I’m not sure how well it would work in the Moscow Theater siuation, but in, say, an airliner where terrorists hold people hostage, pumping in a gas that would knock everyone out but not seriously harm them might be a solution.
Are counter-terrorism experts working on such a thing?
I am not aware of any substances that can safely render people unconscience in this type of situation.
There might be something like that out there, but I am unaware of it.
A silent delivery system should probably be employed as well.
:eek:
Just to backup what scotth said -
Anaesthetic gas dosage is very critical. Too much and you’re dead, too little and you’re still alive. And the dosage varies from person to person. This is why operating rooms have a trained anaesthetologist on hand to monitor the patient’s vital signs and make sure they’re getting just the right dosage to keep then under but not dead.
Fill an uncontrolled area (even an airliner) with any known anaesthetic gas, and you’ll end up with some of the people dead, some knocked out, and some alive and still able to shoot back or set off bombs.
Has someone said that the terrorists don’t have gas masks with them? As prepared as they seem to be, I wouldn’t be suprised if they brought some along.
Heh. I take it you meant to say awake?
I suspect that sedatives could be vaporized and more effective and less dangerous. Pump in the valium and move in!
Russian Forces Storm Moscow Theater
My guess is that whatever the Russians used was not exactly “safe”.
“But, Comrade Reporter, Phosgene is ‘safe’!..Well, ‘safer’…than, say, Sarin…”
I don’t know about sleeping gas, but since you asked about airplanes: After 9/11 there was a push to add a feature to commercial airlines, whereby in a hijacking situation pilots could depressurize (?) the cabin, which would rapidly decrease oxygen and make everyone not in the cockpit pass out. However, I doubt it’d ever be added, given the potential liability issues.
Nice prescience, there sqweels!
Apparently the sleeping gas in the Russian theater did kill some people.
Yeah, but I partially ruled out the very situation in question.
As for presience,that’s nothing. Schwartzkopf ripped off my Gulf War battle plan * to the letter*.
Well, it is looking like whatever the Russians used displayed exactly the problems I listed above. It killed over 100 people and failed to render some unconcience.
However, in the dire situation that they were in, I am not about to second guess the decision to use this agent with the limited information that I have.
I would have to admit that it is likely the whole place would have simply been blown to hell and everyone killed if they didn’t risk this material. Clearly a very difficult choice to make.
As bad as this turned out, I still am very aware that hundreds (several hundreds) lived. At any time before it was actually over, I would have put the odds of having anywhere near this number of survivors as quite low.
Your concern about the dosage was spot-on scotth. My initial doubts had to do with uneven distribution in a large building, with terrorists lurking in side rooms being unaffected. This wasn’t a problem, but OD’s among hostages obviously was.
CRNA (Certified Registered Nurse Anaesthetist), more likely*.
Credit where credit is due.
*In Montana, YMMV.