Posted on Nov 19, 2015
Does ISIS' attempt at chemical weapons prelude an all-out US war with ISIS in Syria?
5.05K
4
12
0
0
0
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials say the Islamic State group is aggressively pursuing development of chemical weapons, setting up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region.
The American officials tell The Associated Press they do not believe IS has the capability to develop sophisticated weapons like nerve gas that are most suited for a terrorist attack. So far the group is believed to have used mustard gas on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence on the IS program.
In the wake of the Paris attacks claimed by IS, France's prime minister on Thursday warned of the potential for an attack by chemical or biological weapons.
Does this discovery, combined with the heightened agressiveness of ISIS on Western soil, act as a prelude to US engaging in full on war with ISIS? It almost seems ISIS wants war. They ask for it with every terrorist act and with every slick video. Is a boots-on-the-ground all-out war with ISIS in Syria inevitable? Or is there a different response we will choose? What say you?
The American officials tell The Associated Press they do not believe IS has the capability to develop sophisticated weapons like nerve gas that are most suited for a terrorist attack. So far the group is believed to have used mustard gas on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence on the IS program.
In the wake of the Paris attacks claimed by IS, France's prime minister on Thursday warned of the potential for an attack by chemical or biological weapons.
Does this discovery, combined with the heightened agressiveness of ISIS on Western soil, act as a prelude to US engaging in full on war with ISIS? It almost seems ISIS wants war. They ask for it with every terrorist act and with every slick video. Is a boots-on-the-ground all-out war with ISIS in Syria inevitable? Or is there a different response we will choose? What say you?
ISIS
War on Terror
CBRN
Weapons
Strategy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
1
1
0
In my opinion, no. We did not go for an "all-Out" war with Syria once the UN confirmed chemical weapons use. I also recall threats of US force if Syria crossed a "bright red line."
Intentions do not equal capabilities, and capabilities do not always equate with intent to use. Given what I have seen and read, I believe ISIS will attempt to obtain, and eventually use, any weapon they perceive to give them an advantage. The threat of retaliation and/or escalation by the West, or by any local group opposed to them, seems to be of little concern.
If/when ISIS develops, buys, builds, or steals chemical weapons for use, said use is likely to be limited to areas they control in the middle east. I would postulate that it is easier to obtain and use the "original" chemical weapon (Chorine) in other places, if that is their intent.
[Difficulties in manufacture, transport, deployment persistence, etc.. are topics for another day].
Intentions do not equal capabilities, and capabilities do not always equate with intent to use. Given what I have seen and read, I believe ISIS will attempt to obtain, and eventually use, any weapon they perceive to give them an advantage. The threat of retaliation and/or escalation by the West, or by any local group opposed to them, seems to be of little concern.
If/when ISIS develops, buys, builds, or steals chemical weapons for use, said use is likely to be limited to areas they control in the middle east. I would postulate that it is easier to obtain and use the "original" chemical weapon (Chorine) in other places, if that is their intent.
[Difficulties in manufacture, transport, deployment persistence, etc.. are topics for another day].
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Boots on the ground (as well as providing them to those already there) are essential to defeating ISIS/ISIL in that region. As I recall Wesley Clarke got fired by Clinton for saying that we can not win with air power along. The make-up of those boots is the real question. Will we be accompanied by a willing coalition, or as in the past do the heavy lifting with minimal support of the surrounding Muslim countries and European Union members? And the stupidity of it all is that with this threat, the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and N. Korea, we continue with the drawdown of the military. Hope France has a few white flags left to loan us when the arrive on our doorstep.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Alvin B.
This is a good reference for US military active end strength since 1954. Many forget that prior to 9/11 we were on a glide slope to the lowest active military strength since prior to WWII (mid- 1930s pre Nazi Germany levels). Examples based upon my time in uniform:
Army Active Duty End Strength by Year:
1975: 784,333 (Enlisted)
1981: 781,419 (Commissioned)
1990: 732,403 (Just before stop loss for the Persian Gulf War)
1992: 610,450 (The beginning of the post Cold War/Regan era drawdown)
1998: 483,880 (I retire)
1999: 479,426 (End of the post Cold War/Regan era drawdown)
2001: 480, 801 (9/11)
Etc...
At its post 9/11 peak in 2010 the US Army only had 566,064 active duty soldiers.
One of the challenges is the fact that this chart does not account of rate Reserves and the National Guard and their current status as Operational Forces (read supplement for active duty short falls), vice their role as 'Strategic Forces" prior to 9/11 (there to supplement and then replace the active forces) in a war.
The link below has an excellent summary (a full table is at the end):
http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014
Army Active Duty End Strength by Year:
1975: 784,333 (Enlisted)
1981: 781,419 (Commissioned)
1990: 732,403 (Just before stop loss for the Persian Gulf War)
1992: 610,450 (The beginning of the post Cold War/Regan era drawdown)
1998: 483,880 (I retire)
1999: 479,426 (End of the post Cold War/Regan era drawdown)
2001: 480, 801 (9/11)
Etc...
At its post 9/11 peak in 2010 the US Army only had 566,064 active duty soldiers.
One of the challenges is the fact that this chart does not account of rate Reserves and the National Guard and their current status as Operational Forces (read supplement for active duty short falls), vice their role as 'Strategic Forces" prior to 9/11 (there to supplement and then replace the active forces) in a war.
The link below has an excellent summary (a full table is at the end):
http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014
U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers
Here are how the numbers of active duty military personnel have fluctuated over the past 60 years through the Vietnam War, Cold War, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MAJ Alvin B. - I do believe we are spending too much. Unfortunately it is not in the really important areas. Troops and benefits. Lots and lots of funds for pork and non-national defense purposes.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sp4 Byron Skinner, Here we go again another story about the Islamic State using chemical agents. To be clear the Islamic State already has the binary chemicals to make Sarin nerve gas and Mustard agent alone with several thousand 152mm empty binary artillery shells. They acquired this material in June 2014 when they raided an old weapons Depot from the Saddam era the US neglected to find. The Islamic State has also acquired Mustard agent for Syrian weapons cashes. THe only verified use of militarized chemical agents if demo the Assad Government in Homs and in the city of Damascus. AS for biological agents I really doubt if the IS is interested. Biological agents such as Smallpox or Bubonic Plague are as old as western warfare itself and alway have come back to bite the user.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google