Wanted: a country to destroy Syria's chemical weapons

It looks as if Syria will be launching no more deadly gas attacks.

Its government made a formal, confidential declaration of the country's chemical weapons to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on 24 October. The OPCW says that Syria's equipment for making and weaponising chemicals will be demolished this week.

Wanted: a country to destroy Syria's chemical weapons

I remember the furor as if it were yesterday; many Syrians were killed by the use of a terrible weapon.

I try to resist simply accepting a circulating news story from uncorroborated media reports, so I cross-checked (here ) to verify this account. (I would have thought this news would have rated more coverage..., if it was covered elsewhere I missed it.)

This both the article and the source seems to have information worthy of note.

Pardon me in advance, but weren't we treated to a huge 'public' show over how certainly the attack had to have been perpetrated by the the government's own people? Yet here they are, apparently formally committing themselves to giving the entire chemical arsenal up?

There are some reported legal problems with executing the weapons destruction. While there are a number of facilities (both mobile and regional) who may be able to carry out their destruction, the particulars of treaties and international regulation seems to make it tricky.

Another point worth noting...,

It [the OPCW] is now shopping for a country to host a mobile plant that will destroy the chemicals, which include at least 50 tonnes of mustard gas and 300 to 500 tonnes of sarin precursor, plus tens of tonnes of ultra-deadly nerve agent VX.

[I FINALLY get the numbers!]

What do you suppose the difference between "sarin" and "sarin precursor?" One spokesman said sarin precursor does not pose the same risk as finished weapons, but that seems incomplete.

I make no accusations out of knowledge, which is to say "I imagine that," the Syrian Gas Attack of August 21, 2013 may have been a botched foreign policy operation [a not necessarily a US one] which failed to create a knee jerk reaction in the audience, namely "the rest of the planet".

Anyone can see that a nation which holds chemical weapons must always expend valuable resources defending them. I suppose if they actually considered them a variable in a tactical or strategic sense they would keep them.

But don't breathe a sigh of relief yet... we STILL don't have any irrefutable evidence of who actually did this... they remain to face justice.

reply to post by Maxmars

The chemical attack on Syria was a preplanned operation orchestrated by the outside forces hoping to diminish Assad's popularity in Syria which obviously didn't work out as planned...Who in their semi right minds would attack his own people during times that the whole world is watching their every move to find an excuse to kick their butts out!

reply to post by shapur


Or orchestrated by Syrian Government forces in command of chemical weapons without the approval of Assad?
I don't see Assad himself being stupid enough to order the chemical attack, but I do see it being ordered by a frustrated commander wanting to finally break the rebel strongholds within the Damascus region. That commander I see as being Assad's brother - Maher Assad. Maher is also rumoured to have been injured in a rebel bombing that also claimed the life of an Assad relative.

Assad had no option but to deny all knowledge of their use, cover for his brother, and offer up his stockpile in order to save Syria from Coalition air strikes. Maher was also allegedly favoured by certain Assad family members to take over as President after the death of his father. Does the key to the attack lie with Maher seeking revenge and over stepping his authority? I see how it played out as Basher Assad having no choice but to cover for his brothers actions but the consequence was that he had to sacrifice his chemical stockpile.

So when DHS starts shooting tea party members, is the UN going to make an awfully big deal about it and send alqueda to help TP? Why is it ok for USA, UK, France to determine what is good for the syrian people, but its not ok for others to determine what is good for america?

What is that term called? Hypocrisy? Oh yeah, I right I just rememberd.

We are sitting here on our computers like spoiled children typing messages and the criminal masterminds of libya, syria, afghanistan, iraq are still out free and probably planning for more problems in the future.

Our tax money wasted on endless wars. I could see giving government a little slack if we had say a few trillion surplus, but $17 trillion HELL NO! Why are WE discussing the obvious and no international court tribunals have begun?

Yes of course its no big deal that syria is turning over their chemical weapons.

It was only a big deal back in august when NATO needed an excuse to attack syria.

Whats that word again? Oh yeah, I believe hypocrisy!

NATO can go efff themselves. (flame)

reply to post by Maxmars


I believe he is wanting them destroyed because he is having a difficult time protecting them.

The opposition forces got into them once, but Assad and all tried to cover that up. Can't be seen as being weak and unable to protect stuff. So he did try to cover that up. It still got out somewhat though regardless of all that.

At any rate, things are deteriorating there badly. Israel wants full scale war, and is using the civil war to their advantage. It is almost impossible to fight a civil war and against invading forces at the same time.

Assad does not want them in the wrong hands at this point. I am proud of him for that... At least Assad is working toward prevention.

Hopefully we can destroy them before AL-Qaeda gets into them again.

Maxmars
What do you suppose the difference between "sarin" and "sarin precursor?" One spokesman said sarin precursor does not pose the same risk as finished weapons, but that seems incomplete.

Sarin is made up of different chemicals combined into one mixture. A Sarin Precursor is a portion of that mixture, but is missing one or more ingredients to make it into Sarin. It's made up of commercial use, off the shelf products.

Zaphod58

Maxmars
What do you suppose the difference between "sarin" and "sarin precursor?" One spokesman said sarin precursor does not pose the same risk as finished weapons, but that seems incomplete.

Sarin is made up of different chemicals combined into one mixture. A Sarin Precursor is a portion of that mixture, but is missing one or more ingredients to make it into Sarin. It's made up of commercial use, off the shelf products.

Thank you, I meant to inquire more specifically, are these precursors specific to a sarin application or is it something that might presumably be used for other weapons?

Insofar as this alleged forthcoming destruction of weapons, I've heard little of substance to indicate it is actually happening? I wonder why?

reply to post by Maxmars


From what I understand they're pretty specific to Sarin (I'm not an expert, but I've read up on it). Sarin started as a pesticide in the 1930s, and was later weaponized.