Slashdot Mirror

It dosent help when mainstream media spins truth by omission or outright misinformation. The best example I've seen is when a CNN reporter huffs supposed nerve agent off a backpackas if that were a viable or even fucking sane method of chemical weapon detection. Reporting the chemical attack happened in douma before any investigation or even interviewing anyone, when in reality the OPCW report found no evidence of chemical weapons or the decomposition products in any of the tests, or in the bodies of the deceased. It's obvious bullshit like this that makes people not trust the mainstream media, pushing them toward alternate sources.

The solution is to teach people how to vet facts and information for themselves but unfortunately this needs to be done from a very young age or the blind trust of faulty sources and incorrect facts gets permenantly baked into thier brains and we have the current crisis of who will fact check the fact checkers.

Russia said they dismantled the Syrian chemical weapons program.

They did. The OPCW (the group tasked with verifying chemical weapons claims and enforcing the chemical weapons treaty) verified that Syria and Russia removed its chemical weapons.

There were questions on if they made that call correctly--for example, a Google search netted me this report that was sponsored by the EU. A check of the OPCW's own site's section on Syria gives the impression that they certainly have not asserted lately that Syria has removed its chemical weapons--the most recent press releases appear to be all on the topic of if chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and if you check their reports? Here's how they phrase it in the report from November 2017:

As stated in previous reports, all of the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic that were removed from its territory in 2014 have now been destroyed.

Note that they are very specific that it's only the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic; this is because it's followed in that report by them saying in very diplomatic language that they're not confident that the list they were given was complete and correct. (Outright saying as much directly wouldn't be diplomatic, but reading between the lines suggests that they're very slowly working towards making sure that they can confidently say that any omissions were not accidental nor their fault. Given that Syria's current government is very likely guilty of war crimes, this is not precisely a surprise...)

cid=56442457 Here it is.

It seems that the US story is falling apart fast. The Pentagon claims that all missiles hit their target and the Syrian claim of shooting down ~3/4 of the missiles is nonsense. But there are online videos of missiles being shot down and the Pentagon now says they're going to study the attack. Trump is using the issue of chemical weapons to flip-flop and now refuses to pull out the thousands of US troops who presently occupy/control 28% of Syria.

The Pentagon has bluntly said:

Q: General McKenzie, the three targets that you struck, were those manufacturing or researching chlorine or sarin?

GEN. MCKENZIE: A little of both. And particularly in the Barzeh target, but there’s a little of both. (source)

But the OPCW, the int'l org which is responsible for enforcing the chemical weapons treaty, inspected the Barzeh site in mid-March and said they saw no evidence of chemical weapons there. (Their PDF report point 8 on page 2.)

When Bush told his lies about Iraq's chemical weapons, at least the BS story held up for a couple of months. :(

The Administration certainly feels it does, ...

I get it, waiting for the results of a proper investigation like done by the OPCW is out of the question when "The Administration" feels something

But I get it, you've bought into the "Russia is a wonderful country and USA bad bad bad!" [...] so cash your Kremlin checks while you can.

How weak is your argument, because someone does not believe that Assad is responsible and asks for actual evidence makes him a puppet of the Kremlin. Sure thing.

And you have any proof that this was Assad's making?

Evidence? Ample amounts.

Care to elaborate?

Evidence that you would accept?

The report of the OPCW would be acceptable, but they are still investigating (as of 2017-04-11) ...

Seems unlikely that the rebels could get the sarin.

Sarin is quite difficult to use effectively, like most chemical weapons, but it isn't hard to produce. The Aum Shinrikyo sect was able to synthesise Sarin in a few months ("in 1993, the leader Asahara directed his cult members to begin the mass production of Sarin, and in November 1993, they had succeeded"), while trying to hide it from police. The difficult part is to use it as an effective weapon on your enemies.

This stuff wouldn't be allowed in warfare, why is it allowed in use by civilian agencies?

Because the Chemical Weapons Convention explicitly allows it:

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means
...
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

My guess is that countries wanted to prohibit an opponent from using it on them (in case TPTB weren't prepared) but wanted to reserve the right to use it on citizens (when TPTB are prepared).

Fortunately CS gas, among other chemical weapons, was banned from use in war. There's plenty left for civilian pacification!

http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/

It's great! Spray this stuff on an enemy army and you end up in the Hague. Lob it at your citizens and everything is just fine.

1) It is a liquid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)

2) It was the British. Information on the substance was passed to Porton Down in 1954 and research there led to VX within a year. This was traded to the United States as the British passed over VX in favor of continuing with sarin as the UK chemical weapon of choice,... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)

3) The US is destroying their stockpile.
http://www.cma.army.mil/aboutcma.aspx
http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

The Project Manager – Chemical Stockpile Elimination manages the safe treatment and disposal of chemical agents and weapons using incineration and neutralization technologies.

Incineration technology is being used at Anniston Army Depot, AL; Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR; Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR; and Deseret Chemical Depot, UT.

Disposal operations using neutralization technology were completed in February 2006 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, facility - eliminating more than five percent of the nation’s chemical agent inventory. The disposal facility is now closed. The Newport Chemical Depot, IN, facility completed chemical stockpile disposal operations in August 2008 – eliminating four percent of the nation’s chemical agent inventory. Closure operations at the site are now underway.

Destruction activities of chemical weapons are overseen by the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which inspects and certifies sites at all stages, including the destruction of CW production sites. This was undertaken as a result of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), signed by President Bush in 1993 and ratified by the Senate in 1997. Prior to this, the United States and Russia agreed to inspect and certify each other's disposal work under accords worked out in 1989.

As for the lawsuits, they held up activities at Umatilla, OR; Pine Bluff, AR; Anniston, AL; and Pueblo, CO. There are a couple of other facilities either operational or under construction, and they have been delayed as well. The original plan was to start disposal of the chemical weapons stockpile beginning in the middle 1980s (the first tests were performed around 1981), but due to repeated lawsuits this was not started until Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) came online in 1990, taking a decade to finish its work, after which almost everything except the runway on Johnston Atoll was disassembled and removed, and the site turned back into a wildlife sanctuary. A few searches will find many articles about the series of lawsuits that have led to the delays, largely over concerns that the Army was not thorough enough in its protections of local civilians. In some cases, these concerns were justified, and in others they were overblown. This has caused the expected overall cost of the disposal to balloon from $1.7 billion to more than $32 billion, according to the Department of Defense and the GAO.

I was wrong on one point, though. The US was originally granted until 2007 to complete the work, but due to the ongoing lawsuits requested a five-year extension to 2012, the latest date allowed under the CWC. Recently, suggestions were made by the DoD to extend that even further, possibly to 2023. This move has been criticized by both sides of the aisle in Congress, which seems amenable to a small delay beyond 2012, but by and large wants chemical weapons completely out of the US as quickly as possible.

Actually is done by the wording of the Chemical Weapons Convention, An international treaty signed by 169 countries and enforced on the US Miltiary Froces by the 1999 Executive Order #13128.

Congress later passed a law preventing future presidents from changing this executive order.

One drop can kill, yes. But only if it enters through the eyes or bloodstream. To kill 3,000+ people with 1 gallon of Sarin, you'd have to inject each one or spray it in their eyes.


I think that you are mistaken.

I'd be interested in reading any articles or reference material you have on that. I'll delay any judgments I have until after I verify what you say. I don't think that's unreasonable...

Did you sniff them to make sure they were OK?

No, you do get terrorists. Those chemical weapon attacks in the subways, for example.

Is a chemical that tranquilize enemy still a weapon?

Yes, at least for the purposes of international law. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of Riot Control agents on the battlefield. (Article 1 clause 5). Though they can be used on rioting prisoners in a POW camp.

Riot-control agents certainly ARE covered by the CWC.

Article II.7 defines RCAs as Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which
disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.

Article I.5, however, prohibits the use of RCAs as a means of conducting warfare: 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

So the use of these agents in war would almost certainly contravene the CWC.

However, domestic riot control is not covered at all by the CWC, not just with respect to RCAs, but with respect to anything at all. You could do whatever you like with chemicals of any kind for riot control, as far as I can tell, within the CWC as long as the 'weapons' could not be used in warfare. That is because of Article II.9(d) 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes..

So, the CWC does not protect any protesters at all from the use of anything for whatever paramilitary organisations want (including, but not exclusively the use of RCAs), but does protect military organisations from the use of RCAs as strongly as the use of other CWs.

Personally, I find the USes position in persueing this resarch unprinciplled, though at least partially legal and, let's be honest, the US has enough power just to ignore the CWC if it wants (it is causing a number of obstructions to inspection bodies as it is). My main problem with the use of neuroactive RCAs is that I find assault which affects will/volition to be more violent than assault which affects the body because will/volition/intent is closer to my sense of self.

The text for the convention is available online though it might be worth going to your local copyright library, and getting a copy of the text with commentary.

Much as I hate to say it, I think the US is probably right in its interpretation of the CWC with respect to riot-control and the placation of crowds. [I studied this a year or so ago, for an argument on usenet, so appologies if I'm rusty or wrong]. Riot-control agents certainly ARE covered by the CWC. Article II.7 defines RCAs as Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. Article I.5, however, prohibits the use of RCAs as a means of conducting warfare: 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare. So the use of these agents in war would almost certainly contravene the CWC. However, domestic riot control is not covered at all by the CWC, not just with respect to RCAs, but with respect to anything at all. You could do whatever you like with chemicals of any kind for riot control, as far as I can tell, within the CWC as long as the 'weapons' could not be used in warfare. That is because of Article II.9(d) 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.. So, the CWC does not protect any protesters at all from the use of anything for whatever paramilitary organisations want (including, but not exclusively the use of RCAs), but does protect military organisations from the use of RCAs as strongly as the use of other CWs. Personally, I find the USes position in persueing this resarch unprinciplled, though at least partially legal and, let's be honest, the US has enough power just to ignore the CWC if it wants (it is causing a number of obstructions to inspection bodies as it is). My main problem with the use of neuroactive RCAs is that I find assault which affects will/volition to be more violent than assault which affects the body because will/volition/intent is closer to my sense of self. The text for the convention is available online though it might be worth going to your local copyright library, and getting a copy of the text with commentary.