characteristics of various chemical weapons.

Reply

megapolis cheat codes September 28, 2013 at 5:19 pm
xbox live microsoft points October 17, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Very good info. Lucky me I ran across your website by chance (stumbleupon).

I’ve book marked it for later!

Reply

minecraft February 5, 2014 at 10:07 pm

PvP.Emperion.eu ist der, beste Minecraft PvP Server.
Wir sind der größte deutsche Kit Minecraft Server. Wir
suchen immer gute Spieler die auch lust hätten Supporter zu werden.
Wir haben sehr viele eigene Minecraft Plugins bei uns macht das PvP
kämpfen doppelt Spaß. Besucht uns auf unserem Server Minecraft ip:
PvP.Emperion.eu Minecraft Server list http://Minecraft-Server.me the best
Minecraft Server content!

Reply

reklama zielona gora February 28, 2014 at 5:47 am

Neat blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download
it from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog shine.

Please let me know where you got your theme. Thanks a
lot

Reply

google July 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm

s more, Google Play has exceeded its twentieth million download.
You pay only for reasonably good matches recog nized by your potential customers.
It allows users to see all the daily changes in any security’s stock
price without having to visit financial sites.

Reply

alaa September 9, 2013 at 5:21 pm

Well I am from Syria first of all…
Second the regime has murdered more than 100 thousand of Syrians…. this is a fact all Syrians know it and Putin himself,
it was a revolution in Syria against 40 years dictatorship.
Yes, the West Islamist coalition tried to steal the revoltution through the money and extreme ideology…. but Russian too send their agents Islamist …. to put Syrian people between only two options: Assad or Qaeda… and they know that Syrian people will never accept Islamist
Russian government is a partner in the genocide through supporting the dictator and USA government is the second partner…. all of them are fighting for power and money… not for Russian or American people.
please, you read more about the world

Reply

TDS September 9, 2013 at 7:51 pm

You missed the point. Rest Pal is right about the subversive operations funded by the US and NATO.

The Assad government has a right to defend the country and government against armed rebels. Of course the Syrians security forces would have to return fire when fired upon by the rebels. You don't seriously expect Assad and his government to stand there and wait to be killed by the US-NATO-funded rebels, do you?

The point is that when the US/NATO covertly armed and funded the rebels, the intent was to overthrow the Syrian government, for the only reason that Assad had refused to align his government with US special interests groups.

An analogy: Hugo Chavez was a competent and democratically elected president. Yet because he refused to let US companies take unfair advantage of his country, the US government tried to overthrow and assassinate him. Of course the US would do that under some fabricated high-sounding excuse with the help of the corporate-controlled US media.

You are being biased in that you don't mention the murders committed by the rebels, but focuses only on the legitimate armed response from the Syrian government.

Reply

peters September 10, 2013 at 8:18 pm

Excellent Post. TDS.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: