There's been another attack in Iraq using bombs and chlorine -- the second in two days. So I'm pushing back up to the top of the page this post from Jason Sigger. He's DC-area chem-bio analyst, working for... uh, well, he'd rather not say.
Insurgents in Iraq are getting nasty and reading up on their Department of Homeland Security disaster scenarios. Someone tied a few blocks of explosive onto a truck carrying chlorine, and blew it up near a restaurant in Baghdad. It's the third such attackin a month. From Reuters:
This was just one violent incident among a number of other bombings and shootings, so it didn't get much media attention. I'll bet though, that some people in OSD [Ofice of the Secretary of Defense] and the DOD [Department of Defense] Chem-Bio Defense Program start foaming at the mouth - terrorist chemical incident!! It's a Toxic Industrial Chemical attack!! Fire up the budget requests! Start the R&D machine up!
You might catch my cynicism, mild as it is. The popular thing these days is to expand the definition of "weapons of mass destruction" to include things like industrial chemicals from tankers, water treatment plants, and chemical industries. However, as seen here, the actual consequences of the incident hardly merit attention other than another bombing in Iraq - one of many. The other consequences of viewing industrial chemicals on the same level as chemical warfare agents is that the R&D community tries to create detectors and protective suits that apply to both threats - and therefore take more time to develop and cost more per item.
If a terrorist group is attracted to using industrial chemicals like this, it's because DHS, the EPA, and other "experts" make such a big deal about being afraid of these kinds of incidents. They are manageable incidents and not WMD events. The military needs CB defense gear that protects against the most lethal CB warfare agents, allowing them to continue operations on a contaminated battlefield. Trying to create universal protective gear against all hazards will only delay the process of developing good capabilities. A few incidents of industrial chemical releases are cases for hazmat teams, not cases for the military.
UPDATE: CNN hypes it up - "Scores choke in poison gas attack - A cloud of deadly toxic gas engulfed an Iraqi town Tuesday, killing six people and leaving dozens of others choking on fumes after a tanker carrying chlorine exploded outside a restaurant." And immediately below that breathless announcement (no pun intended), two other carbombs that did as much damage as the "toxic attack." Why don't they say "deadly explosives attack leaves dozens of others with ringing heads and numerous injuries"? Explosives are just too common as stories, I guess.
UPDATE 2: Just to be clear. The real impact of this attack is not the actual casualties, but the psychological impact on U.S. forces and noncombatants in the area.
Explosives strapped onto a fuel tanker would have caused many more casualties, but by using an industrial chemical, the insurgents have succeeded in making the military and the media believe that they are escalating the conflict to a new level of unconventional warfare.
Ironically, because chlorine gas can be seen and smelled at low levels, people can avoid casualties by merely evacuating the area or seeking shelter in a building. But by using a chemical, they've panicked the unthinking masses.
*__UPDATE 3: __*The two latest attacks weren't quite the same. Tuesday's strike, north of Baghdad, was with "a tanker filled with chlorine that had been rigged to explode," the Times notes. Wednesday's "combined explosives with chlorine gas."
__UPDATE 4: __"U.S. troops raided a car bomb factory west of Baghdad with five buildings full of propane tanks and ordinary chemicals the military believes were to be used in bombs, a spokesman said Thursday, a day after insurgents blew up a truck carrying chlorine gas canisters."
-- Jason Sigger, cross-posted on Armchair Generalist
