US to destroy its largest remaining chemical weapons cache

[LazyLion]

The United States is about to begin destroying its largest remaining stockpile of chemical weapons, marking a milestone in the global campaign to eradicate a debilitating weapon.

The Pueblo Chemical Depot in southern Colorado plans to start neutralizing 2,600 tons of aging mustard agent in March.

It's part of the long-running U.S. effort to comply with a 1997 treaty banning all chemical weapons.

Chemicals still creep into modern warfare. Less than a year ago, chlorine gas killed 13 people in Syria in April 2014. Who was responsible isn't clear.

Mustard agent can blister the skin, cause scarring on eyes and inflame airways. Pueblo has about 780,000 shells containing the chemical.

Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky also has a stockpile of chemical weapons. Destruction there will start in the next year or two.


Source : Sapa-AP /aa
Date : 04 Feb 2015 09:40

 

[hellfire]

The United States is about to begin destroying its largest remaining stockpile of chemical weapons, marking a milestone in the global campaign to eradicate a debilitating weapon.

The Pueblo Chemical Depot in southern Colorado plans to start neutralizing 2,600 tons of aging mustard agent in March.

It's part of the long-running U.S. effort to comply with a 1997 treaty banning all chemical weapons.

Chemicals still creep into modern warfare. Less than a year ago, chlorine gas killed 13 people in Syria in April 2014. Who was responsible isn't clear.

Mustard agent can blister the skin, cause scarring on eyes and inflame airways. Pueblo has about 780,000 shells containing the chemical.

Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky also has a stockpile of chemical weapons. Destruction there will start in the next year or two.


Source : Sapa-AP /aa
Date : 04 Feb 2015 09:40

They really do have double standards. They're allowed nukes and chemical weapons, but nobody else. Because they're a 'responsible' government?

 

[Alan]

They really do have double standards. They're allowed nukes and chemical weapons, but nobody else. Because they're a 'responsible' government?

Yeah shame if they're allowed so too is the nutter in North Korea or the mad Mullahs in Iran. It's only fair

 

[hellfire]

Yeah shame if they're allowed so too is the nutter in North Korea or the mad Mullahs in Iran. It's only fair

It's not about fairness.
I'd rather have Barry with nukes than Kimmy.
But first prize is nobody.

 

[daveza]

They really do have double standards. They're allowed nukes and chemical weapons, but nobody else. Because they're a 'responsible' government?

Sounds much like Israel.

 

[Nick333]

It's not about fairness.
I'd rather have Barry with nukes than Kimmy.
But first prize is nobody.

So, who polices nuclear arms and with what stick?

 

[Alan]

It's not about fairness.
I'd rather have Barry with nukes than Kimmy.
But first prize is nobody.

Then what's to stop a North Korean invasion of the South, Chinese take over of Taiwan, Russians marching into Kiev or any tyrant unconstrained by war casualties like the west from taking their objective by force?

 

[hellfire]

Then what's to stop a North Korean invasion of the South, Chinese take over of Taiwan, Russians marching into Kiev or any tyrant unconstrained by war casualties like the west from taking their objective by force?

North Korean invasion of the South

It's already happened. USA had nukes, didn't use them, got their asses handed to them.

Chinese take over of Taiwan

This is pretty much the status quo already. Taiwan (or Chinese Taipei if you like) tows the line already. Nukes in the West are not stopping this.

Russians marching into Kiev

Watch this space

 

[zippy]

It's not about fairness.
I'd rather have Barry with nukes than Kimmy.
But first prize is nobody.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Can never eradicate nuclear weapons. The only reason they getting rid of chemical weapons is that they are obsolete when you have the nuclear deterrent that they have.

Anyone who really believes that everyone on the planet will agree to not build nuclear weapons and stick to that pledge is seriously deluded.

 

[LazyLion]

They really do have double standards. They're allowed nukes and chemical weapons, but nobody else. Because they're a 'responsible' government?

The reason they held on to them is precisely because there are "irresponsible" governments out there.

 

[Draganchor]

Then what's to stop a North Korean invasion of the South, Chinese take over of Taiwan, Russians marching into Kiev or any tyrant unconstrained by war casualties like the west from taking their objective by force?

Tactical battlefield nukes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

 

[w1z4rd]

They really do have double standards. They're allowed nukes and chemical weapons, but nobody else. Because they're a 'responsible' government?

Yup. More responsible than most

 

[Gezza]

So, who polices nuclear arms and with what stick?

This guy, I believe

 

[thestaggy]

It's already happened. USA had nukes, didn't use them, got their asses handed to them.

LOL!

On 24 February 1952, the Military Commission, presided over by Zhou, discussed the PVA's logistical problems with members of various government agencies involved in the war effort. After the government representatives emphasized their inability to meet the demands of the war, Peng, in an angry outburst, shouted: "You have this and that problem... You should go to the front and see with your own eyes what food and clothing the soldiers have! Not to speak of the casualties! For what are they giving their lives? We have no aircraft. We have only a few guns. Transports are not protected. More and more soldiers are dying of starvation. Can't you overcome some of your difficulties?"

 

[Alan]

It's already happened. USA had nukes, didn't use them, got their asses handed to them.

Except then NK had a Soviet ally and a U.S willing to fight conventionally. Today the U.S couldn't sustain a conventional conflict. It certainly is not the Sk military or the small U.S force there keeping Kim Jong-un in his hole. It's the knowledge that if he tries something there's a strong likelyhood he will be vaporized.

As for the war Eisenhower's threat of using nukes played a pivotal role in bringing it to a resolution. Kicking the well armed North Koreans out with a few lightly trained occupation forces and then fighting a mass of millions of Chinese conscripts flooding over you like a tsunami to a stalemate qualifies as "their asses handed to them" how unfortunate for the communists.

This is pretty much the status quo already. Taiwan (or Chinese Taipei if you like) tows the line already. Nukes in the West are not stopping this.

Taiwan is a sovereign democratic state which China considers it's own and has had threatened the use of force against numerous times. Again the Chinese know the U.S could not sustain a conventional war to prevent an annexation.

Watch this space

Because Putin is crazy enough to set off a chain reaction that could spiral out of control into a nuclear war. Remove that threat and he could march in tomorrow safe in the knowledge he risks no possibility catastrophic repercussions.

 

[ngwe23]

It's already happened. USA had nukes, didn't use them, got their asses handed to them.

But isn't that the point? The US (along with other countries) has proven that they can exercise restraint. While I am sure North Korea and Iran would love nothing more that to annihilate their enemies.

 

[TheMightyQuin]

Destroy it by dumping at all on ISIS....2 birds with one stone.

 

[daveza]

Destroy it by dumping at all on ISIS....2 birds with one stone.

I can go with that.

Toss in some excess napalm stock as well.

 

[LazyLion]

Destroy it by dumping at all on ISIS....2 birds with one stone.

Not a bad idea at all. Fortunately there will be no loss of human life.

 

[Cray]

But isn't that the point? The US (along with other countries) has proven that they can exercise restraint.

You mean apart from those two little nuclear bomb drops on Japan?