Talk:Cyclosarin

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / German / Middle East / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	World War II task force

Iraqi binary weapons?

Under the heading "Binary weapons" the article says:

Iraq developed a system in which GF (cyclosarin) is formed upon delivery, most likely mixing together methyphosphonyldifluoride with either cyclohexanol or a mixture of cyclohexylamine and cyclohexanol.

This is, at best, poorly written. At worst, flat out wrong.

I did a fair bit of research last spring, when US spokesman General Kimmitz claimed the GIs in a bomb disposal squad had been exposed to Sarin. An IED had been built around an old Iraqi chemical munition. The round was not marked, to indicate it was anything other than a conventional munition. Kimmitz either said, or implied, the munition had been a modern binary munition.

Well, I did that research, and learned that the Iraqi chemical weapons specialists had never been able to manufacture binary weapons. The chemical munitions Iraq fielded were not binary weapons. Their chemical munitions contained a single capsule that was shipped and stored half full of a single precursor to the nerve agent. Just prior to firing a chemical warfare specialist would don their chemical protection suit, and charge the munition with the other precursor.

Anyhow there is no reason why a section of this article, on binary weapons, should mention Iraq at all. So, I rewrote that section.-- Geo Swan 05:11, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I agree - it's completely unnecessary, and most certainly wrong. However, according to the Riegle Report, Iraq did have some binary capabilities (we all know how reliable that report is now, however. 20/20 hindsight, eh?) – Clockwork Soul 07:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contradicting Information

This article says, "Next came sarin, soman and finally the most toxic, cyclosarin", which contrasts with the Sarin article: "Sarin was discovered in 1938 in Wuppertal-Elberfeld in Germany by scientists at IG Farben attempting to create stronger pesticides; it is the most toxic of the four G-Series nerve agents made by Germany." So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.124.116 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical notes

Would they be better re-written as opposed to remaining a quote from another source? cyclosarin 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most obscure?

I don't want to get into an edit war over this but is cyclosarin the most obscure G agent or one of? For instance GV's status is ambiguous but I believe that it is still in the same group. cyclosarin 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]