With all the posturing, rhetoric and movement of military assets in the gulf with the threat of punishing the Syrian government’s suspected use of a chemical weapon in their battle to maintain power against any number of combatants, I thought I’d start a discussion on another option.
I can only imagine the millions of dollars a day this is costing the governments of France, the United States, and Britain just to name those most prominent in the news. On top of the massive expenditures, I have to wonder what the point of destroying government buildings strategically speaking? I don’t think anyone questions the abilities of the listed governments military’s to carry out such an attack, but who gets punished in the long run? Are we playing on taking out all aircraft and artillery batteries capable of launching more chemical attacks? I can’t speak for France and the UK, but for each roughly $1 million dollar USA cruise missile we unleash, what is the benefit to a citizen here in the USA other than those employed by Raytheon Missile Systems? How does each 1,000 lbs. flying bomb really help the Syrian citizens when it detonates?
I’m certainly not condoning the use of chemical weapons against non-combatants, but I think we should discuss a different tactic that might actually make the chemical weapons Syria has stockpiled obsolete without firing any salvos. The secret to successful use of chemical weapons is to deploy them against someone who is not prepared. If your enemy is prepared for the use, chemicals become a nuisance at best through forcing your adversary to wear personal protective gear and require decontamination and medical treatment capability.
After the Tokyo subway attack, the United States spent a small fortune on preparing American cities for just such an eventuality by building a response capacity, a defensive weapon system against chemical weapons, not by launching cruise missiles. There are dozens of countries with curriculums on managing chemical weapon casualties, I know I helped author one. I’m guessing for about the same cost as 500 cruise missiles, we could provide every Syrian citizen with an auto-injector and a simple visual aid on when and how to administer the nerve agent antidote, and basic decontamination principles. Gas masks are great with training but I don’t think we’ll get that carried away. We may want to hold some train-the-trainer courses to allow the Syrian medical infrastructure to run the antidote program. I have great confidence that our Special Forces members can infiltrate the Syrians and ID targets for missiles, so they could probably hold classes on the ground just as easy instead.
I’m sure there are plenty of folks who will shoot this concept full of holes, but the intent is to start a discussion where we apply basic principles of emergency management to any hazard a community might be facing, domestic or abroad. Imagine you were an emergency manager in Damascus, what would your emergency plan look like against a chemical weapon threat? I can tell you mine would not have a strategy of 1) Consider outside countries blasting the dickens out of the city.
I guess the gaping hole I’d poke in you proposal is that you are addressing only one class of chemical weapon, nerve agents. While saying you wouldn’t go as far as issuing gas masks, inhaled agents (cheaper and easier to produce, while more difficult to disperse effectively) would require gas masks. I can’t think that pumping chlorine or phosgene into a subway station hasn’t crossed some bad guy’s mind.
Thanks for taking time to read the blog and post a reply Jay, I really appreciate it. I’ll explain my rationale on my choice of a solution for a response to the nerve agent attack which recently took place in Syria. Any time their is an “antidote” to a high probability threat, I would encourage people to get a hold of it. The challenge of a successful use of a volatile nerve agent in an open air setting as observed in Syria is dependent upon delivering an adequate volume of agent which will produce an appropriate dosage. Fresh air is the best defense against an open air attack and why I chose not to suggest gas masks for the public. I would only recommend gas masks for those who must either go into the area shortly after nerve agents are released, or those who must stay in the area, other than that, move to fresh air, it won’t be far away. During the threat of scud missile attacks on Israel back in the early 1990’s, both gas masks and auto-injectors were distributed to the civilians. There were deaths in citizens due to improper use/design of the gas masks, but no deaths due to inadvertent use of the auto-injectors. Another reasons I would lean towards expecting non-persistent nerve agents to be the number one threat is they are the best choice from a tactical standpoint to use. They are designed to quickly kill or injure my enemy and force them to move, but my forces can occupy the area very quickly without need to extensive PPE or decontamination support as they quickly dissipate, (also aids in making discovery of use more problematic). My last reason for choosing to prepare for only volatile nerve agents is that I firmly believe the best predictor of future behavior is looking at past behavior. I don’t suggest my solution is a 100% cure, but I will go out on a limb and say it is a 30% solution to mitigating future casualties from chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict. I give the cruise missile attack solution about 0.5% chance of doing the same and a 100% chance of provoking a return fire attack on the US navy ships which fire the missiles, which will put American’s serving on those ships at risk for no defensible or logical reason.
I guess I didn’t understand the intent and context of your statement. You are speaking more of situations where conflict exists. The victims of 9/11 were not at war nor were they in a region of conflict. Commuters in a subway will not be either if a terrorist decides to attack a subway with an inhaled agent. The goal of such an attack has no strategic aim or tactical motive (such as denial of territory). It simply wants to inflict terror.
The context of my solution for auto-injectors and education is only applicable to the current situation of concern in Syria that “something be done”. My proposal is for auto-injectors of antidote and education other than cruise missiles.
I think the point of a strike would be to try to convince Syria and other states that they will be punished for using chemical weapons. All but about 5 countries on earth have agreed to the 1968 Chemical Weapons Convention to not only refrain from using, but also to destroy all chemical weapons. They’re just too indiscriminate, and too much a population-attack-focused weapon, and something most of the world wants to make an unacceptable method of warfare. Unfortunately the objective of an airstrike isn’t to protect Syrian civilians, at least not directly. It’s to set a precedent that a certain class of warfare is simply unacceptable and you’ll be punished for engaging in it.
Interesting that by authorizing a strike against the Syrian government, the United States will be siding with Al Qaeda who has stated it would punish Syria for last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack. They have decided to strike the main joints of the regime including security branches, support and supply points, training centers, and infrastructure.
A case certainly is weak to say we are worried about civilian deaths in Syria since deaths in Darfur are estimated in the hundreds of thousands and we don’t seem to interested in bombing anything there to punish anyone.
Forgive me if you are already aware of the CSEPP efforts through FEMA and Department of the Army. Having worked for FEMA for a short time in this program, I pose this process as having a potential for something similar in Syria. I understand the complications, differences, dynamics, demographics, etc., etc., but I also agree to a pretty significant extent with Jan’s original OP regarding preparedness efforts as opposed to the hammer of cruise missiles. Implementation, of course, would be problematic given the fact this would be done in a “war” zone of sorts, but anytime efforts at helping instead of punishing are used, I believe the reception by locals is going to be more positive in the long run. My two cents worth.
I also worked in the CSEPP program for a number of years and agree you look at implementing components you can given the environment.
I saw the words “auto-injector,” thought you were referring to my EpiPen, and was all excited. What are the ingredients of the auto injector you refer to, who would make it, how would it be distributed, etc.?
Your idea is very interesting and worth discussing.
The antidotes for organophosphate(nerve agent) intoxication are atropine and 2-Pam (Pralidoxime chloride). I am not trying to endorse any particular manufacturer but there are a number of makers of devices which will give and IM injection under pressure which results in an onset of action nearly as fast as an IV dosage. There are probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of expired nerve-agent antidote kits which were handed out across the United States back in the late 1990’s that could be shipped to Syria for utilization. Depending upon how temperature controlled the kits have been kept, efficacy of the antidotes may still be useful.
If they’re still around that might be a good approach. I too worked a bit with CSEPP and as many stockpiles have finished their work and closed up shop we probably have quite a few more than we need of them lying around.
Hello ,Jan and greetings to all:
I am very much in favor of implementing a training program based on toxidrome recognition and expedient delivery of antidotal therapy for any perceived medical threat utilizing chemical agents which can induce adverse physiological effects and that can be mitigated by such therapy. I further add that the medical-health care delivery infrastructure must also be prepared to provide at least rudimentary critical care such as mechanical ventilatory support as these agents are capable of causing respiratory dysfunction and apnea due via central nervous system involvement.
Also the “aging” times of the nerve agent,where the agent binds irreversibly with acetylcholinesterase vary,and in an agent such as soman (GD),the agent forms an irreversible covalent bond with acetylcholinesterase within approximately 2 minutes,requiring rapid administration of antidotes. Severe exposures will require additional administrations. For the possibility of soman,do we “pre-treat” with pyridostigmine ,as they did in the first Gulf War?
I agree regarding the open-air dispersal of a volatile, “non-persistent” agent to some extent,and I am not for mass distribution of M-40 respirators or other respiratory protection,although with PROPER training and routine drills and exercises this may be added to the protective and biomedical countermeasures scheme of a community.
For even an open-air dispersal of a non-volatile,persistent agent such as VX or another thickened agent ,then that would be significantly more problematic.
All relevant points Frank for a “normal” location to implement a program. My personal view of Syria is that it is anything but a normal environment in trying to implement a just-in-time delivery and distribution of antidotes in the face of imminent threat. Worse case delivery for my proposal is stealth fighters dumping their load of auto-injectors and pictorial “how to” figures for use over non-government controlled areas.
Syria is definitely a hostile,austere operational environment,however,there may be a way via humanitarian medical entities eg.MSF, along with SF medical teams??