Do the means justify the end?

Aunty Em

Well-Known Member
NEW SCIENTIST NEWSFLASH

Russian gas clues point to cocktail

Further evidence about the Moscow knock-out agent suggests a mixture of anaesthetic and opioids

Further clues to the identity of the knock-out agent used to end the Moscow hostage crisis have emerged, indicating that a likely candidate is a cocktail of an opioid narcotic such as fentanyl supplemented by halothane, a common anaesthetic. The two are commonly used together in clinical anaesthesia.

The Russian authorities are maintaining their silence on the identity of the gas, which they used to incapacitate the Chechen hostage-takers on Saturday. But the gas is believed to have killed all but two of the 117 hostages who died. The first funerals have already been held.

Late on Tuesday, doctors in Munich reported that chemical analysis had identified halothane in blood and urine samples taken from two surviving German hostages within 24 hours of the rescue.

But David Whittaker of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain cautions that the two may have received halothane as an emergency treatment for bronchospasm induced by inhaling vomit, which happened to many hostages. If this true, it is probable that an opioid was used alone.

Peter Hutton, president of Britain's Royal College of Anaesthetists, adds: “Halothane would take several minutes to get people even partially asleep." The gas used in Moscow rendered hostage-takers unconscious much more quickly, preventing them from donning gas masks or detonating their explosives.

However halothane in the agent would at least agree with what little Russian officials have said – “it was a medical gas used in anaesthesiology”.

Opiate intoxication
Doctors at the US embassy in Moscow say the two American survivors they examined had the telltale signs of opiate intoxication. Moreover, Moscow doctors have reportedly been treating survivors successfully with naloxone, which blocks the action of opiate drugs. And breathing failure and inhalation of vomit, said to be the most common cause of death in the hostages, are caused by opiates.

“There is already an inhalable opiate available – fentanyl, a short-acting, rather potent narcotic,” says Alan Zelicoff, a chemical and biological warfare expert at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, US. “The clinical utility of this drug is that it acts very quickly.”

Fentanyl is commonly combined with halothane in order to minimise halothane’s toxic side effects. And halothane may have been used to extend the effect of the agent, as the fentanyl wore off. But at high doses fentanyl alone may have been sufficiently long lasting. Both compounds must be administered as an aerosol suspension – tallying with the “grey” mist reported by some hostages.

Lethal dose
The most likely cause of the terrible number of hostage deaths is the side effects of fentanyl, say observers. Martin Furmanski, a medical historian in Newport Beach, California, says administering enough of an opiate drug to cause rapid anaesthesia almost always causes a patient to stop breathing – not a problem in a fully-equipped operating theatre, but a tragedy in the Moscow theatre.

Similar opioids are used in tranquilising darts for anaesthetising large animals. In these cases, the lethal dose is just six times greater than the dose needed for anaesthesia.

That implies that if the Moscow hostage-takers were exposed to enough of the mixture to knock them out within one minute, hostages who kept breathing it would have acquired a lethal dose within six minutes.

If this analysis is correct, notes Furmanski, the poor physical condition of the hostages, or a dosage miscalculation is not necessary to explain the mass deaths. “It was probably inevitable that many hostages would die if the aerosol opiate concentration was high enough to cause rapid unconsciousness in the terrorists,” he says.

Short of Russian officials naming the agent, the next information is likely to come from the examination of the remains of two US hostages who died, and clothing from a British family, now being examined at the UK’s chemical defense lab at Porton Down. However, rapid breakdown of short-acting opioids such as fentanyl might mean analysts will have to look for longer-lived breakdown products of the drug.

copyright 2002 Reed Elsevier

1. What are your general thoughts on this matter?
2. Do you think the Russian authorities overstepped the mark in bringing this siege to an end in this way?
3. What do you think of the way the Russian authorities have refused to share vital information?
4. How would you feel if this happened in your country?
5. Could it happen in your country? If not - why not?
6. How would you have handled the situation?
 
Aunty Em said:
2. Do you think the Russian authorities overstepped the mark in bringing this siege to an end?
No, first they have the right to do what they want in their country, and second, 100 dead is better than all 500+ dead.

3. What do you think of the way the Russian authorities have refused to share vital information?
I don't like it, but it isn't my country and I won't judge them.

4. How would you feel if this happened in your country?
Hm... I don't know, certainly the world would tear us to pieces if WE did the same thing, but I don't think I'd mind. If I was a hostage there, and if I was one of the ones that died, I would still prefer it that way. Rather let 100 die instead of 500+. And yeah, I would still think that if I was the dead one.

5. Could it happen in your country? If not - why not?
It can happen anywhere.
 
No, first they have the right to do what they want in their country, and second, 100 dead is better than all 500+ dead.

What if this had happened in Iraq - would you still feel the same way if Saddam Hussein was pulling the strings? Or is it because the Russians are allies you feel you can't criticize them? Is there one rule of law for those who are with us (however grudgingly) and another for those who aren't?
 
If the situation was the same, where people were being held hostage, I would back the Iraqi government for doing the same thing. It's a shame when innocent people die, but to deal with the terrorists would only cause further terrorism.
 
Aunty Em said:
No, first they have the right to do what they want in their country, and second, 100 dead is better than all 500+ dead.

What if this had happened in Iraq - would you still feel the same way if Saddam Hussein was pulling the strings? Or is it because the Russians are allies you feel you can't criticize them? Is there one rule of law for those who are with us (however grudgingly) and another for those who aren't?

:D well done!
 
Aunty Em said:
No, first they have the right to do what they want in their country, and second, 100 dead is better than all 500+ dead.

What if this had happened in Iraq - would you still feel the same way if Saddam Hussein was pulling the strings? Or is it because the Russians are allies you feel you can't criticize them? Is there one rule of law for those who are with us (however grudgingly) and another for those who aren't?
If you think the Russians are allies.... :rolleyes:
 
Russia, allies, it does sound strange. Odd isn't it. Well, we are trying to make them allies, so we aren't too critical of their actions, and they are less so of ours than they would have been a few years ago.

I didn't follow any of this, but I would think this is a bit extreme. In this case, clearly, the ENDS DIDN'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

I think that fact is self eveident!!!
 
Or not. I read another article on this on msnbc, and it seems the "truth" of the matter, like in most other cases is source dependent. I don't know, but I suspect there is simply a kinder gentler spin on it at msnbc. Hown can one be sure though? :(
 
If you think the Russians are allies.... :rolleyes:

NATO-Russia Glossary of Contemporary Political and Military Terms

Preface

In the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation, signed on 27 May 1997 at the highest political level in Paris, the Alliance and Russia have expressed their commitment to build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area based on the principles of democracy and cooperative security. The Founding Act marked the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia and it established with the Permanent Joint Council a unique framework for NATO-Russia consultation and cooperation. Since then, the Alliance and Russia have engaged in an intensive dialogue and cooperation on the broad scope of issues foreseen by the Founding Act. We have weathered crises, we have also disagreed - and, on some issues, we will continue to disagree. But we are building bridges of trust and confidence and we have made good progress in dispelling misperceptions about one another.
Against this background, we are confident that this NATO-Russia Glossary of Contemporary Political and Military Terms will make an important contribution to further enhance transparency and mutual understanding in the NATO-Russia relationship. The Glossary represents an unprecedented effort to compile a comprehensive set of over 1,100 entries, in Russian, English and French, covering the full range of terminology relevant to NATO-Russia consultation and cooperation. It will soon prove to be an indispensable tool for conferences, seminars and working groups and all other fora where NATO and Russia meet. The Glossary will, in particular, facilitate communication between NATO and Russian contingents working side by side in a good spirit of cooperation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR) and Kosovo (KFOR).
We commend the authors of the Glossary and experts of NATO and the Institute for Military History of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, for their valuable endeavour and we recommend the Glossary to a wide circle of readers.

* * *

Signed in Brussels on 8 June 2001

Lord Robertson
NATO Secretary General

Sergey Ivanov
Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation

source: http://www.nato.int/docu/glossary/eng/index.htm

I suspect this means that we are indeed supposed to be allies. They've even invented a new set of jargon to go with it. I suppose the 115 innocent hostages would be termed "collateral damage".
 
If we're going to talk about whether the means justify the ends, then let's talk about the terrorists who took the hostages. They were prepared to kill every one of the hostages if their demands weren't met. They had wired the theatre and some of the hostages with explosives and announced their willingness to die if the Russians attempted to enter the theatre.

You don't negotiate with people like that. You don't try to appease them. It only encourages them and guarantees that they will continue to take hostages and issue demands. It would have been wrong for the Russians to negotiate.
 
Ardsgaine said:
You don't negotiate with people like that. You don't try to appease them. It only encourages them and guarantees that they will continue to take hostages and issue demands. It would have been wrong for the Russians to negotiate.

I whole-heartedly agree with you, but I'm not talking about appeasement I'm talking about the method that the Russian authorites chose to use to end the siege - opioid gas which they knew would kill...

administering enough of an opiate drug to cause rapid anaesthesia almost always causes a patient to stop breathing – not a problem in a fully-equipped operating theatre, but a tragedy in the Moscow theatre

...they just didn't know how many people would die. In total there were over 160 deaths including the terrorists. In truth I doubt if they knew if anyone would come out of that theatre alive yet they still went ahead with it despite the fact that there were expert forces and other methods on offer. And why did this happen - because Putin didn't want to appear indecsive or weak? This seige won't be remembered because of the terrorists but as the day the Russians authorities were responsible for the deaths of 115 innocent people. An acceptable level of attrition for whom exactly? Obviously not the victims or their families. It certainly does nothing to inspire my confidence in them, nor I would think the average person in the street. I suspect Putin will live to regret his decision.
 
Aunty Em said:
I whole-heartedly agree with you, but I'm not talking about appeasement I'm talking about the method that the Russian authorites chose to use to end the siege - opioid gas which they knew would kill...

Well, you may have a point about the method chosen, but that would assume that there was another method available to them. I have to confine my criticism to that context.

Also, I don't know exactly what steps they took to prepare for the casualties they might have afterwards, but it appears that they were inadequate. They've also refused to share information with their allies about the gas so that other victims could receive better medical attention.

In truth I doubt if they knew if anyone would come out of that theatre alive yet they still went ahead with it despite the fact that there were expert forces and other methods on offer.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to compare those other methods. I wouldn't have given much chance for any of those hostages at the start, so I'm rather impressed that 400 came out alive.

This seige won't be remembered because of the terrorists but as the day the Russians authorities were responsible for the deaths of 115 innocent people.

I still say the terrorists are responsible. They created the situation in which the Russians had no choice but to go into the building.

An acceptable level of attrition for whom exactly?

For the 400 who made it out alive against all odds?

It certainly does nothing to inspire my confidence in them

I don't have a lot of confidence in them either. I just agree with the principle that we should not negotiate with terrorists. I think they had the right principle, even if the execution may have been flawed.
 
Ardsgaine said:
I still say the terrorists are responsible. They created the situation in which the Russians had no choice but to go into the building.

Cause and effect - At what point do members of an indiginous population become terrorists? Hypothetically speaking if your country were invaded today would you resist the invaders or just sit back and let them remove your constitutional rights, deprive you of a livelihood, deprive your children of an education, healthcare, etc. Do feelings of political powerlessness contribute to the development of a terrorist? How would you resist? Aren't we all ultimately "terrorists" in waiting? How can you cure a problem if at first you don't put yourself in the terrorists position and understand it from their point of view?
 
Yeah, good point! Terrorist, revolutionary, where do we draw the line? We "admire" revolutionaries for throwing off thier oppressors, and we hate "terrorists" but what distingues one as a revolutionary as opposed to a terrorist? They both commit attrocities in the name of thier respective causes, were American colonists terrorists? Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism? What would the British think at the time? Interesting question!!!
 
Aunty Em said:
Ardsgaine said:
You don't negotiate with people like that. You don't try to appease them. It only encourages them and guarantees that they will continue to take hostages and issue demands. It would have been wrong for the Russians to negotiate.

I whole-heartedly agree with you, but I'm not talking about appeasement I'm talking about the method that the Russian authorites chose to use to end the siege - opioid gas which they knew would kill...

administering enough of an opiate drug to cause rapid anaesthesia almost always causes a patient to stop breathing – not a problem in a fully-equipped operating theatre, but a tragedy in the Moscow theatre

So you have a better plan? Perhaps a full-scale assault, gauranteeing the death of every hostage? How about tear-gas. Oops. Doesn't work fast enough. Hostages go boom...Retch gas? Think of the mess..especially after they detonate the explosives. :eek5: Sharpshooters? Most likely you'd have to take out every terrorist at once. There was no other way. The Russians knew it, the media probably knows it, and, deep down, you know it, too. I agree with what happened. I feel sorry for the innocents who died, but I don't think giving the terrorists what they wanted would've been a better plan, do you?
 
Aunty Em said:
Ardsgaine said:
I still say the terrorists are responsible. They created the situation in which the Russians had no choice but to go into the building.

Cause and effect - At what point do members of an indiginous population become terrorists? Hypothetically speaking if your country were invaded today would you resist the invaders or just sit back and let them remove your constitutional rights, deprive you of a livelihood, deprive your children of an education, healthcare, etc. Do feelings of political powerlessness contribute to the development of a terrorist? How would you resist? Aren't we all ultimately "terrorists" in waiting? How can you cure a problem if at first you don't put yourself in the terrorists position and understand it from their point of view?

You stop becoming a revolutionary when you involve non-combatants in your cause...especially if you go into, or involve, non-participating countries and/or their populations.
 
Gato_Solo said:
You stop becoming a revolutionary when you involve non-combatants in your cause....

Surely by this definition you are saying that anyone who wages war on another is a "terrorist" as war however "carefully" fought invariably involves non-combatants casualties?
 
Am i the only one to notice that there is something fundamentally wrong with this thread? Surely someone else must see it?
 
Back
Top