Syria’s chemical weapons

Can it be done?

Destroying a chemical arsenal in the midst of a civil war is unprecedented

See article

Readers' comments




"Herculean" is a nice description, we could also say "superhuman".
And this is just the start as humanity started a path which is unprecedented.
All our methods, tools are based on a world, where there were enemies and allies, there was North vs South, East vs West, there were developed and developing nations, and seemingly individuals and nations lived "side by side" all minding their own business, progressing in a linear, fragmented manner.
But now, when we all evolved into this global, interconnected network none of our previous methods and tools seem to be working, we have become pioneers again, re-exploring reality.
Except this time we have to do everything all, mutually together.
Just as the Syrian chemical weapon situation can only be solved by a multi-lateral, mutual cooperation, each side holding their guarantee, the whole deepening global crisis encompassing all levels of human activity can only be solved my globally mutual decision making and action.
And we simply has no experience with such action, where individuals and nations have to connect as equal cogwheels above their inherent and historic differences and hatred, above their self-interest to work towards common goals.
But we have no other options, humanity's future depends on our ability to work such "Herculean" tasks out.

The Shareef dont like it

To its the same insanity over again.

Remember, Iraq gave up its weapons and then America bombed Iraq to smithereens, at the behest of Jews and Israel, causing death and carnage unknown in modern times.

Similarly, Libya gave up its weapons and then America bombed Libya to smithereens, at the behest of Jews and Israel, causing the death of a united modern Libya.

The same record is now being played for Syria.

And, I know, Iran is next.

Whilst the cheshire cat, the Jews and Israel, are sitting with a smirk on their faces.

And NOBODY is asking Israel to relinquish its nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenal.

Same old lies, same old straw-man arguments.

Iraq said it had weapons and ended-up having some of the same kind of chemical weapons Syria has which Saddam used on the Kurds. Historical fact.

No one "bombed Libya to smithereens".

Syria has not been bombed by anyone except the Syrian Air Force.

Iran's psycho leadership has threatened to use weapons of mass destruction and since the rest of the world pays attention, the rest of the world mistrusts Iran and prudently tries to frustrate its terrorist activities. Seems reasonable to me.

Vilca82 in reply to D. Sherman

The UK has been selling nerve gas chemicals to Syria even after the conflict began:
From the Daily Record:
and Daily Star:
Let's not forget what Winston Churchill said:“I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” and "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas"


Unfortunately, even a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) free Syria- in which civil war continues- could remain a worsening, exigent international problem without responsible actions from the international community...
If the responsible international community does not take cohesive actions to deal with the current crisis in Syria and if one of Syria's neighbours- such as NATO member country Turkey- is subjected to a chemical weapons or substantial conventional weapons attack that was suspected to be from Syria, the United States- and every other NATO member country- would be obligated to intervene militarily in Syria in defence of Turkey....
Such intervention would not inconceivably mean: months of coordinated air and naval strikes; many army
divisions for boots-on-ground suppression of warring factions/sides and years of NATO/UN occupation...
Russia, the US + Allies should be working cooperatively together, putting assertive language in security council resolutions to do with Syria that demands:
1) an immediate cease fire between the civil war's opposing sides; and
2) cessation of weapons and finances being supplied to Assad regime Syria and Syrian rebel forces by all countries and interest groups; and
3) Assad regime Syria and rebel forces allow UN and/or Arab League representatives to facilitate and observe Syria's upcoming 2014 presidential and 2016 national assembly elections; and
4) potentially moving Syria 's 2016 national assembly elections to 2014 in order to coincide with the presidential elections; and
5) Assad regime Syria and rebel forces allow UN and/or Arab League representatives to facilitate an impartial, broadly inclusive-to-Syrians process to draft a new constitution and bill of rights for the country during the coming 12-months; and
6) Assad regime Syria and rebel forces allow UN and/or Arab League representatives to facilitate and observe a universal suffrage Syrian referendum on whatever new constitution and bill of rights are developed...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC , Canada


Complete lunacy to send in disarmament teams without the necessary military force and air cover to allow them to be unimpeded (as in killed) when performing their extremely important job. A recipe for disaster which conspiracy theorists would say is what is intended by both Russia and the USA all along. Everyone knows from Iraq and Afghanistan that getting around safely in a war zone requires use of the greatest force, yet no one at the UN or its members or the the media is talking about arming the disarmement teams. They are lambs to the slaughter, shame on the UN for not taking appropriate measures.


"Can it be done?"

The other option (vociferously pushed by The Economist) was toppling Assad to create another Al Qaeda haven (like Libya, Egypt, etc...)


"...And by endangering the inspectors, they might put at risk the money and arms they receive from countries that support the inspection process."

That's way too mild. It must be made very clear that should the inspectors were endangered, the UN representatives of countries that support the rebel will be hauled in front of UNSC and strip down and each receive ten lashes.

How about that? 8-).


When will the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), send inspectors to Israel?


Perhaps President Obama could explain his rationale and the illogical reasoning behind this glaring omission that makes a regional nuclear conflict ever more likely?

On second thoughts, perhaps that question should be directed at the actual foreign-policy decision-maker, AIPAC.

Upon further consideration, perhaps we should ask the person who directs AIPAC, Mr Binyamin Netanyahu. OMG! That would mean asking Israel if it's OK for it to be the only secret nuclear weapons state in the world and a non-party to the Chemical & Biological Weapons Conventions! I cannot imagine what they would say.

But wait! We do know! They would say these nuclear and chemical WMD are a deterrent. But the purpose of this deterrent is to ensure that these illegal WMD can and will be used, if considered necessary. And that is why Israel is the most dangerous threat to world peace in this century.

Timothy D. Naegele

Syria's chemical arsenal will not be destroyed. Barack Obama found a "fig leaf," thrown by Putin, to ostensibly get out from under his humiliating Syrian debacle.

It will drag on and on, like ridding Iran of the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Down deep, Obama is a pacifist and incompetent, and he does not care.

It is all smoke and mirrors.

See ("Obama’s Epic Incompetence")

D. Sherman

What's never mentioned, and will never be reported, is exactly what make and model of chemical weapons Syria has. The pundits discuss it as if Mr Assad either cooked them up himself, or they exist as a fact of nature without an origin. The most likely reality is some other country made them, and the most likely two countries are the US or the USSR. Even this paper's own position stated a month or so ago is that based on the observed effects, the weapon was most likely old and partially degraded nerve gas. It may well be left over from the Iran/Iraq war.

I also suspect that the negotiators on both sides of this deal know exactly whose shells they are, and wrote into the agreement with the UN a promise never to disclose that information.

In one sense, the manufacturer of the poison is a purely academic point and all that matters is getting rid of it. To that, I would argue that today's wars are fought in the realm of information, on YouTube, Twitter, and blogs, as much as with bullets, and since information often determines who supports whom and in which way, truth matters.

tzatz in reply to roderickvlouis

Do YOU still believe in the 'tooth fairy' too? LOL

Assad is a thug … thugs need to be REMOVED from office … either one of his own will kill him or the rebels will kill him … Once Assad is gone … anything is possible … that's the minimum the rebels are fighting for …




tzatz in reply to tonybellchambers

Thanks for the insight! LOL

Does the IAEA check on Russian or American or Chinese or Pakistani or Indian Nukes?

How about their stores of chemical weapons?

[The USA and Russia did have the largest stores of chemical weapons prior to their ban.]


I think the important thing to keep in mind is that, even if we only get rid of a good portion of Assad's chemical weapons, we'll still be much better off than we were before. Bombing Assad would not have destroyed much, if any, of his chemical weapons arsenal, whereas the U.N. disarmament effort will likely account for most of it. That means less chemical weapons available that might fall into the hands of terrorists, and anything remaining will most likely not be used by Assad for fear of provoking U.S. retaliation.
The downside of course, is that this deal does nothing to help the Syrian rebels. But it seems like America has long ago decided that getting rid of chemical weapons is more important, and more doable, than aiding the rebels. My own sympathies are decidedly with the rebels, but I think if I were an diplomat I would be hard-pressed to turn down this deal even if Kerry had not inadvertently stumbled upon it, as getting rid of those chemical weapons is just too attractive an option.

UTY in reply to tonybellchambers

Indeed, you're right.
We all know Israel has nuclear/chemical weapons but why US(UK & the lot) are not taking actions against Israel?
Even a 3-year old kid can see clearly all the poisonous hypocrisy and double standards.
Hypocrisy and double standards have been going on for far too long.
We must oppose all nuclear/chemical weapons.
We must oppose Iran/Syria having nuclear/chemical weapons.
We also must oppose all others (US, etc.) having nuclear/chemical weapons.
If the US wants Iran not to have nuclear weapons, US simply must also get rid of all US nuclear weapons.
What moral right does the US have to demand Iran (or any other country) not to develop nuclear weapons when US still have a large number of the most deadly nuclear weapons in the world?
MrObama, indeed, US must take actions and not just words to prove it, so stop moralizing and start destroying all US nuclear weapons then you'll have the moral high ground to demand others not to develop nuclear weapons.
If US can have nuke, then every nation also has the same right to have nuke, this is fundamental principle


There is a civil war in syria, then they make more efficient weapon to win it. I can't see any inappropriate. Weapons are made to kill, there is not such a thing call "vile weapon", or in other words, weapons are all vile.

tzatz in reply to roderickvlouis

Assad's exit from Planet Earth is in EVERYONE'S best interest! As long as Assad is defeated … Iran and Hezbollah LOSE … all American allies get relief … Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. That's an INCREDIBLE outcome …
As for who will rule Syria going forward … perhaps the best outcome would be the ending of a unified Syria … replaced by 3 statelets … Alawistan … Syrian Kurdistan … Sunnistan w/Cristian & Druze
BUT IF … Syria continues under Jihadi/Muslim Brotherhood leadership … the outcome predicted would be an eventual TURN AWAY from Islamist rule back to SECULAR/Military rule … (see Tunisia, Egypt, Libya as the latest examples)
Muslim countries in general … "subjugating women and minorities to tyrannical, abusive disenfranchised governance..."
However … if a Muslim Country sponsors/gives succor to those willing to "us(e) weapons of mass destruction; destroying world trade and venues for international stability …" … THAT COUNTRY should suffer from a significant military response!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

