NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Allanea]

It's worth noting here that Sarin is expensive to produce, and later chemical weapons moreso. Sarin costs $160-$800 per gram in 2016 dollars. Include the fact that 90-99% of the sarin released on the battlefield is effectively wasted, and you're starting to run into a real problem. An 155mm shell carries just about 3 kilograms of sarin, costing at the best, $480,000.

I'm not clear why you'd want to spend this much money to force people to wear MOPP when you can just drop HE-F and kill them.

[Laritaia]

so it's like an ASW helicopter

but worse

During the trials, Seagull operated successfully in sea state 6, at winds exceeding 35 knots and 1.5 meter high waves

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sea State 6 usually considered waves 2-4 times that high?

in non marketing guff world yes

[Taihei Tengoku]

It's worth noting here that Sarin is expensive to produce, and later chemical weapons moreso. Sarin costs $160-$800 per gram in 2016 dollars. Include the fact that 90-99% of the sarin released on the battlefield is effectively wasted, and you're starting to run into a real problem. An 155mm shell carries just about 3 kilograms of sarin, costing at the best, $480,000.

I'm not clear why you'd want to spend this much money to force people to wear MOPP when you can just drop HE-F and kill them.

Truly a step backwards from mustard gas and phosgene?

[Gallia-]

When you use terms like "internal propaganda", you make it sound more cynical than it actually is. I'm not sure if "propaganda" has the same connotations in Russian or Hebrew or whatever as it does in English, but when you said that term, you made it sound as if both sides were both fully aware that their opponent was never going to use chemical weapons, yet stated otherwise for some inscrutable and nefarious ulterior motive. That may have been true for the Soviet Union, I guess, if the chemical designers didn't actually realize that Novichok wasn't as deadly/effective as they claimed beforehand (implying pre-knowledge); but not so much for the West because the West killed its offensive CW program in the '60s and '70s (starting an unbroken chain of pandering to humanitarian lobbyists) and focused purely on defensive aspects.

The Soviet government promoted educational materials to soldiers and civil defense personnel that described a future where chemical weapons would be rampant on the battlefield, due to being widely used by NATO. There is evidence - in the form of archive material, and in the form of memoirs from individuals who actually spoke to Soviet generals - that many in the Soviet high command knew that this was not going to be a reality. Even more flabbergastingly, some post-Soviet states (Belarus in particular) continue including chemical weapons survival training in their educational material. (Right alongside with a chapter reminding you that as a Belarussian soldier, it is your duty under International Law to treat surrendering US Marines humanely.)

So because something isn't necessarily used at that point in time, it makes no sense to prepare for its use? That's rather asinine, innit? Even the US Air Force and Seabees still practice under chemical conditions. Number of times the US Air Force and Seabees have fought under actual chemical conditions: 0.

Clearly they must be morons or something.

It's worth noting here that Sarin is expensive to produce, and later chemical weapons moreso. Sarin costs $160-$800 per gram in 2016 dollars. Include the fact that 90-99% of the sarin released on the battlefield is effectively wasted, and you're starting to run into a real problem. An 155mm shell carries just about 3 kilograms of sarin, costing at the best, $480,000.

I'm not clear why you'd want to spend this much money to force people to wear MOPP when you can just drop HE-F and kill them.

Good thing is NS where the cost of chemical weapons can be reduced by dropping a zero or three.

It's worth noting here that Sarin is expensive to produce, and later chemical weapons moreso. Sarin costs $160-$800 per gram in 2016 dollars. Include the fact that 90-99% of the sarin released on the battlefield is effectively wasted, and you're starting to run into a real problem. An 155mm shell carries just about 3 kilograms of sarin, costing at the best, $480,000.

I'm not clear why you'd want to spend this much money to force people to wear MOPP when you can just drop HE-F and kill them.

Truly a step backwards from mustard gas and phosgene?

Hello Viyk.

[Austrasien]

It's worth noting here that Sarin is expensive to produce, and later chemical weapons moreso. Sarin costs $160-$800 per gram in 2016 dollars. Include the fact that 90-99% of the sarin released on the battlefield is effectively wasted, and you're starting to run into a real problem. An 155mm shell carries just about 3 kilograms of sarin, costing at the best, $480,000.

I'm not clear why you'd want to spend this much money to force people to wear MOPP when you can just drop HE-F and kill them.

Truly a step backwards from mustard gas and phosgene?

Despite the Iraqi use of Tabun the percentage of Iranian chemical casualties who died (3-4%) was not significantly different from WWI experience. Iranian preparedness for chemical warfare was extremely poor too; atropine was their first and only real treatment for soldiers exposed to tabun. They even got into the habit of administering it to victims of mustard gas.

[Allanea]

So because something isn't necessarily used at that point in time, it makes no sense to prepare for its use? That's rather asinine, innit? Even the US Air Force and Seabees still practice under chemical conditions. Number of times the US Air Force and Seabees have fought under actual chemical conditions: 0.

Clearly they must be morons or something.

I've not said anything about things not making sense.

What I'm suggesting however, is that military doctrine, planning, and procurement, is not directed by a group's rational knowledge of what future conflict will be like, or by what a nation's needs are, but by what they are perceived to be, based on an elaborate complex of factors. Even if rational knowledge of future conflict existed - and it does not - military planning is often admitted to be affected by industry lobbying, the requirements of propaganda (in the case of chemical warfare, perpetuating the belief your enemy is a totally evil jackass that would sarin Grandma if they could if worthwhile), and ideology.

Note that practicing under chemical conditions is not the same as believing future wars will feature wide deployments of chemical weapons. There have been numerous incidents where chemical weapons have been used, or attempted to be used, by terrorists against US forces (particularly via the remains of the Iraqi WMD program, and chemweapons smuggled by Iran). There's also been wars with third-world states using them against each other. Finally, there are numerous weapons that are not 'chemical weapons' but have a toxic poison as a by-product.

Moreover, the skills for protecting against chemical weapons carry over to protecting against radioactive fallout, against which MOPP suits, vehicle overpressure systems, etc. also protect - and it's almost an inevitable that nuclear weapons will feature in any large-scale war the US will have to fight against a major state actor, indeed the probability of this only increases with time as more and more states go thermonuclear.

Possessing a large chemical weapons stockpile - in the sense of 'weapons designed kill purely through their toxic effect' is not useful because the best you can accomplish is make the enemy vaguely uncomfortable as they work under NBC conditions. Unless there is a scientific breakthrough in the development of chemical weapons and totally new biochemistry is discovered - not currently on the horizon - this is going to be the case. Meanwhile, conventional will kill a man whether or not he's wearing a MOPP suit. His ability to cycle shells into his D-30 or into his M777 will be limited by the fact his limbs are in different zip codes or the gun hydraulics are damaged by shrapnel. Even worse, drones and UGVs DGAF about chemical weapons at all.

That said, the perfect solution is probably something like WP that both burns things and forces people to wear gas masks.

[Question540]

Never really used this before, but around how many days of supplies would a modern army (present time take)? It's a Western European army. I mean how many days would it take them to run out of supplies if they don't get any supplies.

[Allanea]

Never really used this before, but around how many days of supplies would a modern army (present time take)? It's a Western European army. I mean how many days would it take them to run out of supplies if they don't get any supplies.

This is a question that's not fully answerable. A small army unit has stocks of supplies on it that let it function (fight in full-scale combat) for 2-3 days. It can stretch itself a bit past that. But the amount of supplies needed are so vast, that resupplying vigorously is the preferred course of action. A modern division (in laymen's terms, a unit of 10-20,000 troops) requires something between 4-8 thousand tons of supplies daily, the bulk of it ammunition and fuel, if it actually fighting in a war. Most of these supplies can't be 'harvested' locally in any way, so you need to either prepare them before the war, or have a well-organized industrial system to make them during the war.

[Allanea]

Not to toot my own horn, but you should be reading this.

[Question540]

Never really used this before, but around how many days of supplies would a modern army (present time take)? It's a Western European army. I mean how many days would it take them to run out of supplies if they don't get any supplies.

This is a question that's not fully answerable. A small army unit has stocks of supplies on it that let it function (fight in full-scale combat) for 2-3 days. It can stretch itself a bit past that. But the amount of supplies needed are so vast, that resupplying vigorously is the preferred course of action. A modern division (in laymen's terms, a unit of 10-20,000 troops) requires something between 4-8 thousand tons of supplies daily, the bulk of it ammunition and fuel, if it actually fighting in a war. Most of these supplies can't be 'harvested' locally in any way, so you need to either prepare them before the war, or have a well-organized industrial system to make them during the war.

So I'd assume an army of over 40,000 (including some tanks) wouldn't last very long. Would It be safe to say that they are running out of food and water already if the encirclement started yesterday (and there was some light combat afterwards)?

They're also wouldn't be much to forage, since they were following a narrow road. Then they probably gotten into fighting position near a city, but they bombarded it so there's that.

[The Akasha Colony]

So I'd assume an army of over 40,000 (including some tanks) wouldn't last very long. Would It be safe to say that they are running out of food and water already if the encirclement started yesterday (and there was some light combat afterwards)?

They're also wouldn't be much to forage, since they were following a narrow road. Then they probably gotten into fighting position near a city, but they bombarded it so there's that.

A force of that size would probably have 5-7 days of supplies, assuming that its logistics units themselves weren't cut off when encircled.

But from there, it depends on the unit's own consumption rates. If the unit is careful and starts rationing its supplies, it can stretch this a bit further. But its ability to do this depends on its situation. A unit that is encircled and already in defensive positions will generally not consume as much fuel as a unit that is on the march or on the offensive. Soldiers dug into fighting positions can conserve food as they are no longer heavily exerting themselves with long marches, but digging the fighting positions themselves is taxing and would push food and water consumption up. Ammunition consumption is directly related to the intensity of the fighting.

Starvation starting a day after an encirclement would be very odd. It would only be possible if the unit were undersupplied to begin with, which is always possible if someone in the quartermaster department fucked up, but at that point they might seriously consider not advancing and waiting for supplies first if they're so close to exhausting their current stocks.

[Allanea]

It should be noted that encircling an army is harder than is normally thought. It typically requires numerical superiority, and if the opponent doesn't havve one, you could attempt a breakthrough or resupply.

[Dostanuot Loj]

You do specify that an army of around 40k people, was marching itself down a narrow road?

Units this size do not get encircled because they traveled down single roads. This is a lot of people, and a lot of equipment, there are always multiple avenues and a large area of operation. If it's a single narrow road, it is not a unit this size, it is no more then a brigade, and far more likely a company sized unit.

[Gallia-]

So because something isn't necessarily used at that point in time, it makes no sense to prepare for its use? That's rather asinine, innit? Even the US Air Force and Seabees still practice under chemical conditions. Number of times the US Air Force and Seabees have fought under actual chemical conditions: 0.

Clearly they must be morons or something.

I've not said anything about things not making sense.

What I'm suggesting however, is that military doctrine, planning, and procurement, is not directed by a group's rational knowledge of what future conflict will be like, or by what a nation's needs are, but by what they are perceived to be, based on an elaborate complex of factors. Even if rational knowledge of future conflict existed - and it does not - military planning is often admitted to be affected by industry lobbying, the requirements of propaganda (in the case of chemical warfare, perpetuating the belief your enemy is a totally evil jackass that would sarin Grandma if they could if worthwhile), and ideology.

Note that practicing under chemical conditions is not the same as believing future wars will feature wide deployments of chemical weapons. There have been numerous incidents where chemical weapons have been used, or attempted to be used, by terrorists against US forces (particularly via the remains of the Iraqi WMD program, and chemweapons smuggled by Iran). There's also been wars with third-world states using them against each other. Finally, there are numerous weapons that are not 'chemical weapons' but have a toxic poison as a by-product.

Moreover, the skills for protecting against chemical weapons carry over to protecting against radioactive fallout, against which MOPP suits, vehicle overpressure systems, etc. also protect - and it's almost an inevitable that nuclear weapons will feature in any large-scale war the US will have to fight against a major state actor, indeed the probability of this only increases with time as more and more states go thermonuclear.

Possessing a large chemical weapons stockpile - in the sense of 'weapons designed kill purely through their toxic effect' is not useful because the best you can accomplish is make the enemy vaguely uncomfortable as they work under NBC conditions. Unless there is a scientific breakthrough in the development of chemical weapons and totally new biochemistry is discovered - not currently on the horizon - this is going to be the case. Meanwhile, conventional will kill a man whether or not he's wearing a MOPP suit. His ability to cycle shells into his D-30 or into his M777 will be limited by the fact his limbs are in different zip codes or the gun hydraulics are damaged by shrapnel. Even worse, drones and UGVs DGAF about chemical weapons at all.

That said, the perfect solution is probably something like WP that both burns things and forces people to wear gas masks.

I don't see how a MOPP suit helps against radioactive anything, in any sense. Beta particles are the most penetrating particles that can be stopped by anything a human being can wear, and those can be stopped by a battle dress blouse, although I suppose the carbon lining of a MOPP suit would be a very minor benefit against beta radiation. Gamma radiation is only stopped by earthen structures or large, thick metal objects, so the best defense against a purely nuclear/radioactive threat is just your BDUs and a handkerchief on your face to stop you from inhaling alpha/beta emitting dust. This keeps you from burning up inside a chemical suit and keeps you from filling a gas mask filter with smoke/ash that makes it even harder to breathe.

MOPP suits are only worn when chemical threats are expected, anticipated, or possible, anyway.

I suppose this means that in the grim darkness of the next war men will still be wearing MOPP suits even though no one has chemical weapons? Unless de-industrialization reaches it absolute peak and neither side has any infrastructure for producing potentially hazardous industrial process materials (like phosgene) whatsoever, with the only "industry" consisting of factories designed to build Chinese and Indian knock-down kits instead of actually manufacture things from raw materials. Here's hoping Dear President keeps that one from happening in real life, and then he will be up to like three whole Good Things.

But unless everyone in the war has no ability to manufacture industrial chemicals or otherwise acquire them, then I guess MOPP suits stick around to make hazardous industrial chemicals less hazardous.

[Arkandros]

I've not said anything about things not making sense.

What I'm suggesting however, is that military doctrine, planning, and procurement, is not directed by a group's rational knowledge of what future conflict will be like, or by what a nation's needs are, but by what they are perceived to be, based on an elaborate complex of factors. Even if rational knowledge of future conflict existed - and it does not - military planning is often admitted to be affected by industry lobbying, the requirements of propaganda (in the case of chemical warfare, perpetuating the belief your enemy is a totally evil jackass that would sarin Grandma if they could if worthwhile), and ideology.

Note that practicing under chemical conditions is not the same as believing future wars will feature wide deployments of chemical weapons. There have been numerous incidents where chemical weapons have been used, or attempted to be used, by terrorists against US forces (particularly via the remains of the Iraqi WMD program, and chemweapons smuggled by Iran). There's also been wars with third-world states using them against each other. Finally, there are numerous weapons that are not 'chemical weapons' but have a toxic poison as a by-product.

Moreover, the skills for protecting against chemical weapons carry over to protecting against radioactive fallout, against which MOPP suits, vehicle overpressure systems, etc. also protect - and it's almost an inevitable that nuclear weapons will feature in any large-scale war the US will have to fight against a major state actor, indeed the probability of this only increases with time as more and more states go thermonuclear.

Possessing a large chemical weapons stockpile - in the sense of 'weapons designed kill purely through their toxic effect' is not useful because the best you can accomplish is make the enemy vaguely uncomfortable as they work under NBC conditions. Unless there is a scientific breakthrough in the development of chemical weapons and totally new biochemistry is discovered - not currently on the horizon - this is going to be the case. Meanwhile, conventional will kill a man whether or not he's wearing a MOPP suit. His ability to cycle shells into his D-30 or into his M777 will be limited by the fact his limbs are in different zip codes or the gun hydraulics are damaged by shrapnel. Even worse, drones and UGVs DGAF about chemical weapons at all.

That said, the perfect solution is probably something like WP that both burns things and forces people to wear gas masks.

I don't see how a MOPP suit helps against radioactive anything, in any sense. Beta particles are the most penetrating particles that can be stopped by anything a human being can wear, and those can be stopped by a battle dress blouse, although I suppose the carbon lining of a MOPP suit would be a very minor benefit against beta radiation. Gamma radiation is only stopped by earthen structures or large, thick metal objects, so the best defense against a purely nuclear/radioactive threat is just your BDUs and a handkerchief on your face to stop you from inhaling alpha/beta emitting dust. This keeps you from burning up inside a chemical suit and keeps you from filling a gas mask filter with smoke/ash that makes it even harder to breathe.

MOPP suits are only worn when chemical threats are expected, anticipated, or possible, anyway.

I suppose this means that in the grim darkness of the next war men will still be wearing MOPP suits even though no one has chemical weapons? Unless de-industrialization reaches it absolute peak and neither side has any infrastructure for producing potentially hazardous industrial process materials (like phosgene) whatsoever, with the only "industry" consisting of factories designed to build Chinese and Indian knock-down kits instead of actually manufacture things from raw materials. Here's hoping Dear President keeps that one from happening in real life, and then he will be up to like three whole Good Things.

But unless everyone in the war has no ability to manufacture industrial chemicals or otherwise acquire them, then I guess MOPP suits stick around to make hazardous industrial chemicals less hazardous.

It's not about radiation, it's about contamination. Keeping the heavy particles that stick to you/your MOPP suit (aka fallout) outside of your nonradioactive area keeps it nonradioactive, which minimizes personnel exposure. You can then also make effective use of lead/water/doped poly shields to actually protect personnel inside buildings.

[Gallia-]

All the more reason to not wear a MOPP suit when you can just wash yourself off at a decontamination station using a bucket of soapy water.

[Allanea]

And yet FM 3-4 states:

Where the hazard is from residual nuclear effects (for example, fallout), the commander modifies MOPP level based on his assessment of the situation and criticality of the mission. MOPP gear does not protect against gamma radiation. This fact is of immediate concern to the commander. Other risks include burns from beta particles and ingestion of alpha particles. Wearing of MOPP gear can reduce the risk of injury from these radiological hazards. A primary concern is to reduce the amount of radioactive contamination that contacts the skin and to prevent ingestion of radioactive particles.

** Once it has been determined that only a low-level residual radiological hazard exists, the commander may decide to modify the unit's MOPP posture or procedures in fight of mission requirements. For example, soldiers are told to unmask, remove the hoods, and unbutton the BDOS. Soldiers can cover their noses and mouths with handkerchiefs or other material that provides dust protection in lieu of their protective masks. Wearing of full MOPP significantly reduces the beta bum and alpha particle ingestion hazard; performance degradation and heat stress increase. As in the case of protection from chemical hazards, achievement of radiological protection involves a tradeoff against the risk of MOPP: induced performance degration and heat illness.

[Allanea]

And here's an official Air Force document.

[Gallia-]

And yet it implies that MOPP is entirely optional and actual nuclear effects testing (Desert Rock) showed that protection against radioactive alpha/beta particles can be accomplished with battle dress uniform and a handkerchief. The quote literally mentions that. It does not say "commanders should go to MOPP 4 when operating in fallout conditions", the tone is very different from that of chemical conditions. And given that FM 3-4 is a Cold War era document, which if your claims about "internal propaganda" are in any way true, then the expectation was that operating in nuclear conditions necessarily meant operating in chemical conditions, because the battlefield would have anything not being nuked end up getting covered in sarin or VX.

So no, you don't actually have a point there. Find something else. FM 3-4's context is that of a total WMD battlefield: Not nuclear, not chemical, but all of them at once. The one time the US Army has operated under "pure" atomic fallout conditions: troops wore BDUs and handkerchiefs to keep dust out, were not issued chemical suits or any other things, and they used brooms to sweep the radioactive dust off their M47 tanks and M59 APCs. If chemical suits were in any way relevant to fallout conditions, they would have been worn then.

If anything they're actually atrocious because MOPP suits suck up moisture and when black rain is falling you do not want to be wearing two uniforms while being soaked to the bone in radioactive ash laden rain. You want to wear something you can rip off quickly and douse yourself in warm, soapy water to get rid of the dirt before it burns you.

And here's an official Air Force document.

Notice, however, that MOPP Level Alpha only suggests wearing enough to cover exposed skin: the chemical gloves and the mask/hood. The BDUs cover the rest of the body. A modern approach would be to wear something like the USMC's FROG Nomex gear, ESS or Oakley goggles, and some Oakley knuckled gloves or whatever. In the future it may just be wearing your ballistic protective face shield attached to your helmet and your gloves. The point, as I said, is to keep the alpha/beta particles off the exposed skin. Your uniform can stop the radiation from reaching your body entirely, barring some minor gamma/x-ray exposure from braking radiation, but the latter is no big deal since gamma radiation is the least dangerous of ionizing radiation.

So again, there's no reason to wear a MOPP suit in a radioactive environment. It is an impediment in anything that isn't a chemical environment. And if chemical environments do not exist, then there is no reason for MOPP suits to exist, except perhaps to ensure that chemical environments do not exist. That is, barring other, more extreme methods of eliminating chemical environments: Like removing the industry needed to produce industrial chemicals like phosgene entirely, so that your enemy may not use phosgene against you.

Sure, that requires getting rid of the entire plastics industry of a nation, but that's hardly far-fetched for a future where the only people who can actually produce the things we need to survive, barring food, are the Chinese and Indians.

[Arkandros]

All the more reason to not wear a MOPP suit when you can just wash yourself off at a decontamination station using a bucket of soapy water.

The problem with decon is there's no guarantee it will work, and even then to what level it will be effective. Naval regulations state that decon should be the last option, as it will inevitably result in some radioparticulates becoming embedded in the skin. These are either absorbed through the skin or naturally fall off, dosing the exposed individual, people around them (depending on type of radiation), and/or potentially contaminating a clean area. Additionally, Decon isn't a bucket of soapy water- it's disposing of every article of exposed material as rad waste (or allowing it to sit on a shelf and decay for 5+half lives), plus decontaminating personnel, which is a 20-25 minute process per person-the 5 to 15 minutes to put on and take off a set of anti-c's or MOPP is much less of a pain, and much less time consuming.

[Allanea]

My comment WRT 'internal propaganda' is in regards to Soviet material only, where it is definitely known that senior generals knew there was not going to be total chemical war and that chemical weapons were ineffective tactically by the mid-1970s/early 1980s, and yet Soviet propaganda continued - and Russian/Russian ally propaganda continues to this day to predict future war will involve a total CBRN environment.

[Allanea]

Notice, however, that MOPP Level Alpha only suggests wearing enough to cover exposed skin: the chemical gloves and the mask/hood. The BDUs cover the rest of the body. A modern approach would be to wear something like the USMC's FROG Nomex gear, ESS or Oakley goggles, and some Oakley knuckled gloves or whatever. In the future it may just be wearing your ballistic protective face shield attached to your helmet and your gloves. The point, as I said, is to keep the alpha/beta particles off the exposed skin. Your uniform can stop the radiation from reaching your body entirely, barring some minor gamma/x-ray exposure from braking radiation, but the latter is no big deal since gamma radiation is the least dangerous of ionizing radiation.

You're right that he's not wearing a full-body suit. I concede that point. However he's also not just wearing a handkerchief around his nose, he's wearing a gas mask and gloves. Every inch of his skin is carefully protected against fallout. here's some images of OZK-F, for your interest.

The principal purpose of the gas mask here is to stop you from inhaling fallout particles, which you don't want to have touching your skin.

[Gallia-]

All the more reason to not wear a MOPP suit when you can just wash yourself off at a decontamination station using a bucket of soapy water.

The problem with decon is there's no guarantee it will work, and even then to what level it will be effective. Naval regulations state that decon should be the last option, as it will inevitably result in some radioparticulates becoming embedded in the skin. These are either absorbed through the skin or naturally fall off, dosing the exposed individual, people around them (depending on type of radiation), and/or potentially contaminating a clean area. Additionally, Decon isn't a bucket of soapy water- it's disposing of every article of exposed material as rad waste (or allowing it to sit on a shelf and decay for 5+half lives), plus decontaminating personnel, which is a 20-25 minute process per person-the 5 to 15 minutes to put on and take off a set of anti-c's or MOPP is much less of a pain, and much less time consuming.

Why does needing to take off some chemical overgarments, in addition to your BDUs, make it easier to remove your two fallout soaked suits? It seems to be that it would be easier to remove your BDUs and skivvies, hop into a decon shower, and wash yourself off. Of course, FM 3-5 tells us how to do this and is even updated for the post-Cold War world, unlike FM 3-4. It says that the best anti-radiation weapon is a good brush, followed by a wash rag, followed by your hand.

You then wipe your equipment down (I do not know where you got the idea that you toss everything into a shelf for "5+ years" considering that fission bombs don't even produce serious fallout) with a wet cloth rag to remove the dust. Good to go!

2-5. To remove radiological dust particles, brush, wash, or wipe them off.

(...)

2-10. Locate radiological contamination with monitoring equipment and remove by brushing and shaking it off. Wash exposed areas of your skin and pay particular attention to your hair and fingernails. Avoid breathing the dust particles you shake off by wearing your protective mask or a piece of cloth over your nose and mouth. If wet, conduct a MOPP-gear exchange as soon as possible because brushing or shaking will not remove the contamination. Wipe off your equipment with warm, soapy water using rags or damp paper towels.

(...)

2-16. If you are contaminated by fallout, rain out, neutron-induced contamination, or any type of radiological agent, use your monitoring equipment to help locate it and decon as required. If detection equipment is not available and you suspect that you are contaminated, decon. Radiological contamination can usually be removed by brushing or scraping. Water is effective for flushing away radiological contamination; however, the runoff should be controlled by using drainage ditches that flow into a sump. Remember, you have not destroyed the contamination, it has just been moved. The runoff will still be hazardous. If you have time, brush or scoop away the top inch of soil from your fighting position to lower the amount of radiological contamination affecting you.

And, lo and behold, it even tells us the "required equipment" for radiological decontamination: "hot, soapy water". OK so it's not "warm". It's "hot". My mistake. Totally wrong.

The soldier brushes or wipes radiological contamination from his individual gear. He washes it with hot, soapy water (if available) then sets it aside to dry on an uncontaminated surface (plastic, poncho, or similar material).

(...)

Buddy #1 wipes Buddy #2's mask and hood with a sponge dipped in hot, soapy water and rinses them with a sponge dipped in clean water. he dries Buddy #2's mask and hood with paper towels or rags. Buddy #2 wipes his own gloves. NOTE: Cool, soapy water is not as effective for removing contamination, but it can be used if you scrub longer. If the water supply is limited, use drinking water from your canteen with a wet sponge or cloth. If water is not available, brush and dust off the radioactive dust particles. Do not reverse roles. Only Buddy #2's hood will be decontaminated and rolled at this time.

(...)

It's almost as if radiological contamination is the easiest form of contamination to deal with because it doesn't kill you on contact, or even cause very substantial symptoms at all.

The actual reason you'd discard chemical suits is because they have a very limited lifespan after being exposed to wetting agents, like water. You obviously do not discard the mask, because that is not a disposable item, which is why it is set out to dry instead of being tossed in the bin. The chemical suit has probably been expended by being exposed to radioactive rainout downwind of an atomic blast, though.

My comment WRT 'internal propaganda' is in regards to Soviet material only, where it is definitely known that senior generals knew there was not going to be total chemical war and that chemical weapons were ineffective tactically by the mid-1970s/early 1980s, and yet Soviet propaganda continued - and Russian/Russian ally propaganda continues to this day to predict future war will involve a total CBRN environment.

And yet you think they are wrong?

That one enemy [NATO, perhaps] will not use chemical weapons, when every "major" war of the late 20th century involved tactical chemical weapons use, means they are wrong? Saddam used tabun, sarin, phosgene, and mustard gas in the 1980s and phosgene in the 1990s. The only time he didn't use chemical weapons was when he was staring down the barrel of an atomic cowboy's revolver. The USA used chemical weapons (CS) in Vietnam to flush troops from positions and destroy them with artillery, in accordance with its then ancient urban warfare manuals dating from WW2 (or earlier).

You can't actually know if future war will involve chemical weapons or not without actually experiencing future war, so being prepared for future chemical wars is a good way to be prepared for war in general. Not preparing for chemical weapons is sort of silly, since chemical weapons exist, people have used them as late as 3 months ago, and (as far as we can tell) will forever exist so long as industrial civilization persists. So preparing for use of a weapon that exists is rather important, isn't it? If you tell people, "don't prepare for this," you automatically make yourself vulnerable to that thing you are trying to prepare against, which in your very own statements you have said this. Since humans are lazy, if you tell them "this will not happen, but we need to prepare for it," they will do the exact opposite of that, and not prepare for it, because it will not happen. Thus, they make it happen, by not preparing for it, which seems rather intuitive.

Yet you disagree with it in practice?

I think you are missing the unstated part, which is implied by the command to prepare: "if you do not prepare for x, then you will allow x to happen". I can see this being a pretty subtle message though.

Notice, however, that MOPP Level Alpha only suggests wearing enough to cover exposed skin: the chemical gloves and the mask/hood. The BDUs cover the rest of the body. A modern approach would be to wear something like the USMC's FROG Nomex gear, ESS or Oakley goggles, and some Oakley knuckled gloves or whatever. In the future it may just be wearing your ballistic protective face shield attached to your helmet and your gloves. The point, as I said, is to keep the alpha/beta particles off the exposed skin. Your uniform can stop the radiation from reaching your body entirely, barring some minor gamma/x-ray exposure from braking radiation, but the latter is no big deal since gamma radiation is the least dangerous of ionizing radiation.

You're right that he's not wearing a full-body suit. I concede that point. However he's also not just wearing a handkerchief around his nose, he's wearing a gas mask and gloves. Every inch of his skin is carefully protected against fallout.

"Carefully protected". You make it sound so scientific when in reality it's actually a mere expedient/improvisational use of the chemical gloves and mask.

He's not even wearing a special battle uniform, it's just his work clothes. Which means it's a thin as hell piece of ripstop cotton or nylon, some skivvies, and maybe an undershirt, and then bare flesh. You just need something that lets you brush off the radioactive dust before it reaches your pores. FFS.

Radiation isn't some magical killing voudon; it's, by miles, the least dangerous of all ABC threats. It doesn't kill you on contact. It doesn't burn you on contact. It doesn't give you a hacking cough three days later. It doesn't cause massive, pus-filled boils to wreck your body. It doesn't eat your organs. It's just dust that might, if you snort lines of it, give you cancer in a couple years if you aren't already killed tomorrow or next week by an artillery shell or an anti-tank missile or something. I'm pretty sure soldiers have higher rates of cancer from the amount of alcohol they consume and cigarettes they smoke than any nuclear weapon's fallout could give them.

The principal purpose of the gas mask here is to stop you from inhaling fallout particles, which you don't want to have touching your skin.

The principal purpose of the gas mask here is because it is something that is designed to cover the face and protect the flesh from exposure to chemical agents. You don't need a fucking gas mask to stop radioactive ash. It's not even optimal because the filters are time limited and are arguably better used against actual chemical agents or something. You just need something to cover your skin up. Coincidentally, the most immediate tool available that covers your faceskin up happens to be the gas mask that you carry, and it can even stop extremely large dust blobs from entering your breathing tubes on account of having filters full of ~stuff~ to get clogged up with the ashes of atomic cremated children.

You can do the same thing with a balaclava, a pair of ski goggles, and some fabric gloves, provided they're at least as thick as your BDUs and keep your skin from getting radiation burns. The point isn't to keep you from getting cancer in 10 years or whatever, it's to keep your skin from getting the equivalent of a sunburn, because that has the potential to become something worse within the cramped and filthy conditions of mechanized war.

It's nowhere near as elegant or engineered as you make it sound. It's actually quite atrocious because gas masks are harder to breathe in and chemical overgloves are kinda stiff. What you are referencing is not a good solution: it is an expedient method from a time when men didn't have: 1) gloves 2) balaclavas, which is also called the "Cold War" and spans approximately the NWO Age to the Second NWO Age.

Perhaps if you had some kind of fabric covering that was routinely issued to soldiers and covered their hands and face, perhaps it could be their helmet or maybe a mask or perhaps something to keep them from burning their hands on a hot metal plate in a Khandahar afternoon, it would be just as effective. In fact, it would be better, because you would be able to: 1) move your fingers; 2) breathe.

The point is that a pair of good jeans and a long-sleeved shirt can stop all radiation contamination that actually matters from reaching your flesh. You need only that amount of protection to cover your body. Anything else is somewhat superfluous, which is why he is not wearing the rest of his MOPP suit. Perhaps you could've figured out why he was wearing the gas mask and gloves, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that he isn't wearing a flame resistant nomex mask, nor any gloves whatsoever, at MOPP Level 0.

[Arkandros]

The problem with decon is there's no guarantee it will work, and even then to what level it will be effective. Naval regulations state that decon should be the last option, as it will inevitably result in some radioparticulates becoming embedded in the skin. These are either absorbed through the skin or naturally fall off, dosing the exposed individual, people around them (depending on type of radiation), and/or potentially contaminating a clean area. Additionally, Decon isn't a bucket of soapy water- it's disposing of every article of exposed material as rad waste (or allowing it to sit on a shelf and decay for 5+half lives), plus decontaminating personnel, which is a 20-25 minute process per person-the 5 to 15 minutes to put on and take off a set of anti-c's or MOPP is much less of a pain, and much less time consuming.

Why does needing to take off some chemical overgarments, in addition to your BDUs, make it easier to remove your two fallout soaked suits? It seems to be that it would be easier to remove your BDUs and skivvies, hop into a decon shower, and wash yourself off. Of course, FM 3-5 tells us how to do this and is even updated for the post-Cold War world, unlike FM 3-4. It says that the best anti-radiation weapon is a good brush, followed by a wash rag, followed by your hand.

You then wipe your equipment down (I do not know where you got the idea that you toss everything into a shelf for "5+ years" considering that fission bombs don't even produce serious fallout) with a wet cloth rag to remove the dust. Good to go!

The US Navy specifically uses anti-c's because they are cheap to replace when contaminated and prevent contamination of uniforms and personnel. Without going into specifics, anything above a particular contamination level has to undergo a decay period before it can be disposed of (hence the 5 t_1/2 requirement). The big difference in terms of putting on anti-c's or wearing just NSUs is the Navy has the advantage of being able to put on anti-c's before working in contaminated environments and not swimming in puddles of primary coolant, preventing both uniforms from being soaked.

[Gallia-]

What are you talking about??? Reactors are an entirely different ball game from tactical nuclear weapons.