== '''''Iraqi''''' binary weapons? ==
Under the heading ''"Binary weapons"'' the article says:
:''Iraq developed a system in which GF (cyclosarin) is formed upon delivery, most likely mixing together methyphosphonyldifluoride with either cyclohexanol or a mixture of cyclohexylamine and cyclohexanol.''
This is, at best, poorly written. At worst, flat out wrong.
I did a fair bit of research last spring, when US spokesman General Kimmitz claimed the GIs in a bomb disposal squad had been exposed to Sarin. An IED had been built around an old Iraqi chemical munition. The round was not marked, to indicate it was anything other than a conventional munition. Kimmitz either said, or implied, the munition had been a modern binary munition.
Well, I did that research, and learned that the Iraqi chemical weapons specialists had never been able to manufacture binary weapons. The chemical munitions Iraq fielded were '''''not''''' binary weapons. Their chemical munitions contained a single capsule that was shipped and stored half full of a single precursor to the nerve agent. Just prior to firing a chemical warfare specialist would don their chemical protection suit, and charge the munition with the other precursor.
Anyhow there is no reason why a section of this article, on binary weapons, should mention Iraq at all. So, I rewrote that section.-- [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] 05:11, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
* I agree - it's completely unnecessary, and most certainly wrong. However, according to the Riegle Report, Iraq did have some binary capabilities (we all know how reliable ''that'' report is now, however. 20/20 hindsight, eh?) – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 07:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
