In Need of Protection

As a ground war in the gulf comes closer, so does the prospect of chemical * warfare. If U.S. troops have to fight on a poisoned battlefield, will their gas masks and protective suits keep them safe? The not completely reassuring answer is, Yes, but . . .

The American military gas mask, the M-17, was designed in 1955 and has not been significantly improved since. It has complicated straps and a hood that take time to sort out when delay can be fatal. Its filters are good for an hour or more in mustard gas but cannot be changed while the mask is being worn.

One of the most outspoken critics of U.S. anti-gas equipment is Evan Koslow, former editor of the technical journal Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense & Technology. He says the M-17 mask "gives very limited gas protection" compared with those produced by other NATO countries, most of which are more modern. He also claims that the protective clothing the U.S. uses can be penetrated by chemical agents.

The Pentagon denies those charges. The M-17 mask and suit, says an Army spokesman, "will protect our soldiers." Martin Calhoun, an analyst at the independent Center for Defense Information in Washington, agrees: "The M-17 does its job." A study by the Government Accounting Office in 1986 found that while U.S. gear was old and bulky, it offered sufficient protection.

The U.S. Army's attempts to produce a modern gas mask have cost $100 million but have been delayed 20 years by false starts and contract cancellations. Amid the praise for the Pentagon's high-tech weapons, its low-tech failures should also be noted.