Wanted: a country to destroy Syria's
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.
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
) 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
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.