Whether the chemical weapon in question is stored in individual mines or steel containers isn't really an issue compared to other factors like where they're stored (above-ground in a building versus a deep bunker, etc.) when they're planning an airstrike for something like this. A conventional Tomahawk carries ~1,000 pounds of high explosive. In the initial 5 seconds, the explosion's temperature can reach above 263 °C to 290 °C.[0] The boiling point for sarin is 147 °C, and it decomposes very quickly at that temperature. If you can penetrate to where it was stored, the odds are very good that sarin (along with most other chemical weapons) will decompose immediately in the explosion, or at the very least, have the process greatly accelerated.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive)

1. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sarin#section=Odor

Yes the aspect about how it was stored is a factor and if ammo box with mines, that is a lot of thermal shielding and maybe enough to enable the contained Sarin to avoid direct exposure and enough thermal insulation to curtail reaching that magic 147°C. Even the aspect of how stored, could increase the prospect of some being thrown clear by the initial impact/explosion. Let alone what was used in the airstrike and its characteristics.

So still reasonable doubt.

I really hope they do a forensics upon that impact sight of Chemical Weapons and get to the truth sooner rather than later.

Perhaps. Compared to how the OPCW suggests that chemical weapons are normally incinerated and/or neutralized, airstrikes are by no means the preferred solution. But when you don't have physical access, and your main concern is preventing their use against civilian populations, they're one of your few tenable options. The number of missiles used might indicate that stockpiles were targeted multiple times to compensate for such possibilities. That said, the mission planners would likely--as a worst-case scenario--prefer to have the Syrians have to cordon off a contaminated base than risk the possibility of a future CW attack on civilians.

You right, but the whole aspect of airstrikes in civilian high density area's in itself for me raises as many red flags as chemical weapons use.

I know why they do it, and wars are alas still measured upon how many combatants you loose, over any innocents loss of life. That needs to change.

> I'm still not convinced that the Chemical Weapons where from Assad or the Russians attack and the probability of them actually being in a weapons store the rebels held, to me seems if not equally probable.

I wasn't aware that the rebels controlled fighter jets?

> I also believe Assad would be totally foolish to use Chemical Weapons

This is not the first time Assad uses chemical agents...

I'm honestly quite surprised to see such a display of mental gymnastics being upvoted on HN.

> This is not the first time Assad uses chemical agents...

The situation has changed though. His regime's prospects of surviving are the best they've been since the war started. Why risk upsetting the current situation for such a small gain?

Do you seriously think that Assad thinks about stuff like that? This guy repeatedly allowed the use of chemical agents on his own civilian population! He is the definition of evil, so using them again is just natural.

Evil =/= stupid

He has absolutely nothing to gain from using chemical agents when he is already winning through conventional means. Even more so considering he probably doesn't plan individual strikes

Much more likely this is a false flag pushed by Israel/Saudi Arabia because Assad's regime is an ally of Iran - their biggest rival in the region.

> Even more so considering he probably doesn't plan individual strikes.

We don't know that, especially when it comes to using chemical weapons. And even if he doesn't, he definitely delegates to representatives he trusts.

> Much more likely this is a false flag

I'm honestly speechless.

Let's suppose for a moment that Assad's regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons on civilians, and that he did not individually, specifically authorize this attack.

If he didn't authorize it directly, it doesn't matter - his regime is set up in such a way that actors under his authority used chemical weapons on civilians.

The justification of a response is not impacted by whether or not he was individually responsible.

>I wasn't aware that the rebels controlled fighter jets?

They don't and afaik no one is claiming that they do. The Syrian government isn't denying a bombing. They're saying that they bombed using conventional munitions but hit a chemical weapon stockpile.

And we're supposed to believe the claims of a government that has used chemical agents on civilians multiple times? Have you heard of 'the boy who cried wolf'?

Are we supposed to believe the same guys that came up with the ginned up tale that got us into Iraq?

If you haven't read up on Operation Avarice, it would be worth your time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...

Yes. Given our history, mistakes and all, yes.

Completely agree. It almost seems like there is a set of individuals in the US gov that have a personal grudge against Assad and have been trying for years under various administrations to take him out. They don't even seem to consider the possibility of Islamist involvement.

For Trump, those who are most vocal against him are equally more inclined to be against Assad and those vocally supporting Trump, will be almost celebrating. It also helps defuse Russian ties a little, as some will view this action.

So It will be interesting to see how his approval rating goes over the next few days.

I hope they are not rushing in without all the facts and that is my fear, and maybe they know something that is not public. Time will tell, as always.

Personal or geopolitical? They probably see removing Assad as removing Russia.

You are right... that makes more sense in its stupidity - maybe some Cold War leftover that just hates the Russians beyond all measure and reason

Nothing to do with Russia. Assad is an ally of Iran, and rather than having a politically stable and militarily capable nation in that area of influence, Israel and Saudi Arabia (among others) would rather have a chaos-ridden post war Iraq or Libya. But they prefer to have the dirty job done by the US- usually it doesn't take much, a bit of lobbying and tons of newspaper articles about the cruel dictator usually do the trick.

Taking him out would remove an easy political scapegoat. Better to keep him as an enemy to sabor rattle against.

Those at the top play games, those at the bottom die for it. It's all a way to strengthen the loyalty of voters.

What you dont get it, is that russia is a terrorist state with a lot of money and nuclear bombs. They bomb their own people even, and don;'t give a shit about them. Their FSB (KGB) killed opposition party leader, ambassadors, journalists... It's biggest MAFIA in the world and you are saying that common sense should work here and it would be a death note for yourself if you will attack with chemical weapons,. But there is no common sense, they are terrorists and they dont give a shit. The biggest problem with western people, that they can't even understand how that would be possible, so you start thinking and logically that no, they can't do that. But they can, they are different how western people think or see things. That's the biggest weapon of russia, that West just won't get it and they can do whatever they want, everyone is either afraid or just think we still might be friends, or better be friends, because it's useful since they have lots of money. If you want to survive in this world having dictators like Putin, Assad, Lukashenka, Kim Jong-Un, you not just sit and express your concerns like Obama did about what happened, but you act and punch back. They understand only power and actions. If you sit doing nothing it means green light, i can do it. Look what Russia did, when everyone was just raising concerns about what Russia is doing in Crimea and Ukraine, They took Syria too, and started bombing children and Syria people. No one gives a shit and everyone is just concerned. Dictators will stop when you will punch back hard into their face, that's what they understand and only then you can negotiate.

> the probability of them actually being in a weapons store the rebels held, to me seems if not equally probable

I'm far from an expert here but I read in one report that Assad generally doesn't store the Sarin gas in its final form as it's highly unstable but instead stores one of the precursor chemicals which takes little effort to convert. Doing this would mean a strike on a warehouse wouldn't release the deadly gas.

I think it's slightly less probably given that the rebels would have had to made a conscious choice to convert the chemical to Sarin and store it. Do the rebels have any history of using it?