Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US, Russia Agree On Plan To Dispose of Syria's Chemical Weapons

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-back-to-killing-people-with-regular-weapons dept.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has announced an agreement between the U.S. and Russia on a plan for removing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons. "Damascus will be given one week from now to give an inventory of its chemical arsenal and will have to allow international inspectors into Syria 'no later than November,' Kerry said after a third day of intense negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva." The weapons must all be eliminated by mid-2014. "If Syrian President Bashar Assad fails to meet the demands, then a resolution to enforce compliance would be sought at the U.N. Security Council, Kerry said. The action could include sanctions, and Kerry said that the U.S. would reserve the right to use military force, but Russia remains opposed to any armed intervention." President Obama said, "The use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world is an affront to human dignity and a threat to the security of people everywhere. We have a duty to preserve a world free from the fear of chemical weapons for our children."

6 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. I still want... by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...someone to explain to me why killing people with chemical weapons is somehow worse than killing them with bullets.

    1. Re:I still want... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is what the father of chemical warfare, Fritz Haber, thought as well.

      After the effects of chemical warfare became apparent during WWI, his wife and son committed suicide over the shame of their husband and father's work on poison gasses.

      One thing is certain, that poison gas is much harder to deliver in a controlled fashion than are bombs. Perhaps just on that basis it should be banned.

    2. Re:I still want... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chemical weapons still kill weeks or more after they have been deployed.

      Depends on the particular chemicals.

      VX can kill years after it's used if someone touches something that was exposed to VX and hasn't since had the residue washed away.

      Sarin, not so much.

      Mustard gas is just fertilizer after a few hours.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:I still want... by mellon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've hit the nail on the head here. What matters is not the experience of the person you are killing—it will be over quickly, whether it is agonizing or not. What matters is how you feel about it after they are dead. With a fatal GSW, you can feel like it was a "good death," because they didn't suffer a lot, whereas with chemical weapons, you would feel like it's a "bad death," because they suffered horribly. So chemical weapons are bad not because they cause the victim to suffer, but because they cause the witnesses to suffer.

      I was making a different point: killing is wrong. The main affect that a death that is imposed upon you by another human being has is that you don't get to live the rest of your life. Your family is deprived of your company, and your productivity. You do not have any further opportunity to make something out of your life, to atone for those things you regret, to express your love to the people you care about.

      In reality, you can die at any time, of any cause. You can be hit by a car, and die an agonizing death by the side of the road. You can get tetanus, and die as you described, in terrible pain. You can die of old age which, although it is often considered the best possible outcome, is certainly not pleasant, and not something anyone would seek out unless there were no alternative.

      Death is the enemy. For a human being to visit death upon another human being is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

  2. Re:Unrealistic expectations by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This agreement seems to be set up to fail. I realize some sort of numbers and deadlines had to be put out there, but I guarantee they won't be meeting this schedule.

    Eliminated likely doesn't mean destroyed or disposed of, but eliminated from Syria and Assad's control.

    I suspect that Russia will place troops at the chemical weapon's sites to protect them and the UN inspectors and monitors. This will free up a small but significant amounts of Assad's forces to combat the rebels. It is as if Russia created a way for it to intervene on Assad's side at the request of the west.

  3. Re:Still dangerous after a generation in storage by kermidge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last I knew they incinerated most of the stockpile. If memory serves, one such incinerator was on Johnston Island, another in Idaho. By incinerate I don't mean burn, like what you do on the outdoor grill, but burn the living shit out of, like at 3,500-5000F or so.