Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemical watchdog says US to destroy Syria stockpile at sea

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   


The United States has offered to destroy Syria's chemical stockpile and will do so on a ship at sea, the world's chemical watchdog said on Saturday.
"The Director-General stated that the neutralisation operations will be conducted on a US vessel at sea using hydrolysis," the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said in a statement.

Chemical watchdog says US to destroy Syria stockpile at sea

More importantly does this mean chemicals will be dumped into the sea?




posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnyc55
 


A good question, let's hope not. The ocean is not a garbage dump, although massive sections of it have taken on that look. Am I mistaken or do cruise ships dump their garbage overboard? Some of it?

Chemical weapons are and were just an indication about human's instability when acting as a large group of fearful individuals, and bit by bit the world is seeing weapons such as these as an indication of mental illness. Let's hope this feeling spreads, and the nukes, and then other massive weapons are destroyed. When human begin fighting with stones and thrown substances again, that's when I'll be willing to say we've matured back to the stone age.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Destroy the stockpile at sea?
A likely story.
Just like they supposedly dumped Bin Laden at sea.
At least that way they can repackage the chemical weapons for sale to another ally (dictator) they intend to eventually topple and make twice their money back in the process.
Who wants to bet me?

-Peace-



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnyc55
 


As if the Sea isn't fcked enough already.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Ya, at sea,. I suppose no one of risk will be able to witness also,.
like Bin ladens burial



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Obama says he is all for "green"energy and helping the planet-then decides it would be a good idea to dump and or blow up this toxic crap in the Medditerranean?

Double standards at their finest...

This must not be allowed to take place-It will harm a delicate ecosytem,and leave toxins in the water.
Crazy idea by crazy people.




posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Silcone Synapse
Obama says he is all for "green"energy and helping the planet-then decides it would be a good idea to dump and or blow up this toxic crap in the Medditerranean?

Double standards at their finest...

This must not be allowed to take place-It will harm a delicate ecosytem,and leave toxins in the water.
Crazy idea by crazy people.



Though I agree with you Whole heartedly
I cant say Anyone of authority really gives a $hit about the "Ecosystem"
Just look at Fukushima and the radiation levels in the pacific.... since 2011



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnyc55
 


On a ship at sea


Been there, done that.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
So our allies tell us to get stuffed, one by one and to the last one who may have been capable. Obama refuses to use some of the only chemical weapons incinerators in the world, owned and operated by the U.S. Army. I don't know WHY ...except that he figures dumping these terrible poisons off the back off a ship at Sea is somehow SAFER than transporting to a properly designed containment and destruction facility.

Oh yeah, he's Mr. Environment. The first big problem that comes along, what does he do? Just like every scumbag before him. "Out of sight, out of mind" and toss another barrel over the fantail while forgetting any of it is happening.

We already have thousands of tons of radioactive waste in several collection/dump points around the world's oceans. Just about every Nuclear nation has dumped it's share and plenty of maps document all this beyond any theory. Why not add to it then...with a new dumping sight for Chemical nightmares?

* The Sea is Obama's fall back, isn't it? Osama got ya down? Throw something into the water and call it his body. Instant solution! Someone ELSE's Chemical weapons we had no right to in the first place, causing a problem? Throw it in the ocean and let Davy Jones snort some VX. He ought to be a happy camper.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
It actually seems a sensible solution. Its not 'dumping it in the sea'. I expect they will set up a field deployable hydrolysis system like this one, but on a ship.

dtirp.dtra.mil...

Doing the deed out in the open ocean means you don't have to deal with the 'not in my back yard' element of trying to do it in a foreign land or in the USA.

Its in nobodies back yard.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


How much should it matter that they've shopped this job around and been told by other allied nations to have fun with what we pushed to get so badly? This is the last, not first choice. That should factor into how this is seen, shouldn't it?

I'm still lost on how the chemical destruction facilities the US is almost unique for having in operational condition right now.....are less safe than dumping in the open ocean?



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


To be honest its not surprising. No politician is going to want to appear on the news and say ' hey, I volunteered the Syrian chemical weapons disposal to happen near you. Please vote for me'. I expect the same applies in the USA.

Notwithstanding that the USA now has to pay to destroy weapons that were only supposed to be its 'causus belli' for a Syrian regime change in the first place, the world is a better place without them. If they have to be destroyed this seems as good an approach as any.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Destroyed at sea huh? Or shipped to some other country to be used in a false flag attack? Sorry. Any country that trust the u.s. is lacking intelligence.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by catfishjoe

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by Silcone Synapse

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

reply to post by Eryiedes

reply to post by Aleister
 


Hydrolysis (/haɪˈdrɒlɨsɪs/; from Greek hydro-, meaning "water", and lysis, meaning "separation") usually means the cleavage of chemical bonds by the addition of water. Where a carbohydrate is broken into its component sugar molecules by hydrolysis (e.g. sucrose being broken down into glucose and fructose), this is termed saccharification. Generally, hydrolysis or saccharification is a step in the degradation of a substance.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by verschickter
 


At least the rabbit could have googled that before screaming "they dump it in the water".

Awaiting the #storm now
edit on 30-11-2013 by verschickter because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
4

log in

join