Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But again, while I can see it being useful when having to make a medical diagnosis in limited time, it is dangerous to apply in many cases because it fallaciously assumes that simple = more true.

No, it doesn't say that at all. Read the saying again, horses aren't 'more simple' than zebras. What horses are is more common. The saying is telling you that the most common thing is probably what happened this time as well.

"horses" is the more simple explanation. "zebras" is a more exotic explanation for the same thing.

 sebster wrote:

Since we can't proof that Russia is behind it, eliminating other options is the next best thing.

You can't disprove all possible negatives. There will always be some other option that hypothetically could have happened, if we're willing to add in enough whackjob conspiratorial elements with nothing to indicate them.

And you didn't respond to the first part of my post. If its important to reach a legal standard in this case because justice matters, why did Russia refuse to extradite the man Britain credibly accused of murdering Litvinenko to stand trial? The double standard is obvious - the court's burden of proof is used as a shield to protect Russia, but the due process of a trial is rejected, also to protect Russia. There is ideological consistency in the position, just whatever needs to be said in the moment to protect Russia.

They aren't negatives, they are positives. Disproving positives is far from impossible. We also don't disprove everything, just things that seem credible. Like you would not investigate a possibility that Skripal was assassinated by MI5 on orders of an Irish Leprechaun whose pot of gold Skripal had stolen, but you would investigate a possibility that Skripal had criminal connections and was assassinated by criminal elements rather than state agents
.
Why did Russia refuse to extradite the guy who murdered Litvinenko? Because they had to. Their constitution says they can't extradite him, so they can't extradite. Russia can never extradite anyone, not even if it is the most horrid mass murderer in the world and there is plenty of evidence. It is against the constitution. The Russian government can't extradite people even if it wants to.

https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/201804051063227285-skripal-niece-interview-salisbury-incident/?__twitter_impression=true

It’s ok everyone, Zizzis just gave them food poisoning.

Woops, slipped the Novichok in with the noodles. Happens all the time!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/201804051063227285-skripal-niece-interview-salisbury-incident/?__twitter_impression=true

It’s ok everyone, Zizzis just gave them food poisoning.

Not food poisoning. Fugu poisoning. This has now gone totally insane. It's almost like the Russian government are trying to see what insanity people will buy. Zizzi serving Fugu? A chain pizza restaurant serving highly specialised form of sashimi that you can't even get in the UK as far as I know. That's just totally insane.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/201804051063227285-skripal-niece-interview-salisbury-incident/?__twitter_impression=true

It’s ok everyone, Zizzis just gave them food poisoning.

Not food poisoning. Fugu poisoning. This has now gone totally insane. It's almost like the Russian government are trying to see what insanity people will buy. Zizzi serving Fugu? A chain pizza restaurant serving highly specialised form of sashimi that you can't even get in the UK as far as I know. That's just totally insane.

Insane and illegal, considering the sale of fugu is banned by the European Union. Typical maskirovka in action. The more, the crazier and the bigger the lies, the more people will be confused. And confused people are easy to manipulate and control.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/201804051063227285-skripal-niece-interview-salisbury-incident/?__twitter_impression=true

It’s ok everyone, Zizzis just gave them food poisoning.

Not food poisoning. Fugu poisoning. This has now gone totally insane. It's almost like the Russian government are trying to see what insanity people will buy. Zizzi serving Fugu? A chain pizza restaurant serving highly specialised form of sashimi that you can't even get in the UK as far as I know. That's just totally insane.

Come on. Puffer fish is part of the standard menu in most takeaways, you are way behind the times. Japanese nanny state food safety laws don't allow people to buy potenially toxic sushi in the quantities people enjoyed in the past. So one of the UK pizza chains exploited the market gap. We don't get chilli warnings anymore, pizza is mild toxic or extra toxic depending on how much fugu you add to the pizza.
We dont advertise this of course, it just part of the background culture, if 'dem furiners' dont know their toxic fish pizza from their pepperoni thats their fault.
This doesn't explain how BoJo and Porton Down got involved, perhaps the Russians found out that chemical scentists work as pizza delivery on the side. Sneaky Russians, try as we might we cant keep anything from them. Fair cop I suppose. Now for some seppuku.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/201804051063227285-skripal-niece-interview-salisbury-incident/?__twitter_impression=true

It’s ok everyone, Zizzis just gave them food poisoning.

Not food poisoning. Fugu poisoning. This has now gone totally insane. It's almost like the Russian government are trying to see what insanity people will buy. Zizzi serving Fugu? A chain pizza restaurant serving highly specialised form of sashimi that you can't even get in the UK as far as I know. That's just totally insane.

Insane and illegal, considering the sale of fugu is banned by the European Union. Typical maskirovka in action. The more, the crazier and the bigger the lies, the more people will be confused. And confused people are easy to manipulate and control.

This was true but the maskirova are going too far here; to be fair it is likely it grew legs on its own, because of the chaos of the internet and all that, so I don't blame your intel guys, they are doing an effective job with the material given to them. But the old rules for misinformation have changed, Russia are well ahead of just about everyone on this, bar Israel. But the manipulation and control only works when you control the narrative, this is done by adding emotive tone to the rhetoric. The latest theory from Russia is wide open for ridicule, I couldn't resist it myself, but the mre I look at it the more I see that the window is now open to laugh at Moscows claims rather than just face them down. Puffer fish poisoning, come on. It also blows wide open the claim that Porton Down did it, which pushes the point that Moscow is lying through its teeth and has no leg to stand on to accuse Boris Johnson of misinformation. What makes it difficult now is that that can be put across in satire, and therefore reach more people than dryly countering hate stories. Russia had the advantage of emotive argument, now that advantage can be clawed away, mirth is a good emotive mulitplier. Now if only we had the leadership to make use of this rhetoric.

Russia's most recent attempts to sew confusion have instead resulted in them looking like this:

 Steve steveson wrote:

This has been covered several times before. Knowing the chemical structure of one of the family of agents is easy. It is in books. It is on wikipidia.

Producing any Novichok requires a particular set of skills. Those of a good chemist. Like a research chemist with a doctorate. Now, those are not that rare, but it is not everyone on the street. They could synthesise small amounts of it. Without knowing the details of how it is formed "small amounts" could be beaker full or a few crystals in among a large amount of waste. Based on the evidence I would guess the latter.

This would also require a lab appropriate for handling this kind of chemical. That is something that only a few places in the world can do. Military research labs like Porton Down.

You then need the skills to weaponize it. One of the problems with nerve agents is that they are unstable and quickly break down, unless stabilized. This, again, requires a specific skill set.

And yet every state in the world and likely criminal and non-criminal organisations will have the ability to at least dabble and try. And that really is the issue. On this basis there is no evidence that Russia has to be the sole creator of such material. The evidence on this is flawed because as noted any potential state with some resources can in principle try and create such a chemical. If North Korea can design, get the material, enrich uranium and make a nuclear weapon (being perhaps the most isolated country in the world) then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that another state or wealthy actor could enact such a material given time. Hence the accusation that it definitely is Russia is flawed because there isn't evidence to disprove that others cannot otherwise make such a material. Further evidence is needed to allow us to disprove that possibility. Without that information it leaves a huge hole in the argument that Russia can exploit. Stating Russia is acting suspicious is not a reason to mean they did do it, only that they are acting in a manner that really is no different than they have done for the last 3/4 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


The chemists interviewed are mostly ivory tower theorists whose words were taken out of perspective by journalists seeking a better punchline for their TV program. Channel 4 is not a careful news organisation, and they muckrake for dramatic effect.

Yes in theory it could be done, in theory we could colonise Mars or eliminate world debt. The practice is harder.

I guess you didn't actually read the article then (or didn't get past the first line?) The article was well written and looked at the different reasons for and against the argument it was Russia. Channel 4 is one of the more reliable TV newscasters we have at the moment. I'd also suggest you look at the profiles of the people you are stating are ivory tower theorists. However I'm assuming this is more about experts telling a different side of the story than you want to hear and are happy to read a one line Daily Fail article stating "the Ruskies did it!!!!!".

The Novichok family was developed in the USSR during the 70s and 80s, up to the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia claims it didn't produce or stockpile any, probably a lie.

It wasn't until 2016 that detailed mass spectral data of the agent was revealed by chemists in Iran who synthesised 5 of the chemicals in the family and passed that information onto the OCPW.

So it took 20 years from the Soviets developing these agents for their mass spectral data to be even known in accuracy to the ocpw but people think that within 2 years of that data being out there people could replicate it? For reference, mass spectral data will tell you the ratios of elements in a substance, from which the chemical structure could be then pieced together but it gives zero indication as to how to produce the original sample. So it can tell you that your sample has oxygen nitrogen and carbon amd in what quantities but then you need to work out the structure of the compound and how to produce that structure.

I wonder if Whirlwind has even the slightest clue about what he is supporting: A situation where the UK has to apologise to a rogue state attacking us with chemical weapons because of technicalities in the investigation taken heavily out of context through a blatant propaganda machine and then bleated though the press by anglophobes backed up by malcontents in this country who want to take any opportunity for a cheap shot at the Tories.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not asking the UK to apologise. I'm asking them to gather sufficient evidence and complete the investigation and then take action so that the perpetrators can't wriggle out it. At the moment the UK is taking the "Charge of Light Brigade" approach and we know how that turned out. All glory and yelling then turning tail and running because of misinformation.

I personally think that we are being played by Russia. They will have known what sort of reaction would have arisen from the event, likely even planned for it. Russia's plan is to divide the west. The best way to do this is to get a country to over-react without full information, get others to agree and then slowly whittle apart the argument because it wasn't based on sound information to start with because it was rushed as an action to be seen as 'strong' (e.g Boris's retraction / deletion of FCO tweets). That leads to doubt in our abilities with allies and leads to disjointed approaches in the future. My concern is that we being played and Russia are laughing themselves silly because as a country we are bieng their useful fools. The only way to battle such a dynamic is to take your time, not make rushed, rash emotional decisions and use the evidence to your advantage and not let the lack of it be our undoing. Once you have that evidence in hand then take strong action and with the evidence in hand it is easier to bat away silly, purile arguments from Russia because they simply don't stand up to scrutiny with the gathered evidence.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The chemists interviewed are mostly ivory tower theorists whose words were taken out of perspective by journalists seeking a better punchline for their TV program. Channel 4 is not a careful news organisation, and they muckrake for dramatic effect.

Yes in theory it could be done, in theory we could colonise Mars or eliminate world debt. The practice is harder.

I guess you didn't actually read the article then (or didn't get past the first line?) The article was well written and looked at the different reasons for and against the argument it was Russia. Channel 4 is one of the more reliable TV newscasters we have at the moment. I'd also suggest you look at the profiles of the people you are stating are ivory tower theorists. However I'm assuming this is more about experts telling a different side of the story than you want to hear and are happy to read a one line Daily Fail article stating "the Ruskies did it!!!!!".

I suppose you are glowing about the program because it supposedly helps your narrative that its all somehow Theresa May's fault and wouldn't it be better if Corbyn was in charge, at any price.

It doesn't even help you that the chemists are refering to theory not practice, definitively so as none of them make Novichok.
You have also ignored the fact that the governments position has been that is it highly likely Russia orchestrated the assassination attempt and the reasons for this are solid and have high level international support. Channel 4 were muckraking, but that is the problem with having a free press.

You have not once tried to quote and refute the evidence given which was given thoroughly by myself and others. You snippet quote to avoid the arguments you cannot counter. For someone who's position is that we should look at the whole and not narrow down a conclusion prematurely it is very thin.

 Whirlwind wrote:

However I'm assuming this is more about experts telling a different side of the story than you want to hear and are happy to read a one line Daily Fail article stating "the Ruskies did it!!!!!".

Actually I think for myself, you should try that sometime.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So it took 20 years from the Soviets developing these agents for their mass spectral data to be even known in accuracy to the ocpw but people think that within 2 years of that data being out there people could replicate it? For reference, mass spectral data will tell you the ratios of elements in a substance, from which the chemical structure could be then pieced together but it gives zero indication as to how to produce the original sample. So it can tell you that your sample has oxygen nitrogen and carbon amd in what quantities but then you need to work out the structure of the compound and how to produce that structure.

Reading the Channel 4 article it is implicated that it is likely that western world knew way before it was publicly available. I also point to this quote:-

In 1995, he warned that Russian officials familiar with the chemical weapons programme were being laid off and were desperate for money. The New York Times reported that the production of new weapons had halted, but said Mirzayanov was worried that existing stockpiles might be stolen or transferred. So the secrets behind Novichoks may not have been very well guarded. And – when combined with the details published in Mirzayanov’s book – it is perfectly possible that other countries had strong intelligence about what Russia was doing.

So it is hence supposition that it was only relatively recently other groups/states/actors could not have had the chemical make up of the material.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:
@whirlwind.

Ketara is talking sense and it's flowing off you like water off a duck. You really look blinkered here.

That's fine. I'm happy to be the voice of reason in a sea of madness....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


I suppose you are glowing about the program because it supposedly helps your narrative that its all somehow Theresa May's fault and wouldn't it be better if Corbyn was in charge, at any price.

Actually I didn't say that. I pointed out that May was more tactful. It was Boris that acted as the Clown because over emphasised the evidence, misled people and allowed false information to be posted on twitter.

It doesn't even help you that the chemists are refering to theory not practice, definitively so as none of them make Novichok.

Apart from the point that one statement came from a former Chemical Weapon expert that was quoted...but then I suppose he was just theoretical?

Channel 4 were muckraking, but that is the problem with having a free press.

So you are opposed to a free press? I still don't think you read the article though because it balanced both arguments and came to a conclusion.

You have not once tried to quote and refute the evidence given which was given thoroughly by myself and others. You snippet quote to avoid the arguments you cannot counter. For someone who's position is that we should look at the whole and not narrow down a conclusion prematurely it is very thin.

Like what? You are claiming proof of who did it. That places the obligation of burden to provide that *real* evidence on yourself. My argument has always been your statements are not evidence just circumstantial assumptions based on behaviour.

Actually I think for myself, you should try that sometime.

I would agree with you on this, perhaps surprisingly. You are basing your decision on assumptions without any real evidence other than what is being presented to you. Any other possibility is discounted out of hand because it doesn't align with what you think. The danger being of course if it is proven wrong you will feel badly let down - much akin to what happened with Blair and the Iraq war. On the other hand I know I don't have all the evidence and know the investigation is not concluded. Therefore I defer my thinking until such evidence is presented by the experts.

 Haighus wrote:
He must respond to some external stimuli, or by definition he would be brain dead, and his life support switched off. He must be displaying brain stem function to be considered alive, and only a decline in function, or a prognosis of no improvement, and likely suffering, would lead to the life support being removed at this point.

You can turn off life support in the UK without approval of his living children (at least without a court case)? Curious, i did not know that, here in the Netherlands that isn't the case.

Speaking of which, Skripal is out of critical condition:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43671958

 Whirlwind wrote:

I wonder if Whirlwind has even the slightest clue about what he is supporting: A situation where the UK has to apologise to a rogue state attacking us with chemical weapons because of technicalities in the investigation taken heavily out of context through a blatant propaganda machine and then bleated though the press by anglophobes backed up by malcontents in this country who want to take any opportunity for a cheap shot at the Tories.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not asking the UK to apologise. I'm asking them to gather sufficient evidence and complete the investigation and then take action so that the perpetrators can't wriggle out it. At the moment the UK is taking the "Charge of Light Brigade" approach and we know how that turned out. All glory and yelling then turning tail and running because of misinformation.

Actually you are asking for the UK to apologise or back down heavily at immense cost to our future security, because its is the direct continuence of your rhetoric is it is perpetuated and holds public value.
You are dancing to the Kremlin's tune, an the Kremlin are very likely to be the people who ordered the attack.

If you do not think you are asking for the UK to apologise it is a clear indicator that you haven't thought through the consequences of your position. If you swallow the dogma that the UK has not thought through the basic accusation (for benefit of having a good poke at the Tories) then you re forcing the UK to backtrack. Ask yourself how they would do that. The government is either right or it is wrong. Think it over.

 Whirlwind wrote:

I personally think that we are being played by Russia. They will have known what sort of reaction would have arisen from the event, likely even planned for it. Russia's plan is to divide the west. The best way to do this is to get a country to over-react without full information, get others to agree and then slowly whittle apart the argument because it wasn't based on sound information to start with because it was rushed as an action to be seen as 'strong' (e.g Boris's retraction / deletion of FCO tweets).

Nope. You are compounding on your own rhetoric which as we can see you dont even understand the consequnces of. So you are essentially just sounding off. When you add a supposition to a badly thought through premise you et a junk answer. However lets take it at face value anyway.

Russia did NOT expect the reaction that they got. We know this from two important pieces of evidence.
1. The Russian reaction had two distinct stages, a stage of public gloating over how 'traitors' would meet unfortunate ends follow by a stage of flat and very vocal denials backed up with spurious rhetoric and no small amount of threats. Russia would not go from joking contempt to denials & threats unless the scenario had taken an unforeseen direction.
2. Russia has made a number of assassination attempts in the UK in the past. With exception of Litvinyenko, which could not be covered up they were mostly ignored by a succession of UK governments that wanted to keep quiet and keep taking Russian money. Blair in particular. They had a well reasoned contempt for us and didn't expect that e would put our feet down.

Finally once the government did say enough was enough and made statements that they were going to take serious reciprocal measures the Russians likely did not expect the level of support the Uk government actually received. Initially France was sceptical, in fact they made noises not to dissimilar to your own, but rapidly changes their tune.

 Whirlwind wrote:

That leads to doubt in our abilities with allies and leads to disjointed approaches in the future.

What disjointed approach? the Uk has claimed it eas hilhy likely Russia commited the attack, and most of our allies have firmly backed this up, including those that did not expel diplomats. We even have the EU and France on our side now. Te EU itself ejected Russian demands for a joint investigation and the EU is mostly hostile to the UK due to Brexit. It would be reasonable to suggest the Uk ould meet isolation in europe, theUk has had the opposite.
Russia Today and other propaganda channels are claiming that there are doubts and disunity, but that i what the Kremlin wants its dupes to think. Why be amongst that number.

 Whirlwind wrote:

My concern is that we being played and Russia are laughing themselves silly because as a country we are bieng their useful fools.

If Russia was laughing themselves silly they would not be raising the ante consistently. Look at the Russian internal video press, links ave been provided. They are getting more nasty more brazen and more desperate. They were highlighting their nuclear strike capabiliities with the UK as a target.




Watch this video and tell us the Russians are in laughing mood.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The only way to battle such a dynamic is to take your time, not make rushed, rash emotional decisions and use the evidence to your advantage and not let the lack of it be our undoing.

There was NOTHING rushed and NOTHING rash about the responce. It was correctly worded and correctly timed. BoJo made some errors but Russia has not managed to capitalise on them, though they did try very hard to do so. None of the nations which backed the UK claim has rescinded it.

If you were right the political divisions would be there. However they exist only in Russian propaganda and such press as wants to make an anti-Tory message regardless of the price to the nation.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Once you have that evidence in hand then take strong action and with the evidence in hand it is easier to bat away silly, purile arguments from Russia because they simply don't stand up to scrutiny with the gathered evidence.

This was covered before, and it was explained to you why that would be a feeble and poor method of response.

Russia was gloating. They were expecting timid silence which would have sent a message that we were a push over. Thankfully someone in the intelligence community instilled backbone into the cabinet and they stood up and stood firm. And for the record Corbyn is equally as piss weak as May, but would have had the same stiffening and same result. I think the senior civil service are behind our response as it shows far more backbone than the politicians normally show.

"We have just suffered a chemical weapons attack, let's not be hasty but wait until it all blows over before making any comments." - Not said by any responsible government with a spine.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Actually I think for myself, you should try that sometime.

I would agree with you on this, perhaps surprisingly. You are basing your decision on assumptions without any real evidence other than what is being presented to you. Any other possibility is discounted out of hand because it doesn't align with what you think. The danger being of course if it is proven wrong you will feel badly let down - much akin to what happened with Blair and the Iraq war. On the other hand I know I don't have all the evidence and know the investigation is not concluded. Therefore I defer my thinking until such evidence is presented by the experts.

Actually I am a political analyst,and was following my own conclusions. Much of what I wrote here was my own take on what is happening based to the evidence provided. Which is what an analyst does.
I use the same public domain sources and come to similar conclusions as others but I come to them myself.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
@whirlwind.

Ketara is talking sense and it's flowing off you like water off a duck. You really look blinkered here.

That's fine. I'm happy to be the voice of reason in a sea of madness....

Never be afraid to chart you own course. But in this case and for future I suggest you look at the material available to you more clearly.

If you want to be the voice of reason, reason. You don't approach most of the critique of your position. Challenge Ketara, challenge me, if you think us wrong explain why line by line. If you do we might see if we have missed something. Opposed discourse is healthy of itself and most of us are already in agreement with your central premise, that BoJo is not up to the job, but we disagree on where you take that.

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually you are asking for the UK to apologise or back down heavily at immense cost to our future security, because its is the direct continuence of your rhetoric is it is perpetuated and holds public value.
You are dancing to the Kremlin's tune, an the Kremlin are very likely to be the people who ordered the attack.

Just to clarify where did I say that we should apologise? The only people that are being the puppets are the ones acting through this current song and dance process. The outcome which was easily predictable because of what has gone before and to be fair I did predict the current mess with some information being wrong and then us having to back track because of it.

The government is either right or it is wrong. Think it over.

That's a very binary view on things and it is never as simple as that. I do think the government has grounds to be suspicious of Russia's involvement, I don't think it is correct for them to be calling them out on it a day after the event when the only real evidence they had was the chemical used, which has been shown, is not impossible for others to manufacture. No investigation takes a day to complete by making rash, emotional (and probably political decisions) without the full evidence they can gather runs a significant risk of being accused of making it up. Statistically in such circumstances something is going to be found to be incorrect. Much better to wait and gather that evidence first then take action so that you have all evidence to hand and that you aren't shooting yourself in the foot.

Russia did NOT expect the reaction that they got. We know this from two important pieces of evidence.

None of what you said proves that Russia were in anyway surprised by our reaction - this reaction is similar to other recent issues as well. Social media posts are generally not a good analogy to how surprised or not they are. The Tories get donations from the wife's of former Putin MPs as well. The principle that non-UK residents should be able to support our parties is questionable but its largely irrelevant here for this topic of discussion.

Finally once the government did say enough was enough and made statements that they were going to take serious reciprocal measures the Russians likely did not expect the level of support the Uk government actually received. Initially France was sceptical, in fact they made noises not to dissimilar to your own, but rapidly changes their tune.

As I've pointed out this is what worries me the most because we have got it wrong then we won't ever be trusted again. They will have made the decision based on Russia's past activities and what we presented them. If we have it wrong then there will be a price in trust. Better to be certain than gamble when the stakes are that high

What disjointed approach? the Uk has claimed it eas hilhy likely Russia commited the attack, and most of our allies have firmly backed this up, including those that did not expel diplomats.

It's about the future and how we will be trusted then. Divide and conquer.

If Russia was laughing themselves silly they would not be raising the ante consistently. Look at the Russian internal video press, links ave been provided. They are getting more nasty more brazen and more desperate. They were highlighting their nuclear strike capabiliities with the UK as a target.

Russia have been raising such things for years. They've been showing nuclear rocket launches well before the current issue was even dreamt up. I ask you, as this seems to be your interpretation of Russia's desperate actions, how would you know the difference between an act and the real thing?

If you were right the political divisions would be there. However they exist only in Russian propaganda and such press as wants to make an anti-Tory message regardless of the price to the nation.

You don't seem to get the point. It's not about now. They won't backtrack now because it won't look good in their own public eyes. They will be more distrustful and cautious in the future however, hence the divide and conquer approach.

This was covered before, and it was explained to you why that would be a feeble and poor method of response.

Without any sound argument as to why just "because you say so"? As I said the charge of light brigade, act and worry about if you have got it wrong later (and then post it as some heroic defeat).

"We have just suffered a chemical weapons attack, let's not be hasty but wait until it all blows over before making any comments." - Not said by any responsible government with a spine.

It actually takes more spine to defer a decision until you have the information to hand because our evolved response is to act and the public want to see some action regardless of how insane. However that has tendency to be manipulated by those that are calculating the moves.

Actually I am a political analyst,and was following my own conclusions. Much of what I wrote here was my own take on what is happening based to the evidence provided. Which is what an analyst does.

By that definition we are all political analysts...but your conclusions are not based on enough evidence. Not really surprising when it comes to politics...

 Whirlwind wrote:

That's a very binary view on things and it is never as simple as that. I do think the government has grounds to be suspicious of Russia's involvement, I don't think it is correct for them to be calling them out on it a day after the event when the only real evidence they had was the chemical used, which has been shown, is not impossible for others to manufacture. No investigation takes a day to complete by making rash, emotional (and probably political decisions) without the full evidence they can gather runs a significant risk of being accused of making it up. Statistically in such circumstances something is going to be found to be incorrect. Much better to wait and gather that evidence first then take action so that you have all evidence to hand and that you aren't shooting yourself in the foot.

Without plunging back into it (because really, I'd rather do half an hours productive processing of archival material than argue these days), you're still working off the basis that you have all the facts available and the Government does not possess additional information that they aren't willing to release which conclusively proves it without need of further investigation.

For example, a small point that you were off on before; a chemical analysis can also (or so I am told) reveal the specific locale/plant which did the production if you have another identical sample from it. So if we do have a source inside a current Russian Government's chemical plant which has forwarded such a sample, or we have obtained one by other means, we would not wish to advertise such a fact widely. Alternatively, if we've pieced together the movements and identity of the perpetrator, but do not wish to reveal how we know of them? The same situation. If we have an intercepted SIGINT report dispatched from the perpetrator to Putin's Government confirming the hit has taken place? Same again.

As someone not sitting in the PM chair, I am loathe to pass any kind of judgement upon the Government's actions until I am in posession of sufficient facts. And in this case, I'm pretty sure I have reasonably few of them. YMMV, of course.

 Ketara wrote:


For example, a small point that you were off on before; a chemical analysis can also (or so I am told) reveal the specific locale/plant which did the production if you have another identical sample from it. So if we do have a source inside a current Russian Government's chemical plant which has forwarded such a sample, or we have obtained one by other means, we would not wish to advertise such a fact widely. Alternatively, if we've pieced together the movements and identity of the perpetrator, but do not wish to reveal how we know of them? The same situation. If we have an intercepted SIGINT report dispatched from the perpetrator to Putin's Government confirming the hit has taken place? Same again.

I've not seen evidence that you can determine the exact site can be determined from the analysis. From what I have read it is feasible to determine the chemical composition and type of manufacturing process used as you can, for example identify certain chirality ( your left hand / right hand is a good example) in elements which would indicate how it was put together. It is also a reason some companies object to the OPCW entering their facilities as that information can provide evidence of the process and fear of giving away trade secrets. Because I can't find evidence that this can actually be undertaken I am concerned that this is word of mouth confusion between nuclear material and chemicals. For nuclear material you can determine the source because breeder reactors create radioactive elements in specific proportions because of the fixed components (initial material composition, thickness of rods, the type of control rods and so forth). These set ups stay static for 30 years or more (but need to be retested when a component changes) because that then changes the proportions of the radioactive materials. On the other hand chemicals are not constrained in the same way, it uses base materials that will change between each batch simply because we can't control the contaminants that well and how it is created. A 'simple' example would be something like concrete, a chemical process. The same factory can create two batches of the same material one straight after another but have different compositions simply because of the slight differences in input materials. Therefore I am slightly sceptical that refining to the exact factory is possible. I could agree that the same *batch* could be linked and if you have a batch from a known factory at a known time then perhaps you can link it in that way.

 Whirlwind wrote:
On the other hand if the government did have this information then there would have been no reason to pull the previous twitter statements (and PD wouldn't have had to put out a statement clarifying that it doesn't make a determination about the origin).....The change in language especially from Boris is I believe evidence that the information available to them has changed. May's response was more cautious, it's Boris's that I take issue with. But he did act on behalf of the government and then in the end May is duly responsible for his actions because she did place him there and continues to let him make a clown out of the country.

You are, of course, free to put however much weight you like on a badly written and retracted Twitter post, or a quote from Boris taken out of context.

Meanwhile;

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/mystery-surrounds-russian-spy-poisoned-uk-53797736

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, an ex-commander of the British Army's chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear regiment, said Novichok was only ever manufactured at one site, a military laboratory at Shikhany in central Russia.

De Bretton-Gordon said there were rumors of a Novichok test in Uzbekistan in the 1980s but that any of the remaining nerve agent from that experiment would have lost its toxicity — and that the agent used to poison the Skripals was extremely toxic. He said it was "very unlikely" the Novichok used in Salisbury could have been lost or stolen in the years after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Some scientists say it's feasible that the nerve agent could be made stable enough to travel and that various compounds could have been added to Novichok to make it a clear, colorless liquid resembling water, perfume or alcohol. The ingredients to make Novichok are relatively cheap and accessible, but mixing them together is extremely dangerous, which suggests the nerve agent was brought to the U.K. as a finished product.

"The moment you mix this stuff up, it presents a high risk to you — and if you were to spill it, you'd be in terrible danger," said Andrea Sella, a professor of inorganic chemistry at University College London.

He said nerve agents like Novichok are usually highly unstable and degrade quickly in the presence of moisture, but that if the agent was sealed in a tight container "it ought to be able to hang around."

De Bretton-Gordon said it was possible that the Novichok arrived in Salisbury in Yulia Skripal's suitcase, but said much could go wrong in such a scenario.

"I think there must be somebody behind it who has delivered it," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43662421

Chemical weapons expert Hamish De Bretton Gordon said he had seen some of the intelligence in the Skripals' case and was "100% sure" Russia was responsible.

He told BBC Radio 5 live "we know almost 100%" that Novichok, which requires a "sophisticated laboratory, a lot of money, resources and expertise to make", was made at Shikhany, a military facility "the size of Salisbury" in central Russia, and the agent used in the attack on the Skripals was "military grade".

He added: "We are talking a tiny amount [of Novichok], a quarter of an egg cup full which would be very easy to smuggle."

So, as we've known for a while now, it was Novichok-5. And, like Weapons-grade Uranium and Plutonium, it can be traced back to a particular plant due to the impurities in it, most likely.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
So, as we've known for a while now, it was Novichok-5. And, like Weapons-grade Uranium and Plutonium, it can be traced back to a particular plant due to the impurities in it, most likely.

Could be. Although the fact that it was made in the Soviet Union or Russia is already almost certain. The formula is known at least to intelligence agencies, but I still doubt that it is also known outside of government agencies and could thus be made by non-government labs like you can make Sarin or VX. However, many Soviet weapons were sold on the black market or otherwise disappeared in the 1990's. So it would not preclude the agent from having been stolen. It is not likely, but it remains a possibility.

If it has been stolen in the nineties, it would simply have degraded by now. That's not a physically possible option at this stage.

 Ketara wrote:
If it has been stolen in the nineties, it would simply have degraded by now. That's not a physically possible option at this stage.

Not if it is stored properly. Chemical weapons are rarely used, so the ability to store them for long periods of time is really important. Novichok and other nerve agents are stored in binary form, with the precursor components only mixing to form the agent when the munition is fired. To improve storage capability even further, novichok munitions are to be stored in inert conditions without exposure to oxygen and moisture. If stored in such a way, it remains potent for decades, assuming the material is of excellent quality. Now, the novichok used in the assassination evidently was not contained in a munition, but whether that means they found a way to extract it from munitions, or that it is newly produced agent or that the Soviet Union at other facilities stored novichok agent in bulk I am not sure. Soviet novichok really should only be found inside of artillery rounds and warheads. That is the way it was stored. It was never produced separately as far as I am aware, so there is something odd about this. I highly doubt this was a Soviet agent, though that possibility can't be eliminated entirely.
Personally, I suspect that the agent was newly manufactured on orders of the SVR, especially for this mission. Novichok in the USSR was manufactured as a chemical weapon. It can't be smeared on doors and used as a generic poison. You'd have to store and use it in a very different way from the Soviet way of storing it. Russia normally no longer manufactures such chemicals, but the Soviet infrastructure for it was never dismantled entirely. It is possible production was resumed at a smaller, more limited scale, for a smaller, more limited use as an assassination weapon rather than as a weapon of war.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If stored in such a way, it remains potent for decades, assuming the material is of excellent quality. Now, the novichok used in the assassination evidently was not contained in a munition, but whether that means they found a way to extract it from munitions, or that it is newly produced agent or that the Soviet Union at other facilities stored novichok agent in bulk I am not sure.

Just to clarify: Are you claiming that mixed 'final form' Novichok as it were, from the 90's could have survived? If so, that goes against the professional opinion of three specialists mentioned so far in this thread (one of which was one of the inventors), all of which agreed that it would have long since degraded and not have given the toxic returns this particular sample did.

Or are you instead claiming that somebody else could have 'stored' the component chemicals which are later mixed and combined into Novichok? Because that really wouldn't mean very much at all; on account of them being common chemicals. It's the means by which you combine and transport them that requires the professional military expertise; in which case it wouldn't really matter whether you went out and bought them on the market or inherited them from a Soviet weapons depot. They're common chemical compounds. Not difficult to acquire.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If stored in such a way, it remains potent for decades, assuming the material is of excellent quality. Now, the novichok used in the assassination evidently was not contained in a munition, but whether that means they found a way to extract it from munitions, or that it is newly produced agent or that the Soviet Union at other facilities stored novichok agent in bulk I am not sure.

Just to clarify: Are you claiming that mixed 'final form' Novichok as it were, from the 90's could have survived? If so, that goes against the professional opinion of three specialists mentioned so far in this thread (one of which was one of the inventors), all of which agreed that it would have long since degraded and not have given the toxic returns this particular sample did.

Or are you instead claiming that somebody else could have 'stored' the component chemicals which are later mixed and combined into Novichok? Because that really wouldn't mean very much at all; on account of them being common chemicals. It's the means by which you combine and transport them that requires the professional military expertise; in which case it wouldn't really matter whether you went out and bought them on the market or inherited them from a Soviet weapons depot. They're common chemical compounds. Not difficult to acquire.

No, of course not. Once you mix it it degrades relatively quickly. That is why it was always stored in binary form (with its prepared precursor components seperated and only mixing when the munition was fired). It was stored inside of munitions, ready for use. It requires very little expertise to use (it was meant to be used by common soldiers after all). The munition is stored in 3 components as burster and fuse are kept seperate. In case of conflict, the warhead could be quickly assembled, and when fired the mechanism removes the barrier between the precursor agents, forming the novichok agent. It is a largely automated process. Producing such a munition is an amazing feat of chemical and engineering expertise, not something that could be done by anyone outside of a military with large chemical expertise such as the Soviets. But the use of such a munition is very straightforward. The novichok agent itself does not form until the munition is fired, and the Soviet Union did not store any nerve agents outside of munitions. That is why I think this agent used in the assassination must have been newly produced and was not of Soviet manufacture.
Just to clarify, the precursor components are not the same as the chemical components of the agent. Precursor components are the last stage before the final agent is formed, not the chemicals you start out with. For example, with VX you start out with phosphorus trichloride, then methylate that to produce methyl phosphonous dichloride, which reacts with ethanol to form a diester and if you transesterify that you get the precursor of VX (which has a really difficult name that I forgot). This is not something you can just do in any lab, it requires a lot of expensive equipment and technical knowledge. To create the final V agent, you have the precursor react with sulfur. A binary munition would store the precursor (which is much more stable than the final agent and can be stored for up to 30 years at least iirc) and the sulfur in separate components. This improves storage life and safety.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No, of course not. Once you mix it it degrades relatively quickly. That is why it was always stored in binary form (with its prepared precursor components seperated and only mixing when the munition was fired). It was stored inside of munitions, ready for use. It requires very little expertise to use (it was meant to be used by common soldiers after all).

They tried to create a binary version and failed, so eventually they settled on novichok-9 as it was at least a powder, that could be stored in a sealed container. Novichok-5, used in England is a liquid, with no binary form and a viable lifespan measured in weeks. It's actually a really gak weapon due to the fact that a rainstorm can render it inert. The fact that it was not able to be used by 'common' soldiers was why they continued development to the later novichok-9.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No, of course not. Once you mix it it degrades relatively quickly. That is why it was always stored in binary form (with its prepared precursor components seperated and only mixing when the munition was fired). It was stored inside of munitions, ready for use. It requires very little expertise to use (it was meant to be used by common soldiers after all).

They tried to create a binary version and failed, so eventually they settled on novichok-9 as it was at least a powder, that could be stored in a sealed container. Novichok-5, used in England is a liquid, with no binary form and a viable lifespan measured in weeks. It's actually a really gak weapon due to the fact that a rainstorm can render it inert. The fact that it was not able to be used by 'common' soldiers was why they continued development to the later novichok-9.

All novichoks used in Soviet chemical weapons was powder, and all novichoks are binary. There exists no non-binary novichok (the designation specifically refers to the binary form. IIRC, Novichok-5 is the binary form of A-232, which is code name of the full compound). Even the very first developed novichok was a binary (specifically, it was a binary form of VR). I know they developed gas and liquid novichoks for use in spraying devices, but I don't know much about those. Powder form was standard form. Delivery via spraying device never really was considered a militarily viable option, and delivery via ultra-fine powder was preferred over gas. If as you say, they used a liquid version of the agent, then that would support the idea that it was recently manufactured. Afaik, the Soviets only produced powder novichoks in quantity.
Can you link me to the source where you got from which novichok they used in Britain? I haven't been keeping up with news entirely and would like to do some reading on it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

All novichoks used in Soviet chemical weapons was powder, and all novichoks are binary. There exists no non-binary novichok (the designation specifically refers to the binary form. IIRC, Novichok-5 is the binary form of A-232, which is code name of the full compound). Even the very first developed novichok was a binary (specifically, it was a binary form of VR). I know they developed gas and liquid novichoks for use in spraying devices, but I don't know much about those. Powder form was standard form. Delivery via spraying device never really was considered a militarily viable option, and delivery via ultra-fine powder was preferred over gas. If as you say, they used a liquid version of the agent, then that would support the idea that it was recently manufactured. Afaik, the Soviets only produced powder novichoks in quantity.
Can you link me to the source where you got from which novichok they used in Britain? I haven't been keeping up with news entirely and would like to do some reading on it.

https://thebell.io/en/the-scientist-who-developed-novichok-doses-ranged-from-20-grams-to-several-kilos/

Here's the inventor novichok saying that most of what you said above is BS.

From the interview:

"– The media reported that “Novichok” supposedly exists as a “binary weapon” – the toxin is transferred via two less dangers substances, and when it is time to use the chemical agent, only then are the substances mixed together. It has also been suggested that “Novichok” could have been used for the attempt in London. Are the series of agents referred to as “Novichok” binary weapons?

– No one ever had any binary weapons. I think that several of my colleagues, just like I did, tried to work on this idea, but I don’t know a single binary weapon, not for VX, not for other types of chemical weapons. At least for the period up until 1994.

– In which form do the nerve paralyzing agents which we refer to as “Novichok” come in?

– Of the four substances, only the last one, D-1980, can be in powder form. The other three are liquid."

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

All novichoks used in Soviet chemical weapons was powder, and all novichoks are binary. There exists no non-binary novichok (the designation specifically refers to the binary form. IIRC, Novichok-5 is the binary form of A-232, which is code name of the full compound). Even the very first developed novichok was a binary (specifically, it was a binary form of VR). I know they developed gas and liquid novichoks for use in spraying devices, but I don't know much about those. Powder form was standard form. Delivery via spraying device never really was considered a militarily viable option, and delivery via ultra-fine powder was preferred over gas. If as you say, they used a liquid version of the agent, then that would support the idea that it was recently manufactured. Afaik, the Soviets only produced powder novichoks in quantity.
Can you link me to the source where you got from which novichok they used in Britain? I haven't been keeping up with news entirely and would like to do some reading on it.

https://thebell.io/en/the-scientist-who-developed-novichok-doses-ranged-from-20-grams-to-several-kilos/

Here's the inventor novichok saying that most of what you said above is BS.

From the interview:

"– The media reported that “Novichok” supposedly exists as a “binary weapon” – the toxin is transferred via two less dangers substances, and when it is time to use the chemical agent, only then are the substances mixed together. It has also been suggested that “Novichok” could have been used for the attempt in London. Are the series of agents referred to as “Novichok” binary weapons?

– No one ever had any binary weapons. I think that several of my colleagues, just like I did, tried to work on this idea, but I don’t know a single binary weapon, not for VX, not for other types of chemical weapons. At least for the period up until 1994.

– In which form do the nerve paralyzing agents which we refer to as “Novichok” come in?

– Of the four substances, only the last one, D-1980, can be in powder form. The other three are liquid."

He is not the inventor of novichok. Many different people worked on the foliant program, there is no single inventor. He also completely contradicts previous scientists of the program who have published information (Rink, Mirzayanov), and the designations he mentions are not mentioned in any literature about novichok published thus far. Which is strange. Why would he do that? Who is speaking the truth and who is lying? I don't trust this guy. Some of what he is saying is demonstrably false. He says no one had a binary weapon? But binary weapons have been the standard of chemical weapons for the past 40 years or so... Even Iraq had binary weapons. There is nothing really complicated about binary chemical weapons. You just hold off on the final mixing until the time has come for use. And not even for VX? Seriously? The binary form of VX has been public knowledge for ages, it has been around since the 1970's at least. You can actually look up the formula on the internet. And why were they looking into binary forms of VX when this was already known and the Soviet Union never used VX? Is this guy actually a real chemist? He also says that he by himself developed all of the potent variants... But then no source lists him as one of the main developers of any of the variants? It is hard for me to say whether this guy is being truthful or whether something else is going on, but I think there is deliberate misinformation going on here.

Now, I am not a chemist, and I can't tell you with certainty anything about the development or chemical structure of novichoks. Only what I have learned about it from other sources. But what I do know a lot about is the use of novichoks in the Soviet military. As I said, all novichoks that were produced in large quantities and that were actually used in military applications were binary powder forms. The Soviet-era manual with instructions to depot commanders regarding procedures for storage is pretty clear about it being a powder.

Iron Captain seems to be suspiciously and frighteningly well-informed on the production and delivery of nerve agents.

We might have found the culprit!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And why were they looking into binary forms of VX when this was already known and the Soviet Union never used VX?

'Used' being the operative word. FOLIANT did actually experiment with a knock off V-series compound (From another source if it makes you feel better) They never finished a working weapon from their version, and abandoned work sometime in the 1990s. So he may have been using the generic 'VX' here to refer to that part of the program.