Was Russia right to use gas?

1pizzaluvr4u:

Question: how did a small group of people hold over 700 people hostage? regardless of their weapons, something could have been done. Think 9-11 flight that crashed in Shanksville PA

Many of the hostages were old, so that rules them out to tackle the terrorists.
Also, on the plane, I think the people knew that hlep wouldn't be coming for them so they had to do something. With the theatre there was always the chance of intervention.

Even if you do massively outnumber the terrorists, you'd have to attack them at exactly the same time otherwise they'd blow the place up. I think that's why the hostages didn't do anything, the risk was just too big.

1pizzaluvr4u:

Question: how did a small group of people hold over 700 people hostage? regardless of their weapons, something could have been done. Think 9-11 flight that crashed in Shanksville PA

Many of the hostages were old, so that rules them out to tackle the terrorists.
Also, on the plane, I think the people knew that hlep wouldn't be coming for them so they had to do something. With the theatre there was always the chance of intervention.

Even if you do massively outnumber the terrorists, you'd have to attack them at exactly the same time otherwise they'd blow the place up. I think that's why the hostages didn't do anything, the risk was just too big.

I think thatwas the best they could have done to save so many of the people....but I also think that they could have used to much gas...but look at the options that they had and you will see that they did not not have many options in the matter.

I think thatwas the best they could have done to save so many of the people....but I also think that they could have used to much gas...but look at the options that they had and you will see that they did not not have many options in the matter.

From BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2377563.stm ):

Quote:

---

Russia says the gas used in the siege of a Moscow theatre on Saturday was based on fentanyl, a potent opium-based narcotic used as an anaesthetic.
(...)
Fentanyl:
*Potent opium-based man-made narcotic
*Used in medicine as pain killer
*50 to 100 times more powerful than morphine
*Not recommended for patients with liver problems, children or elderly

---

Or if you prefer CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...gas/index.html
or Reuters: http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtm...toryID=1656921

Nothing of course proves that they're telling the truth but anyway. Some expert just said in TV that the medics would have recognized the symptoms of fentanyl as it is very common in hospitals. They didn't, so they might have blanded it with some other gas - who knows the ratio, 10-90, 50-50, 95-5...

Here's a good fact file about fentanyl: http://opioids.com/fentanyl/

From BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2377563.stm ):

Quote:

---

Russia says the gas used in the siege of a Moscow theatre on Saturday was based on fentanyl, a potent opium-based narcotic used as an anaesthetic.
(...)
Fentanyl:
*Potent opium-based man-made narcotic
*Used in medicine as pain killer
*50 to 100 times more powerful than morphine
*Not recommended for patients with liver problems, children or elderly

---

Or if you prefer CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...gas/index.html
or Reuters: http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtm...toryID=1656921

Nothing of course proves that they're telling the truth but anyway. Some expert just said in TV that the medics would have recognized the symptoms of fentanyl as it is very common in hospitals. They didn't, so they might have blanded it with some other gas - who knows the ratio, 10-90, 50-50, 95-5...

Here's a good fact file about fentanyl: http://opioids.com/fentanyl/

I see a lot of, They were right but posts. Especially dealing with the amount of gas used etc.

Here is my view on it. Most of the hostages were saved. The terrorists had already demonstrated that they would kill and were willing to die. The demands they made were impossible to fulfill so they weren't really trying to change anything but to make a statement.

So the Russians had a few options: Continue negotiations which were failing and were quickly reaching a breaking point (the psychological stress of a hostage situation means that the chance for rash action on the part of the terrorists increases as time increases). Try an assault against an armed and entrenched group with explosives placed around the building and on the terrorists themselves (don't forget that a number of Russian special forces members were killed by mines and booby traps while trying to infiltrate during the gas attack). With this attack the chance of the explosives being detonated would be almost 100% leading to extremely high casualties among the hostages and the rescue forces. Try to quickly incapacitate everyone with a gas that is known to be effective, quick, but also toxic at high concentrations.

Once they decided on the gas they knew that there would be collateral casualties. If they had gone overboard with the gas then all of the hostages would be dead. If they used too little then the terrorists would have time to react and, again, all of the hostages would be dead. As it stands I believe they demonstrated that they had a very good understanding of the deployment and usage of the gas. So why did some of the hostages die from it? Because you don't get even distribution of a gaseous substance through a ventilation system. The same reason why some parts of your house are warmer than others. The gas had to reach a certain saturation point at each location to accomplish the mission which means that at some locations it was bound to concentrate more even to the point of lethality. This is further complicated by the range in age, weight, sex, health, and sensitivity of the hostages.

It is the low number of deaths compared to those rendered helpless that, I feel, demonstrate a very high degree of understanding and planning on the part of the Russians. It is still a tragedy that some died but not nearly the tragedy that they averted by action.

Finally, I agree that the Russians should have released the contents of the gas right after the attack. Not before or someone would have screamed bloody murder to the press and the terrorists might have figured out early what was planned. However, their reticence is also very understandable when you consider them as a government and not a person. How many governments want to give up the secrets of their research or the tactics they have kept hidden. In each government in the world there would be a beuracracy to go through and I don't think my country would have been any happier to release that information than the Russians were (and yes they have released it but only after a German doctor had already discovered the active agent). And, sad though it is, most governments (mine included) probably would not consider the lives of a couple of people to be more important than their perception of what was required for national security.

I see a lot of, They were right but posts. Especially dealing with the amount of gas used etc.

Here is my view on it. Most of the hostages were saved. The terrorists had already demonstrated that they would kill and were willing to die. The demands they made were impossible to fulfill so they weren't really trying to change anything but to make a statement.

So the Russians had a few options: Continue negotiations which were failing and were quickly reaching a breaking point (the psychological stress of a hostage situation means that the chance for rash action on the part of the terrorists increases as time increases). Try an assault against an armed and entrenched group with explosives placed around the building and on the terrorists themselves (don't forget that a number of Russian special forces members were killed by mines and booby traps while trying to infiltrate during the gas attack). With this attack the chance of the explosives being detonated would be almost 100% leading to extremely high casualties among the hostages and the rescue forces. Try to quickly incapacitate everyone with a gas that is known to be effective, quick, but also toxic at high concentrations.

Once they decided on the gas they knew that there would be collateral casualties. If they had gone overboard with the gas then all of the hostages would be dead. If they used too little then the terrorists would have time to react and, again, all of the hostages would be dead. As it stands I believe they demonstrated that they had a very good understanding of the deployment and usage of the gas. So why did some of the hostages die from it? Because you don't get even distribution of a gaseous substance through a ventilation system. The same reason why some parts of your house are warmer than others. The gas had to reach a certain saturation point at each location to accomplish the mission which means that at some locations it was bound to concentrate more even to the point of lethality. This is further complicated by the range in age, weight, sex, health, and sensitivity of the hostages.

It is the low number of deaths compared to those rendered helpless that, I feel, demonstrate a very high degree of understanding and planning on the part of the Russians. It is still a tragedy that some died but not nearly the tragedy that they averted by action.

Finally, I agree that the Russians should have released the contents of the gas right after the attack. Not before or someone would have screamed bloody murder to the press and the terrorists might have figured out early what was planned. However, their reticence is also very understandable when you consider them as a government and not a person. How many governments want to give up the secrets of their research or the tactics they have kept hidden. In each government in the world there would be a beuracracy to go through and I don't think my country would have been any happier to release that information than the Russians were (and yes they have released it but only after a German doctor had already discovered the active agent). And, sad though it is, most governments (mine included) probably would not consider the lives of a couple of people to be more important than their perception of what was required for national security.

The Russians had a tough call to make and not much time in which to do it. The terrorists had already shown their willingness to kill hostages so a very Napoleonic attitude had to be taken....you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs ....to quote the man himself.

The terrorists were very organised which precluded the hostages taking action of thier own and given their situation the best thing was to sit and wait it out and not draw attention to themselves as individuals. They also had first hand experience on the likely outcome of a failed coup and given that they could not organise to assualt the terrorists in a simultaneous and effective manner, sitting tight is all they could do. They knew that special forces would be mobilised around the building who were much better prepared to deal with armed fanatics (to answer an earlier post refering to the passengers who attacked the hijackers, JMHO)

How did the terrorists manage to pull it off? well that's the price of basic freedoms. Not just legitimate people can move about unhindered. By shedding the totalitarian state the Russians have left themselves open to terrorist activity.

It was a large risk using an aneasthetic and as they did not have the medical records of the hostages to do a detailed examination they probably knew the risks. But they had a large area to subdue and to do that with small arms would have increased teh risk to the hostages exponentially, not to mention thier own troops, let's not forget they're people too. I have to say I'm glad I didn't have to make the call.

The Russians in my view acted with restraint. In the UK as soon as a hostage is killed the situation is handed straight to special forces. The terrorists are then looking at being fed into a plastic bag in the not too distant future. Which I personally don't think is a bad thing.

The respose was typically Russian, a bit on the rough side, but very effective. They also have a problem with giving out information, so the medical response was late as to the agent used. The over all toll was much lower than if they had tried a conventional assault, or just waiting for the fanatics to finish the job.