Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 6, 2011
HIMARS Rockets Kill People. And Pomegranates.

In a piece on falling Pomegranate supplies from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the Tribune Express we learn:

[Pomegranate trader Syed Zaman] Agha said that unseasonal rain had ruptured the skin of Kandahari pomegranates. He said last year’s harvest was bigger. He added that chemicals used in explosives and ammunition had ruined the soil and caused the leaves of pomegranate trees to lose their colour.

I have no reason to believe that the U.S. is using chemical weapons or defoliants like Agent Orange in Afghanistan. But it has used other weapons which have environmental effects beyond those of the usual explosives. Their use could explain why leaves of pomegranate trees lose their color and the fruits develop ruptured skins.

The soldiers and Marines have been very active around Kandahar and the Arghandab area which is famous for its Pomegranate orchards. They bombed complete villages to dust there and seemingly often use(d) their HIMARS (pdf) medium range artillery rockets for their purposes. Afghanistan claims $100 million in damage over those operations.

We predicted here that these systems would wreak havoc when they were first deployed but didn't anticipate the environmental and crop damage.

What happens with the solid rocket fuel that is not burned off in flight when a HIMARS rocket is fired on less than its maximum distance? That are presumably dozens of kilograms of rocket propellent left and they burn off in the one place where the warhead explodes.

We do know that the exhausts from these rocket are not healthy because the cabin of the vehicle they are fired from is supposed to keep those away from the launcher crews. These crews rightly complained (pdf) when that didn't work as planned.

According to this military report (pdf, pg 11, 12) the HIMARS rockets use the "Arcadene 360B hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene, aluminum perchlorate propellant" which produces 20 grams of hydrogene chlorid (HCl) per 100 grams of propellent when burned off. Hydrogene chlorid is definitely not environment friendly.

When a HIMARS rocket explodes at a range shorter than its maximum range it releases 20% of the left-over fuel as hydrogene chlorid which will eventually end dissolved in water (humidity)  to very aggressive hydrochloric acid. The standard HIMARS rocket weights about 300 kilograms. Half to two-third of that mass, 150+ kilograms, is the solid propellent. Let's assume that firing it at half of the maximum range will only use two-third of the propellent. Then some 50+ kilogram of propellent will burn off in one place at impact and create some 10+ kilograms of hydrogene chlorid.

Anyone who ever worked in a chemistry lab, even at school level, will tell you that even one small drop of HCl is very unfriendly to many materials, especially biological ones. No, you do not want this on your fingers. Distributing kilograms of such with each HIMARS impact may well create the observed negative effects on whole Pomegranate orchards.

For the people living from selling the the fruits of these orchards the environmental and resulting economical impact of such rocket use may well mean that they will not have the money to survive the next winter.

Comments

obscene.

Posted by: rjj | Nov 7 2011 1:10 utc | 1

Ditto.
But thanks for your analysis and observations, b.
For some strange reason, I don’t see “journalists” doing any “reporting” on this phenomenon.

Posted by: Maxcrat | Nov 7 2011 1:28 utc | 2

Every branch of the War on Islam is, directly or indirectly, part of America’s Wars for the Jews. It would be naive to imagine that the negative effects on the living standards of the invaded population are the result of ‘unintended consequences.’
The Yankees have destroyed about 70% of Afghanistan’s irrigation systems, both ancient and modern, since 2001. The laws of war classify irrigation systems as civilian infrastructure.
The Jews have destroyed 90% of Palestine’s irrigation systems and have closed all but a few fresh water wells and declared all groundwater to be the property of Israel.
There’s currently a drought in Afghanistan and the inability to irrigate crops is causing widespread food crop and cash crop shortages – with the notable exception of opium, production of which has escalated each year under the watchful (post-Taliban) eye of Uncle Sam.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 7 2011 4:24 utc | 3

@Hoarse – The Yankees have destroyed about 70% of Afghanistan’s irrigation systems
Any source for that allegation?

Posted by: b | Nov 7 2011 5:38 utc | 4

The 70% was my non-specific recollection.
I haven’t hilighted water, specifically, in my Afghan files. My primary interests in conflict focus on strategic and geo-political issues.
However, I’ve retrieved the following from an “Afghanistan irrigation” google search today.
………………………………..
Rehabilitating irrigation in Afghanistan (2008)
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/news/afghanistan.html
Their are some isolated statistics (not related to a total need) about West-funded(?) rehab. But the last par points out that reservoirs and dams also need rehab.
…………………………………….
Chronic irrigation in Afghanistan (2010)
http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/2010/10/chronic-irrigation-in-afghanistan/
This article includes overall national guestimates.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 7 2011 7:28 utc | 5

@Hoarse – those articles do not support your claim “The Yankees have destroyed about 70% of Afghanistan’s irrigation systems”
Indeed the second one says:

The Afghan Government estimates that over the last three decades of conflict, Afghanistan’s irrigated crop land has decreased by 70%. At present 25% of Afghanistan’s farm land is irrigated and, they say, most of it not very well.

And the fao link says:

As of May 2008, 495,299 ha of agriculture lands are rehabilitated (against a target of 350,000ha) served by 493 completed schemes out of about 700 targeted schemes for rehabilitation.

That is the opposite of what you claimed. Please stop making allegations here that are coming out of hot air.

Posted by: b | Nov 7 2011 8:24 utc | 6

I’ll admit to putting the worst possible interpretation on what I understood to be the facts. My 70% recollection wasn’t far off the discoverable facts, and erred on the conservative side.
We agree that the second (2010) article says “over the last three decades” but that only reinforces my perception. If it had said “over the two decades prior to the US invasion” (and I hadn’t read several incidental reports about deliberate US destruction of irrigation systems) I wouldn’t have attributed any damage to the US invasion. But “three decades” insinuates that the US continued the tradition of inflicting damage. To me there’s nothing benign, or accidental about such a policy given R2P.
I have already pointed out that the first (2008) article is based on large numbers which don’t relate to any meaningful percentage of rehabbed vs unrehabbed land.
However, if you interpret the articles together then the (UK.gov) 2010 article (which imo would be spun for maximum optimism) tells us that two years on from the program outlined in the first article, there still remains MORE than 70% of land in need of irrigation rehab.
Thus, if one were to accept the first article’s insinuation that the program was large and significant, one would also be obliged to accept that the damage to irrigation prior to commencement of rehab exceeded 70% by the amount of rehab work completed up to 2010.
The Yankees told us they were in Afghanistan to help Afghans improve their lives. The Afghans don’t agree. I don’t either.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 7 2011 11:53 utc | 7

I also think it is misdirecting to say this is a War on Islam, and that this Global Imperialistic project is driven largely by the “Jews.” Besmirching and negatively exploiting Islam may well be a tactic in demoralizing a population and inflaming and stoking a conflict, but it’s just that…..a tactic in an endeavor with a much broader goal. Ultimately, this is Class Warfare taken to its extreme, and the last time I looked, the Plutocrats are comprised of more than just “Jews.”

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 7 2011 12:13 utc | 8

Regarding the above I take your point that you prefer that any uncertainty about facts be articulated, or at least referred to, when expressing an opinion. I will keep this in mind in future.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 7 2011 12:30 utc | 9