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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday September 14, 2013 @06:51AM 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."

157 of 256 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I still want... by sjbe · 2013-09-14 06:53 · 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 tysonedwards · 2013-09-14 07:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Chemical weapons still kill weeks or more after they have been deployed. Bullets and Explosives only kill in that instant.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
2. Re:I still want... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-14 07:02 · 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.
3. Re:I still want... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-14 07:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Bombs left over from WWII are still killing people.
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283273/WW2-bomb-kills-G-ttingen-experts-attempt-defuse-it.html
4. Re:I still want... by CyprusBlue113 · 2013-09-14 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Watch a video of sarin exposure and you'll understand. It's particularly nasty.
  
  --
  a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
5. Re:I still want... by fredprado · 2013-09-14 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on where it hits.
6. Re:I still want... by mellon · 2013-09-14 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed, "the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world is an affront to human dignity" could be reworded as "the use of deadly weapons anywhere in the world is an affront to human dignity" without really changing the meaning—what do I care if you kill me with a sword or with poison gas? I don't want you to kill me with either. That's what an affront to human dignity is in this context.
  So the reason for focusing on chemical weapons is that we aren't ready to have that conversation about, say, guns. Which is of course totally ridiculous.
7. Re:I still want... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It might technically be an appeal to tradition but here goes:
  The people who survived WWI; the ones who saw close range trench warfare with stabbing of the enemy, shelling of trenches, pointless charges over no-man's-land to get cut down by machine guns, gangrene, and hearing the screams of people dying slowing in no-man's-land - those are the people who said that chemical weapons cross the line.
8. Re:I still want... by tysonedwards · 2013-09-14 07:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is a huge difference between an overconfident bomb disposal technician making a mistake when handling decades old abandoned munitions and active use of chemical weapons.
  
  For starters, when you are actively screwing around with something the fact that it was assembled decades before is irrelevant to it's current threat. Current attempts to thwart a triggering mechanism generates risk of detonation whether said explosive was assembled days before or decades before. Both can explode in an instant killing whomever happens to be within the blast radius.
  
  In the case of chemical weapons, months after an attack someone a few villages away can drink the water from their local well, contract a horrible disease and die.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
9. Re:I still want... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  So? Clusterbombs kill and maim for decades after they are deployed. You don't hear about the US going on about how awful they are, do you? In fact, the US is real big on them:
  
  Textron Defense Systems, Wilmington, Mass., has been awarded a $640,786,442 modification (PZ00001) to a firm-fixed-price contract (FA8213-12-C-0064) for 1,300 cluster bomb units. Work will be performed at Wilmington, Mass., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2015. This contract involves foreign military sales (FMS) for Saudi Arabia. FMS funds in the amount of $410,218,248 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/OO-ALC/EBHKA, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity.
10. Re:I still want... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-09-14 07:33 · 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"
11. Re:I still want... by hort_wort · 2013-09-14 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  I've thought about this quite a bit over the last weeks and came up with 3 different possibilities:
  1) More "humane" since bullets kill faster.
  2) Survival of the fittest helps evolution a little bit since soldiers who know how to duck get to go home and have babies. (Some military guys might think this way, what the heck do I know?)
  3) Chemical weapons might be a gateway weapon to germ warfare, which could wipe out a pretty large chunk of humanity.
12. Re:I still want... by JustNiz · 2013-09-14 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  >> In world war I gas killed almost the whole British army in about an hour.
  This sounds highly unlikely. Reference please.
13. Re:I still want... by Msupp · 2013-09-14 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough, I don't think anyone is calling for chemical weapons to be allowed. But the question that still hasn't been properly answered (at least in my opinion) is why the use of these weapons on a small number of victims relative to the total number killed in the conflict should suddenly lead the international community to "need to act". Its all a horrifying situation what's going on in Syria, but at this point intervention seems too little too late, and looks an awful lot like Obama is just trying to cover his ass after laying down so-called "red lines".
14. Re:I still want... by GarethIwanFairclough · 2013-09-14 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I used to teach NBC (Now known as CBRN) warfare and survival when I was in the army.
  As bad as any unreasonable killing can be, seeing someone or something suffer and die from exposure to chemical weapons is far more horrific imo. I'm sure there are videos floating around of animals being hit with these things. Watch some, then picture the same thing but with a human being. Chemical and biological weaponry simply has no place in any reasonable arsenal. A being shot or stabbed often kills within seconds and leaving the victim unaware of what has happened.
  Being caught in a chemical weapons strike? Well, just watch those vids. I'm talking almost total agony for the last few minutes of your life, post exposure to any one of the various chemical agents used in chemical warfare. Ever had lockjaw or one of your muscles start contracting painfully and uncontrollably? Just imagine having that happen to every single muscle fiber in your body, leaving you writhing in the street covered in your own bodily fluids as you've lost control of bowel function and gasping for air as your lungs have stopped working due to the brain and nerve cells going haywire due to the nerve agent you just got hit with.
  That's just a nerve agent. There's a variety of different substances out there, each one designed to have different effects on the human body. Blister agents (which cause just that, extreme blistering on every organic surface it comes accross, including the insides of your lungs), blood agents (destroys or otherwise disables the haemoglobin in your blood), the various nerve agents (G nerve, H nerve, which cause random junk signals to be passed down your nerves, sending muscles crazy and destroying and sort of control either concious or subconcious).
  I hate that stuff. It's unpleasent just to even think of it. It's even more unpleasant to realise that these agents can linger in the environment and remain deadly for far longer than any land mine or shell or bomb. "Think of the children?" is quite appropriate here. I wouldn't want my kids to grow up, knowing that that shit was still around.
15. Re:I still want... by khasim · 2013-09-14 07:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In the case of chemical weapons, months after an attack someone a few villages away can drink the water from their local well, contract a horrible disease and die.
  I think you're talking about bio weapons.
  Most chemical weapons degrade quickly. Even the "persistent" ones.
16. Re:I still want... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I wish we could get a real President. Shrub turned the US from a respected country to one reviled the world over because of invading a a country without provocation, killing its leadership, and letting it turn into a place of chaos. Because of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, no American prisoner will be treated humanely in future wars.
  Of course, Obama got handed a pile of shit when he got in office in '09. The taxpayers bailed out the banks, and the banks immediately started moving their money overseas. Oil has kept the growth of the economy to a very limited amount. Hell, we have not even gotten back to the state of the economy we had in the first part of 2008. The stock market is high because of offshoring and moving business functions to China, as opposed to actually producing things.
  Not to say that Obama is that much better. He has done little to help anti-US sentiment (look on Slashdot, virtually any article will have hundreds of posts detailing the hatred of US citizens/residents so one can use this site as a litmus test.) He has set a precedent that the whole government has to given in to the extreme right every six months with concessions like the sequester.
  This precedent will be almost impossible to break by a successor unless there is a radical "throw the bums out" movement in Congress... which likely will bring in more people from the extreme right who show their true colors (the guy who said that a mother with hungry kids was a "learning experience" for example.)
  Dim times for the US ahead.
17. Re:I still want... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-14 07:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not acting would be pretty inconsistent with the idea of not allowing their use.
  Whether Obama looks good or bad is irrelevant bullshit. In the end trying a diplomatic approach first is a win for Obama, Putin, and the human race as a whole.
  That's what really counts.
18. Re:I still want... by khasim · 2013-09-14 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  But the question that still hasn't been properly answered (at least in my opinion) is why the use of these weapons on a small number of victims relative to the total number killed in the conflict should suddenly lead the international community to "need to act".
  Seconded.
  I understand the concept in a battle between nations. It takes a lot of chemical agent to kill someone (dispersed through the air). But it does not take much to cause life-long problems. Like blindness or breathing issues or nerve damage. So using them on an enemy nation means that that nation will take longer to recover from the war. Their former troops will not be able to return to their pre-war jobs.
  Now you can apply that same reasoning to insurgents in this case. But it is only their own future that they're wrecking. And they were on course to do that any way. Killing 100,000 is okay but killing 1,000 is unacceptable.
19. Re:I still want... by Solandri · 2013-09-14 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But the question that still hasn't been properly answered (at least in my opinion) is why the use of these weapons on a small number of victims relative to the total number killed in the conflict should suddenly lead the international community to "need to act".
  The bullets are being fired at (presumably) chosen targets who are fighting back. The chemical weapons aren't so precise (at least one hopes they weren't fired to deliberately kill massive numbers of non-combatants).
  
  To de-politicize it, it's the distinction between two people trying to kill each other by firing guns at each other, and maybe a civilian gets hit in the crossfire. Versus someone spraying his gun indiscriminately into a crowd of civilians in hopes of hitting the one guy he wants to kill in the crowd. I'm not saying this is sufficient to justify international intervention, but it should be clear the latter is higher up on the "wrongness" scale.
  
  If two people (or two groups of people) want to kill each other, there is generally not much the international community can do about it. They can try to broker a peace, but whether or not the conflict persists is ultimately up to the two parties at each others' throats. If they really want to kill each other, they're going to figure out a way to do it regardless of what the international community says or does. The best we can do is try to reduce the possibility of people who are not part of those groups being caught in the crossfire. Due to the indiscriminate and uncontrollable nature, chemical weapons represent a huge increase in the amount and scope of the crossfire.
20. Re:I still want... by WindBourne · 2013-09-14 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Chemicals can and do kill many more in one shot, is far far worse, is less discriminatory, and finally, will lead to the use of the worst: biologicals.
  BTW, I have seen ppl die from bullets, and I have worked with Sarin, so have watched rabbits die from it. I will take a bullet over the gas.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
21. Re:I still want... by bossk538 · 2013-09-14 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  I could either mod you down, or stay on to say you are a major asshole. You really advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons in hopes that a nuclear war gets started? Fuck you.
22. Re:I still want... by fustakrakich · 2013-09-14 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Perform the experiment. Expose yourself to both, and report back here with the results.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
23. Re:I still want... by CanadianMacFan · 2013-09-14 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  1) A shot in the right place will kill faster. Not all shots are in the right place.
  2) What does this have to do when civilians are the target in Syria?
  3) Citation please
24. Re:I still want... by fnj · 2013-09-14 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  In world war I gas killed almost the whole British army in about an hour.
  Hysterical and ludicrous bullshit. The British kept meticulous records. In the entire war, the entire British Empire only had 8109 killed and 188,706 injured due to gas. Only 2% of those affected by gas were killed and 2% permanently invalided; 70% were rehabilitated and fit for duty again after 6 weeks. Germany and France had roughly similar casualty figures. Actually startlingly similar. Russia did suffer 56,000 killed by gas.
  8109 killed by gas out of over 8 million troops engaged for the British Empire is about 1 in 1000, far from "almost the whole army".
  Approximate percentage of all military deaths in WW1 due to gas, by country:
  Britain 0.7%
  France 0.6%
  Germany 0.4%
  Russia 3%
  The choking/suffocating/blistering agents used in WW1 constituted a shitty, ineffective weapon. Nerve gases have much more potential, but they are still a stupid weapon.
25. Re:I still want... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-14 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  The key difference is that chemical weapons are indiscriminate and tend to mame rather than kill.
  Targeting civilians is a war crime. Bombs can be directed at military targets, then explode and that's the end of it. Well, except for cluster bombs, which is why they are also bad. Chemical weapons blow around in the wind, they linger in areas, get into the water and crops. They are nearly impossible to restrict to one area or effectively target. Because they disperse the dose is often not enough to kill, but does cause severe long term health problems.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
26. Re:I still want... by fnj · 2013-09-14 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Chemical weapons are the poor man's nukes. There is no useful defense against them, for the troops of the ground or the civilian population at large. The only defense is not being there.
  Oh, bullshit. Ever heard of gas masks and antidotes? Yes, chemical weapons are horrific. Yes, they are indiscriminate. Yes, they cannot always be detected in time for everyone to prepare; especially civilians. No, they are not magic agents against whioch there is no defense.
27. Re:I still want... by odie5533 · 2013-09-14 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Survival of the fittest also works with chemical weapons: those that evolved to have an immunity to Sarin gas will survive.
28. Re:I still want... by clarkkent09 · 2013-09-14 11:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The difference is that chemical weapons are by nature indiscriminate. With a bullet you aim at a particular person, with gas who dies depends literally on which way the wind blows.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
29. Re:I still want... by clarkkent09 · 2013-09-14 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  "the use of deadly weapons anywhere in the world is an affront to human dignity"
  
  So the use of deadly weapons to by, say, Poland to fight against invasion by Nazi Germany was an "affront to human dignity"? Everything depends on the context. Submitting to evil without even fighting back is also an affront to human dignity.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
30. Re:I still want... by penix1 · 2013-09-14 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  As people grow older, they tend to get more conservative. The baby boomers are retiring now and when they do finally retire, that is when you will see havoc. Why? Because old people have nothing better to do with their time than visit their friends and family in the cemetery and vote! So if you think it is conservative now, just wait... The worst is yet to come.
  
  --
  This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
31. Re:I still want... by Tough+Love · 2013-09-14 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Chemical weapons are particularly effective at killing women, children and noncombatants, and in a particularly horrible way.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
32. Re:I still want... by nbauman · 2013-09-14 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Landmines are indiscriminate. They blow the legs of anybody who steps on them (usually children and farmers). In fact, landmines are just as indiscriminate as poison gas.
33. Re:I still want... by nbauman · 2013-09-14 12:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If napalm burns half the skin on your body, you'll die one of the most agonizing deaths known to medicine over the next week.
  (A lot of explosives produce burns and have the same results.)
34. Re:I still want... by nbauman · 2013-09-14 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  But the question that still hasn't been properly answered (at least in my opinion) is why the use of these weapons on a small number of victims relative to the total number killed in the conflict should suddenly lead the international community to "need to act".
  Apparently somebody is looking for an excuse to attack Assad and help the rebels, which would turn Syria into the kind of chaos we're seeing in Iraq (and just wait until the American forces leave Iraq).
  There have always been a lot of hawks who wanted to overthrow various mideast dictatorships (or mideast democracies when they had them).
35. Re:I still want... by nbauman · 2013-09-14 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  The key difference is that chemical weapons are indiscriminate and tend to mame rather than kill.
  Targeting civilians is a war crime. Bombs can be directed at military targets, then explode and that's the end of it.
  I heard a lecture by an Israeli professor who was a consultant to the IDF, who was tasked with finding out how many civilian deaths were acceptable. He looked it up in U.S. military research and found out that about half of all deaths in U.S. combat were civilians. So he figured that was acceptable.
  Whenever you have a war, half the people you kill are civilians. Anybody who claims otherwise is lying.
36. Re:I still want... by cavreader · 2013-09-14 13:34 · Score: 2
  
  The only reason the US did not sign the UN Mine treaty is because they could not get an exemption for the border between NK and SK. The US mines can be disarmed or activated remotely and the mines can be easily detected and removed. The mines used as far back as WW2 to the present get armed as soon they are deployed and buried to make them hard to find. When a war was over the process of removal is not exactly precise or even attempted in some instances.
37. Re:I still want... by mellon · 2013-09-14 13:35 · 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.
38. Re:I still want... by nbauman · 2013-09-14 13:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sarin kills in about 1 minute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin It has the same effect as some of the paralytic drugs used for execution by lethal injection in the U.S.
  I've read papers in the medical journals, including *.mil, about injuries from conventional weapons of the kind we used in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Napalm-type weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb can cause burns over 50% of your body that will kill you painfully over a week. Sarin is more horrific than that? I don't get it.
  Sometimes bullets or bombs will kill immediately, but often they don't. People without access to advanced medical care, especially civilians in a war zone, will die slowly and painfully. Bombs produce burn injuries, with results similar to napalm. People have arms and legs blown off and die from blood loss and shock. Penetrating wounds get infected, and they die over a week. When buildings are destroyed, the people in them are crushed, and with compartment syndrome they die in a few days. War is horrific. Sarin is more horrific than the rest of it? I don't get it.
  And Fritz Haber didn't get it either.
39. Re:I still want... by nbauman · 2013-09-14 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Godwin aside, I can't recall a major war that our country has been involved in since Korea that made things any better.
  Unless, like Henry Kissinger, you believe that democracy is evil and an affront to human dignity.
40. Re:I still want... by RedHackTea · 2013-09-14 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  From what I've heard, it's because (based on history) it kills more civilians than soldiers. Therefore, it's more of a tactic to scare than to accurately kill your enemy soldiers.
  
  --
  The G
41. Re:I still want... by gd2shoe · 2013-09-14 14:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's a win for Putin, but it's not a win for Obama... It's just the softest possible way to lose. (There is no winning move available, not after his red-line blunder.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
42. Re:I still want... by TapeCutter · 2013-09-14 14:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I grew up in the 60's cold war era, on face value this deal is a win for humanity.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
43. Re: I still want... by DigiShaman · 2013-09-14 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  3/4th of illegal Hispanics would vote Democrat if given the option. The remaining 1/4th fall into the undecided to conservative camp. That's enough to keep the Democrats in power forever in perpetuity! The GOP is effectively dead and feels the need to not piss off the Latino community as well. This is why amnesty will pass; so they can vote!!!
  BTW, did you know that once immigration reform passes, there's a provisional loophole that states they are not required to pay into Obamacare nor are business required to offer insurance. Yup. So there will be a massive layoff of American unskilled workers as it will be legally cheaper to higher the "undocumented Democrats".
  We. Are. Fucked!
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
44. Re:I still want... by BlueStrat · 2013-09-14 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason the US did not sign the UN Mine treaty is because they could not get an exemption for the border between NK and SK. The US mines can be disarmed or activated remotely and the mines can be easily detected and removed.
  
  Just please tell me they do not have IP addresses...
  
  It's OK.
  Just think of them as forming a whole new gaming type:
  "MMOMS" - Massively Multiplayer Online Mine Sweeper"
  "Clippy" would be so proud...
  See? Just a game. Nothing to fret over.
  "Happiness is a warm cluster-bomb."
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
45. Re:I still want... by Coward+Anonymous · 2013-09-14 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Scalability.
  The chemical weapons attack in Syria was a small one. It included a relatively small number of rockets with a small total payload on a single night. It managed
  to kill ~1.5% of those killed in the Syrian civil war. In one night. It killed at 10x the rate of the rest of the war.
  The Syrian population is largely defenseless against it (unlike a prepared military in WWI, for example) as nobody has supplies of gas masks and related protective gear. This was a small attack. Full scale attacks could wipe out entire rebel held cities of largely unprotected civilians overnight.
46. Re:I still want... by Xest · 2013-09-14 19:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, you're right but the post started by the GP are missing the actual problem with chemical weapons, none of this is the real reason chemical weapons are so bad. Especially the likes of Sarin.
  You use different chemical weapons with different aims, quite rightly as you say VX is persistent so you use it if you want to deny access to an area whilst others like Sarin and Mustard gas aren't.
  The reason Sarin for example is particularly bad is because it kills en-masse very quickly and leaves infrastructure intact. It reduces the cost of war, particularly this sort of civil war and it makes ethnic cleansing a dangerously cheap thing to do. Thus far the war has been expensive for Assad - he's had to literally destroy his most economically productive cities literally into nothing but rubble, and that's expensive. It means even if he wins there'll still have been a massive cost to his actions which act as a deterrent for further action, and for other dictators to do the same when they realise he may have won the war, but his country is now 3rd world which means even he personally will be poorer with no national wealth to sponge from.
  Sarin does indeed degrade to be pretty harmless relatively quickly, which is why there were pictures of people stood by the delivery rockets of this particular attack only a short time afterwards, and why there were concerns that Assad's 5 day delay in letting the chemical weapons inspectors there could cause the loss of much evidence. The problem with a weapon like this that can kill a thousand people and leave nothing but a bunch of dead bodies and a small crater in the ground is that it leaves all the infrastructure intact. It makes war and ethnic cleansing relatively free of penalty for someone who does it.
  Decided you don't like those of a particular religious sect sat in that corner of your city? Use Sarin! Within a day they'll all be dead and all you have to do is burn the bodies then your preferred religious sect can move in in their place and that section of the city remains productive because everything works like it did a day before the entire population was wiped out.
  The drastically more indiscriminate nature is certainly a problem also as others have pointed out, the fact that even people hidden in basements and so forth will die to it. In the attack being discussed at the moment it seems around 200 people at minimum died from one single munition using even the low end figures (the high end would probably suggest maybe as many as 750 - 800 from a single munition). Judging from where the munition landed from pictures, even if it was built up rush hour I'd take a guess that at most an equivalently sized conventional purely explosive rocket would've only killed 50 at most.
47. Re:I still want... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-14 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  You are missing the point. In war you must do what you can to avoid civilian deaths. Destroying an entire city to kill a few soldiers is unacceptable, you must target the enemy directly and try to minimize civilian casualties. Otherwise, it's a war crime.
  Chemical weapons are indiscriminate and nearly impossible to control once deployed, so most countries have agreed to simply ban them.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
48. Re:I still want... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-15 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not using teleoperation while defusing bombs is killing people. Used for heart surgery, where one person might die, but not for bomb disposal, where many people might die? Fail, fail.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
49. Re:I still want... by khallow · 2013-09-15 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  There is a huge difference between an overconfident bomb disposal technician making a mistake when handling decades old abandoned munitions and active use of chemical weapons.
  As noted before, here's a conventional weapon deployed or disposed decades before, yet it's still killing people.
  
  For starters, when you are actively screwing around with something the fact that it was assembled decades before is irrelevant to it's current threat.
  
  The obvious missing factor is why screw with something like that for a job? Because otherwise someone might accidentally screw with it, say kids on a playground or a farmer plowing a field.
  
  In the case of chemical weapons, months after an attack someone a few villages away can drink the water from their local well, contract a horrible disease and die.
  And they could have anyway. Contracting horrible diseases from wells is completely orthogonal to chemical weapon use.
  
  And we still have that convention weapons are killing people decades after use.
  
  As has been said before, the real problems of chemical weapons are that they can't be directed like conventional weapons and that they are far more effective against innocent bystanders than prepared military troops.
  
  There might also be some nuclear and biological weapon proliferation concerns because should it become politically acceptable to use chemical weapons on the battlefield or on civilian targets, then that makes it easier to use nuclear weapons as well (especially given how much of an escalation that using chemical weapons on civilians is).
50. Re:I still want... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-15 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  In theory, you're right. In practice, they can often be used with little or no warning and it's impractical to protect large populations. If you had two hours' notice of a large chemical attack on a major city, there's fuck-all you could do about it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
51. Re:I still want... by nbauman · 2013-09-15 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  You are missing the point. In war you must do what you can to avoid civilian deaths. Destroying an entire city to kill a few soldiers is unacceptable, you must target the enemy directly and try to minimize civilian casualties. Otherwise, it's a war crime.
  We do commit war crimes all the time.
  The US attack on Fallujah was a war crime. I saw an eyewitness account by an AP photographer who described how a family, with a man, woman and several children, was trying to escape Fallujah by crossing a river. The Americans machine-gunned them to death. The US declared Fallujah an "open city," which meant that they told everybody to leave, assumed that anybody who remained was a combatant, and killed them. It's a war crime to declare an open city. Just because civilians won't or can't leave, that doesn't give you the right to kill them.
  The Israelis did the same thing; they dropped leaflets on an area telling people that everyone should leave the area, and they killed anybody who remained. Where are they supposed to go? It's a war crime.
  So in reality, they do destroy entire cities just to kill a few soldiers, in violation of international law.
  We seldom enforce international law in combat. In Iraq, you had groups of armed combatants wandering around doing whatever they wanted. If one of them got killed or even shot at, and they decided to massacre a bunch of civilians in revenge (which they often did), there was nobody to stop them or even reprimand them.
  The Israeli soldiers kill civilians all the time. That was documented in the Goldstone report. There were repeated cases of IDF soldiers machine-gunning down families, including children, who were coming out of their homes carrying a white flag, as they were instructed to do. They were never prosecuted.
  If you go to war, you will inevitably kill as many civilians as combatants. When Bush or anyone claims that they have smart bombs or precision bombs that only hit military targets, they're lying.
  
  Chemical weapons are indiscriminate and nearly impossible to control once deployed, so most countries have agreed to simply ban them.
  When we bombed North Vietnam, our bombs were indiscriminate and nearly impossible to control once they left the bomb bay. On the ground, we massacred whole villages, like My Lai,and the only reason anyone back home knew about My Lai was that somebody took photos. Our own troops were indiscriminate and nearly impossible to control.
  In Iraq, we posted soldiers at checkpoints who didn't speak the language, who would shoot anybody who didn't stop. They gave hand signals to the drivers, but the signals they used for "stop" were actually used in Iraq to mean "go." They machine-gunned down whole families.
  Any time you go to war, you kill civilians, even when soldiers are trying to follow international law, and there's no way to make soldiers in the field follow international law.
  That's why these complaints about Assad's poison gas are hypocritical. If you kill everyone in a city with bombs or napalm, as we did in Fallujah, that's OK, but if Assad kills everyone in a village with sarin gas, that's a war crime. I don't see the difference.
  Are you saying that you wouldn't mind being burned to death with napalm (and dying slowly and painfully over a week), but you would mind being killed with sarin gas (and dying quickly and painfully in 60 seconds)?
52. Re:I still want... by Kartu · 2013-09-15 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  It tortures before it kills.
  It is also inherently non-discriminate.
53. Re:I still want... by idji · 2013-09-15 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  because you have to aim the bullet at every person killed. The gas just has to be opened in an area and it kills all indiscriminately.
54. Re:I still want... by NewYork · 2013-09-15 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  They're inexpensive WMD
  
  --
  Casteism
55. Re:I still want... by Bonobo_Unknown · 2013-09-15 16:52 · Score: 1
  There are many indiscriminate weapons currently in use by the USA and rest of world:
  
  * Napalm
  * Cluster bombs
  * White phosphorous
  * Incendiary bomblets
  * Land mines
  * Claymores
  * Thermobaric bombs
  * Nuclear weapons (although there has only been one nuclear war so far, they are still part of the US arsenal, unlike chemical weapons).
  --
  We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
56. Re:I still want... by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-09-16 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Basically, it is the long-lasting psychological trauma that Western societies have inflicted upon themselves in WW1. Since the beginning of European romantic nationalism and until then, the war was seen as some kind of noble and proud sport/entertainment of nations, where soldiers fight and die gallantly for their country, while civilians watch in safety. This picture began to crumble quite a bit earlier, but it was only in WW1 where millions of people were suddenly exposed to the grueling reality all at once. At the same time, all pretenses of "gallant war" were dropped, and chemical weapons - while not accounting for the majority of casualties - were seen as the most extreme form of the new and brutal reality of war as nothing but means to an end, where anything goes. So, after the war, they all got together and banned gas - more a symbolic gesture than anything, an attempt to forcibly distance themselves from that new reality. For similar reasons, many people have been claiming that the war, now being horrific as it was, was truly the last war.
  Then, as time went by, and people with actual experience and memories of WW1 went away, it became just one of the customary taboo things. Since then, we have invented many other weapons which are, in many ways, more horrific than poison gas - nukes, for example, or napalm and white phosphorus, or fuel-air bombs - but because the taboo is now a thing in and of itself, and not particularly well rationalized, those didn't fall under it (though some of them, like nukes, have developed a taboo of their own due to the effects of their use being widely publicized).
57. Re: I still want... by cavreader · 2013-09-19 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Even if they sold them to others they would still be able to safely manage thee mines and making the problem of finding mines after a conflict easier to do.
Resorting to Nonviolence by Bob9113 · 2013-09-14 06:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
I don't understand why we have to resort to reasonable non-violent solutions when we had a perfectly good rash hotheaded answer in bombing the bejeezus out of them. When will we stop the sanity?!?

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
1. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by sumdumass · 2013-09-14 07:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We weren't planning on bombing the bejeezus out of them. We were planning on something unbelievably small.
  Yes, you heard me right. This isn't just echos from your first real date, Kerry said our bombing was going to be unbelievably small.
2. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by msobkow · 2013-09-14 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  The US has been known to launch an entire drone/bomb to take out one person or a small group of people.
  If that isn't overkill and "bombing the bejeezus out of them", I don't know what is.
  The US is not exactly known for subtlety.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
3. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by mellon · 2013-09-14 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, don't worry, I'm sure they'll find some other way to enrich our military-industrial complex.
4. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-14 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but drone/bomb comes in integer values only. You can't launch 0.35 drone/bomb.
5. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by YrWrstNtmr · 2013-09-14 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Small", and completely useless.
  "Yo, Assad...we're going to blow up some of your stuff in 3 weeks." Launch, and destroy some runways and now empty buildings.
6. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by msobkow · 2013-09-14 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Which is precisely the point. Tomahawks and such are serious overkill for assassinations.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
7. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by aliquis · 2013-09-14 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Nuke, napalm, depleted uranium, drones = ok.
  Chemical = not ok.
  Torture = Depends on who's doing it.
8. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by aliquis · 2013-09-14 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  It of course always matter who's doing it.
  Same goes for cyber warfare.
9. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by istartedi · 2013-09-14 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  "What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
  Sigh... if only we had a man like Zapp. We'd send in 100,000 of our best men. They'd all die horribly and we wouldn't fix the problem. They'd all be heroes.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
10. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by runeghost · 2013-09-14 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, this outbreak of sanity is only a temporary measure in response to Team Obama's abject failure to successfully market the Syrian Strike (tm) to anyone except the French government and Al-Qaeda. I'm confident that within a year, Team Obama will be back on the market with a whole new war. (Or maybe the same war with a different advertising campaign.) After all, what good is a former Presidential Administration without a small country's head on its trophy wall?
11. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by msobkow · 2013-09-14 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Just to let you know, while I'm not a grammar nazi, your sig manages to irritate the shit out of me. But that's the whole point of it. Kudos. :D
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
12. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by VortexCortex · 2013-09-14 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  It of course always matter who's doing it.
  Same goes for cyber warfare.
  Well, certain kinds of "it" make it matter far less who is doing it, and more that it's simply done. For example, global thermonuclear war.
  Same goes for cyber sex.
13. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-14 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  The last time I heard of doing an assassination using a Navy Seal we lost an expensive formerly secret stealth helicopter plus put an elite team of highly trained special forces at great risk.
  Drones are damn cheap in comparison.
14. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by boorack · 2013-09-14 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Syria will hand over their chemical weapons to Russia. Russia will sell them to China. China will pack them into small aluminium containers and sell to US as insect repellant. Goldman Sachs will earn some bucks beacuse of aluminium. Everyone will be happy.
15. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by tinkerton · 2013-09-15 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  We were planning on something unbelievably small.
  Kerry has said that. But other things have been said as well and what exactly they were planning to do was a lot more vague than that.It wasn't even clear if things were supposed to start small. The senate commission approved of a campaign of maximum 60 , with possible extension to 90 days. 'No boots on the ground' also applied to Libya and there they kept bombing for months till Qaddafi was dead.
16. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by MachineShedFred · 2013-09-15 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Recent policies and bluster regarding Iran and North Korea may indicate that "nuke" != ok.
  There's just nothing that can be done about it once they exist, except for the country that has them to pull a South Africa and dismantle them and wash their hands of it.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
17. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by Bonobo_Unknown · 2013-09-15 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  Having the worlds second largest stockpile of nukes tends to indicate that nukes = ok.
  
  --
  We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
18. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by MachineShedFred · 2013-09-16 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  We also had a shitload of chemical weapons, which we're completing the incineration of.
  It takes time to undo 60 years of cold war.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
19. Re:Resorting to Nonviolence by DarthVain · 2013-09-16 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  As mentioned by a few, don't forget landmines.
  I think it more than a little ironic that the US is making a big deal about chemical weapons, yet still use (and refused to sign the ban on) landmines.
  Chemical Weapons have been around since WW1. An interesting metric would be to compare how many people were killed/maimed by each over the last 100 years.
  My bet would be on landmines, particularly when talking about civilian deaths.
Unrealistic expectations by msobkow · 2013-09-14 07:01 · Score: 1

I dare the US, Russia, Canada, the UK, or any other nation to try to get an accurate inventory out of their militaries in only a week.
Furthermore, the US has been working on destroying their chemical weapons for THIRTY YEARS. They're still talking several more years to dispose of roughly the same amount as Syria has, with the destruction plants pretty much already built.
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.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:Unrealistic expectations by sumdumass · 2013-09-14 07:10 · 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.
2. Re:Unrealistic expectations by Mashiki · 2013-09-14 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Oh it's pretty easy for us up here in Canada, it's even public knowledge.
  Navy: 2 battle canoes, equipped with M34 beavers. And two rusted submarines.
  Airforce: 3 men and a hang glider.
  Army: 260 strong, 35 guns, no bullets.
  Jokingly aside, it wasn't all that many years ago that "live" fire training on Canadian military bases revolved around yelling "bang." I wish I was kidding.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:Unrealistic expectations by mellon · 2013-09-14 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's not really the point, though. The point is that a year from now, when that comes up, if progress has been made they can say "look, progress is being made, we don't actually have to bomb Syria" and thereby save face. Or if they want a pretext to bomb Syria, even if progress has been made, they can say "to little, too late" and go ahead with the bombing. The main focus here is on kicking the can down the road. I'd much prefer a rational assessment of the situation, and a constructive solution to the problem, but inaction is better than stupid action.
4. Re:Unrealistic expectations by msobkow · 2013-09-14 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Or in a month they'll scream that progress isn't being made and use it as an excuse to go ahead with the bombings.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
5. Re:Unrealistic expectations by msobkow · 2013-09-14 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Only they'll be "justified" in bombing after Syria "fails to meet their commitments".
  Or so they'll spin it, ignoring the fact that no one could meet the schedule that's been set.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
6. Re:Unrealistic expectations by ColdWetDog · 2013-09-14 07:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  While you have a good point, you have to understand that this whole project is the ultimate kludge. We do what we must because we can.
  1 - If / When it doesn't work, you now have a reason to go beat up Assad in whatever form you think you can get away with. It's almost as good as a UN resolution, perhaps better because Russia is behind it.
  2 - It puts foreign, armed boots on the ground. And not little pansy assed blue helmets. Nasty troops with the appropriate backup. Now, this can backfire (as can anything else here) by having lots of Russian boots that act as a deterrent to the rebels but if you have both US and Russian inspectors on the ground, you will likely have both countries represented. The implied command and control needed for that can really stabilize the situation since neither country wants things to accelerate.
  3 - You have the chance of getting the vast majority of the stocks out off the underground arms bazaar. This is the problem with Assad's chemical weapons. When he loses control over them (and apparently he has) you have all the nasties trying to get some. Sarin is a wonderful terrorist device. In some ways better than a nuc.
  The world has apparently dodged a bullet with the USSR nuclear stockpile - it didn't get handed out to everyone with an agenda and a budget. We need to do the same for idiot Assad's chemical weapons. Unfortunately, the parallels between Irag and Syria are way too close for comfort. While Assad might not be as batshit insane as Hussein was, he's not all that far off. We don't have all that much freedom of movement in the Middle East and Russia has a bit more. For once, our interests are aligned a bit.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Unrealistic expectations by msobkow · 2013-09-14 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Even if I had mod points I couldn't mod you up because I've already commented, but I would if I could. :)
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
8. Re:Unrealistic expectations by sumdumass · 2013-09-14 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think that will mostly depend on if Assad is winning or losing his civil war.
9. Re:Unrealistic expectations by PapayaSF · 2013-09-14 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but all this is going to happen in the middle of a civil war? All the Al Qaeda types are just going to sit back and watch the Russian troops show up and take their positions? And once the troops are in place, won't everyone know where the chemical (and I have read, biological) weapons are? Are they going to build specialized (and vulnerable) incinerators to destroy them, or load them onto convoys of trucks and take them to ships on the coast while everyone watches peacefully?
  This plan seems "impractical," to say the least.
  
  --
  Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
10. Re:Unrealistic expectations by runeghost · 2013-09-14 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  One thing the Clinton Administration doesn't get nearly enough credit for - they put in some solid work helping to keep formerly-Soviet nuclear arms controlled.
11. Re:Unrealistic expectations by CanadianMacFan · 2013-09-14 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hey you are forgetting the stealth snowmobiles!
12. Re:Unrealistic expectations by Mashiki · 2013-09-14 16:50 · Score: 2
  
  Hey you are forgetting the stealth snowmobiles!
  I'm sorry to say that those stealth snowmobiles are actually highly evolved moose.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
13. Re:Unrealistic expectations by gd2shoe · 2013-09-14 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't considered that. I knew they were acting on their own interests. This makes sense.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
14. Re:Unrealistic expectations by gd2shoe · 2013-09-14 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  The world has apparently dodged a bullet with the USSR nuclear stockpile - it didn't get handed out to everyone with an agenda and a budget.
  Well, at least not to anyone crazy enough to use them... Yet.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
15. Re:Unrealistic expectations by Gravis+Zero · 2013-09-14 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  While you have a good point, you have to understand that this whole project is the ultimate kludge. We do what we must because we can.
  For the good of all of us, except the ones who are dead.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
16. Re:Unrealistic expectations by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-09-16 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that Canada has biological WMDs???
17. Re:Unrealistic expectations by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-09-16 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  All the Al Qaeda types are just going to sit back and watch the Russian troops show up and take their positions?
  
  Probably not - especially since many of those types are actually the very same Chechen Salafi insurgents that have been fighting those troops some time before.
  So they'll go at them. And die a lot. So it's a win-win, don't you think?
18. Re:Unrealistic expectations by Mashiki · 2013-09-16 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Of course we have biological WMD's, haven't you ever seen a beaver tail?
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
use drones instead! by fredan · 2013-09-14 07:01 · Score: 1

to kill children with and you are ok!
Good outcome by Animats · 2013-09-14 07:08 · Score: 1

This is a reasonably good outcome. Yes, it increases Russian influence in the Middle East, but so what? The U.S. now imports 36% of the oil it uses, down from 60% in 2006. The Middle East is losing its strategic importance to the US.
1. Re:Good outcome by ColdWetDog · 2013-09-14 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is a reasonably good outcome. Yes, it increases Russian influence in the Middle East, but so what? The U.S. now imports 36% of the oil it uses, down from 60% in 2006. The Middle East is losing its strategic importance to the US.
  ROFLMAO at you for thinking that.
  Syria just got away with using nerve gas on their own civilian population - which will encourage other nations to obtain and use such weapons.
  Really? And be invaded by Russian and US inspectors? So far, Assad has gotten away with nothing. No deals, no ifs ands or buts. Sure, he's trying - you expect that, but the Russians aren't terribly happy with their idiot friend - having him there is a good foil for Russian's' interests but having him further destabilize the region is not. So, who is next? North Korea? New Jersey?
  
  Oh, but they're going to have to give them up? Yeah, really? Like when? After all the stalling and negotiating? Hell, maybe they do give up some or even all of their current stockpile of chemical weapons. Then they just turn around and make more.
  Spin it all you want - Obama totally fucked this one up.
  See above. Yes, Obama's foreign policy has the grace of a drunken sailor but sometimes you get lucky. You're dribbling on your bib again. It's not pretty.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Good outcome by msobkow · 2013-09-14 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  And nothing was going to happen to Assad. They were going to bomb the military and innocent civilians, not assassinate Assad.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
3. Re:Good outcome by gtall · 2013-09-14 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  "increases Russian influence in the Middle East"? Syria is a failed state, now it will become Russia's tar baby because those Sunni rebels and their Arab backers aren't going to give up. And Russia just managed to piss off all the Sunni regimes in the Mid-East. The only group they look like they have a big dick to is Iran, but they aren't technically in the mid-east. This doesn't change their relationship at all.
4. Re:Good outcome by cold+fjord · 2013-09-14 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  They were going to bomb the military and innocent civilians,
  
  Which "innocent civilians"?
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
5. Re:Good outcome by msobkow · 2013-09-14 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  The everyday people who just with both Assad and the opposition would put their guns to their own heads and let them and their families live in peace again.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
6. Re:Good outcome by AlphaWoIf_HK · 2013-09-14 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Still much better than the warmongering.
  
  --
  Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
7. Re:Good outcome by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-09-16 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has been bickering with Sunni regimes in the Middle East for a long time now. Who do you think sponsored the Chechen insurgency even as far back as 1994? It was mostly Saudi Arabia and Qatar even then.
  Hence why Russia is trying to form a strategic alliance with Iran, and help it dominate the region. It will be Iran providing boots on the ground in Syria in long term, not Russia (but Russia will supply the weapons, just like US supplies them to Saudis).
Syria CW Elimination Modalities by auric_dude · 2013-09-14 07:09 · Score: 3, Informative

Jeffrey Lewis over at Arms Control Wonk give some thoughts about the nuts and bolts of eliminating Syria's chemical weapons, the link is a few days old but I expect us still valid http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/6807/syria-cw-elimination-modalities
It's not about the weapon by fustakrakich · 2013-09-14 07:13 · Score: 1

It's about the shooter and the target, the same way terrorism is defined. *Point the gun the other way, and be my friend*

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:It's not about the weapon by drinkypoo · 2013-09-15 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Publicly, this is more like banning hollow-points than bickering over the direction the gun is pointed. You might well be right about the motivation, however. But in this case, even the US is destroying its own chemical weapons, over time. It's not exactly a priority, but then, neither is feeding and housing our citizenry
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:one question by CyprusBlue113 · 2013-09-14 07:13 · Score: 1

Any entry level chemist and minimal funding can make several flavors of nasty agents, including the sarin they are discussing.
Heck some cults have done it in the past, and used them, I just can't for the life of me remember their name(s) at the moment.

--
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
What was the goal again? by crgrace · 2013-09-14 07:19 · Score: 2

I thought the US Administration's goal was to punish Assad for the large-scale use of chemical weapons with a "limited" military strike. How exactly does destroying the weapons count as punishment?
It's a bit like me turning in my guns to the cops if I commit a murder and that being the end of it.
It almost makes one think that this is really about Obama saving face for making a stupid comment about a "red line". Was Obama prepared to kill more innocent people in an ineffectual missile strike to save face? Now the Russians have given him an out are we not going to punish Syria after all? Hypocrisy?
1. Re:What was the goal again? by crgrace · 2013-09-14 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you. My post was sarcastic. If you look at Obama and Kerry's quotes over the last few weeks, punishment certainly is what they were selling. They don't have the capability to stop Assad from using chemical weapons without a very extensive strike, which they were claiming was not planned.
  The USA doesn't have much credibility regarding chemical weapons, especially given the actions of the USA towards Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
2. Re:What was the goal again? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-09-14 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  One of those things was not like the others, one of those things was not the same.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
3. Re:What was the goal again? by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-14 10:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Russia's view is that the chemical weapons were used by one of the rebel factions. By putting Assad's chemical weapons beyond use it doesn't matter if he used them or not, in either case neither side can use them again and blame the other.
  Since there is no proof who did it that seems like the best compromise.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:What was the goal again? by Xest · 2013-09-14 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there's a danger of the conspiracy theory that's been floating around about that last attack coming true in the other direction.
  Can we really be sure Assad wont retain a secret stockpile for use after "disarmament" and use them blaming the rebels with the excuse "I gave all mine up, it must be the rebels!"?
  I think the only view Russia has is "For a supposedly smart president, it wasn't hard to completely and utterly outplay Obama on the international stage and make a mockery of him" because that's exactly what they've done.
  Strike or not, there's little question that Russia has completely outplayed the US on this and gotten exactly what they wanted making a joke of current US government competence on the international stage. Putin was always annoyed that Obama went behind his back to re-negotiate the nuclear arms treaty with Medvedev. I suspect this, coupled with the fact Medvedev has now fallen from grace and is being "investigated" in Russia is Putin's long game revenge for all that as much as anything else.
  The problem with the terrorists amongst the rebels now is they feel shafted by everyone and an Assad win isn't magically going to make Al Nusra vanish into thin air no matter what munitions or atrocities he commits. I suspect in the next few decades we'll see Al Nusra's name attached to various terrorist attacks in both the West and Russia.
  Effectively a game where Russia wanted to retain their Mediterranean port under Assad and America wanted Assad out to cripple Hezbollah and help Israel has turned into a complete mess and make no mistake, we're all going to feel that.
  Do I know what a better solution would've been? Not really. I do wonder if perhaps Obama should've tied stronger conditions to his strike threat - e.g. we'll keep out of Syria if Iran, Hezbollah and resupplies of Russian arms also keep out, alongside the chemical weapons disarmament but that would've required Obama to actually be able to grow a pair of balls and be capable of negotiation on the international stage. I'd agree this would be at least something good if we could somehow guarantee we were actually going to get all Assad's weapons but it's like getting the US/Russia to disarm completely - if they have 3000 warheads each and get rid of 2000 of them do they care? they still have enough to destroy the world over and even if they claim to get rid of the last 1000 in a multi-lateral agreement could we really be sure both of them would? It's the same with Assad, even if the bulk of his chemical weapons go it doesn't matter as he was never going to use 90% anyway, there just aren't enough targets for that, but the remaining 10% he may stow away is going to be just as much of a problem then as it is now. Similarly we don't even know how much the rebels have captured and they've already said they wont be part of this. So in theory it's a nice idea, but in practice I'm not convinced it'll make any tangible difference.
  Either way with the current situation no one wins, but one thing we can say is that this outcome is only going to make the war on terror look ever more like the war on drugs due to the fact that it's now destined to continue in response to major terrorist attacks for at least another few decades. All because the current decisions that have been made not only do nothing to deal with the core issues in Syria, but actually only inflame radicalisation. I'd wager it wont now be long until even the moderate elements of the FSA fold in line with al Nusra due to being shafted by everyone, swelling their numbers ever more.
5. Re:What was the goal again? by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-09-16 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Medvedev was never an independent political figure. He was a puppet whose job was to occupy the president seat for 4 years so that they could satisfy the constitutional requirement for not more than two consecutive terms, and also to placate the more liberal part of the country's populace by presenting a figure with a more agreeable background (self-proclaimed iPhone, Twitter and rock'n'roll hippie instead of ex-KGB colonel).
Re:How many *years* will this take? by mellon · 2013-09-14 07:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

When someone points a gun at you and threatens to kill you, and someone else points a gun at them and says "look, you can kill that guy, but I'll kill you," that's not getting rolled. That's getting stopped. Getting rolled is when they take something from you while you're sleeping. Here, nothing was taken other than the opportunity to buy some new tomahawk missiles. Effectively, Putin saved the American taxpayers from getting rolled.
Re:one question by BaronM · 2013-09-14 07:31 · Score: 1

Some chemical weapons have significant commercial uses -- chlorine, phosgene, even nerve agents as pesticides (sarin is an organophosphate, just like common insecticides). Any nation with a reasonably competent chemical industry can turn the stuff out in lots.
References:
http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/phosgene-market.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate_compound
Unlike fissionables, biological weapons, or even sophisticated conventional arms, pretty much any nation with a university and few bucks can produce and weaponize chemicals. Doing it on a massive scale and producing weapons that are useful on a battlefield against prepared soldiers is much harder, enough so that most nations consider it not worth the bother.
Re:one question by ColdWetDog · 2013-09-14 07:32 · Score: 1

But getting them into field proven artillery shells, ones in use all over the planet is a new thing. And something the Syrians have managed to do.
Also, scale matters....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Adroitly navigated by Obama and Kerry by fustakrakich · 2013-09-14 07:34 · Score: 1

The 'proposal' was Kerry's. Russia and Syria said, "Let's go for it". I'm only wondering if that response was expected or not.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
nope by BradMajors · 2013-09-14 08:14 · Score: 1

Nope. The United States' strategy is to control OTHER country's oil imports. The United States only imports a small amount of its oil from the Middle East.
Re:one question by sumdumass · 2013-09-14 08:15 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo
I think there was another or two.
The process that seems to be difficult isn't creating the gas but increasing it's purity in a binary precursor solution so the agents don't degrade and become useless when needed. Another problem is mixing them upon delivery. Artillery shells generally have a glass like divider between two chemicals that will break when being fired and mix due to the rotation of the shells as they fly through the air. This also makes accidents with the weapons limited on damage and keeps them safe for storage and transportation. It also makes them ineffective delivery systems for IEDs like we found out in Iraq circa 2004 when insurgents used an 155mm sarin gas shell to blow up a convoy. Only two or three US soldiers got exposed and it was minimal exposure requiring little treatment.
What about the rebels? by johanw · 2013-09-14 08:34 · Score: 1

They seem to have chemical weapons too. They should be disarmed from them as well.
To me, this plan looks like a setup to disarm Syria to prevent it from attacking Israel or US invasion troops when (not if) they declare he has not cooperated enough. The same happened with the UN inspectors in Iraq, it didn't matter what they reported they just were there as an excuse to start the attack.
The US has not even declared war with Syria. Seems they learned the lesson Japan gave them in 1941 about the effectiveness of sneak attacks well.
1. Re:What about the rebels? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  To me, this plan looks like a setup to disarm Syria to prevent it from attacking Israel or US invasion troops when (not if) they declare he has not cooperated enough.
  My thoughts exactly. The only way this might be acceptable to Syria is if Russia gives them a guarantee that Russia will defend Syria in the case they're attacked. Otherwise, getting rid of the chemical arsenal would be suicide.
2. Re:What about the rebels? by drinkypoo · 2013-09-15 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  getting rid of the chemical arsenal would be suicide.
  Getting rid of it would be suicide, but so would using it. Anyone and everyone would be there to pave any part of their country that looks like it might harbor chemical weapons in a hot second.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:one question by dmpot · 2013-09-14 08:46 · Score: 1

Heck some cults have done it in the past, and used them, I just can't for the life of me remember their name(s) at the moment.
I guess you mean Aum Shinrikyo. They released sarin in five coordinated attacks on the Tokyo subway at the peak of the rush hour. As result, 13 people died and about 50 people were severly injured. The death toll was not as high as one might expect because of impurity, which caused its quick degradation.
To kill over 1400 people over a large area of open air requires completely different expertise in chemical weaponry and much larger amount of the nerve gas.
Re:What if China policed the world? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-09-14 09:23 · Score: 2

There's just a little bit of difference between teargas and Sarin.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Still dangerous after a generation in storage by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2013-09-14 09:56 · Score: 1

The US has had a lot of trouble figuring out how to detoxify its stockpile safely. Ultraviolet and soil bacteria are apparently not enough.
1. Re:Still dangerous after a generation in storage by khasim · 2013-09-14 12:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The US has had a lot of trouble figuring out how to detoxify its stockpile safely.
  The problem is that the chemical weapons breakdown into hazardous chemicals. And those hazardous chemicals have to be safely disposed of.
  So instead of killing you because it is a nerve agent it will give you cancer and birth defects.
2. Re:Still dangerous after a generation in storage by VortexCortex · 2013-09-14 14:16 · Score: 2
  
  So instead of killing you because it is a nerve agent it will give you cancer and birth defects.
  Man, that IS horrible, I was unaware they generated Tachyons.
3. Re:Still dangerous after a generation in storage by kermidge · 2013-09-14 18:40 · 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.
4. Re:Still dangerous after a generation in storage by MachineShedFred · 2013-09-15 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  There was one at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in eastern Oregon as well.
  They burned up almost 3800 tons of Sarin, Mustard, and VX gas in that facility alone. The Utah version burned up 7500 tons of this shit. The furnaces operate at 2700 degrees F, according to the article.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The Administration and bipartisan Senators by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2013-09-14 10:04 · Score: 1

The Nunn-Lugar legislation was an example of what's called moral courage. It did things that felt wrong and disgraceful, sending money to a former enemy knowing it would often get stolen, to accomplish a higher goal.
Government can work if we elect sane people.
Re:You can have both by bossk538 · 2013-09-14 10:45 · Score: 1

not worth the mod point.
Re:one question by cold+fjord · 2013-09-14 11:03 · Score: 1

Syria and Iraq both got their first chemical weapons from Egypt, and then went on to manufacture their own. Egypt got their first weapons from the Soviet Union.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Rubbish by MikeV · 2013-09-14 11:10 · Score: 2

100,000 or more dead in this conflict with millions displaced and refugees and the USA is running around in circles screaming like little girls becaise 1400 die due to chemical weapons? How does the method of killing have anything to do with the fact that people are dying left and right? And what gives the USA the right to judge them when the USA has one of the largest arsenals of chemical and nuclear weapons in the world? If WMD's are an affront to human dignity, then the USA is the biggest afront in the world.
1. Re:Rubbish by Xest · 2013-09-14 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  "what gives the USA the right to judge them when the USA has one of the largest arsenals of chemical"
  America doesn't have chemical weapons, it destroyed them all after it signed up to the convention on chemical weapons just like about 197 out of 203 other nations in the world. Those that haven't include the likes of Syria, North Korea and so forth.
  Don't muddle nuclear in, it's a separate thing because Assad doesn't have nuclear weapons and the US isn't preaching to him about them. Disarmament of nuclear weapons has to be done as a staged stand down with the likes of Russia, if you don't understand why then simply Google the history of nuclear weapons and the various disarmament treaties that have been pursued and learn about the principle of MAD.
  I agree there are important issues that haven't be dealt with here, but that doesn't mean that the chemical weapons issue isn't important and shouldn't be dealt with. It's still a priority problem as well.
2. Re:Rubbish by Bonobo_Unknown · 2013-09-15 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  It does still have chemical weapons, but yes it has signed the convention and is trying to destroy the remainder.
  
  --
  We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
3. Re:Rubbish by Xest · 2013-09-15 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  I was under the impression it had already completed destruction of it's chemical weapons? How many remain and where?
Re:one question by Gryle · 2013-09-14 11:38 · Score: 1

From what I've read cultists also seriously kludged their deployment resulting in a good bit of the gas ending up in the ventilation shafts rather than in the subway tunnels.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:one question by Gryle · 2013-09-14 11:44 · Score: 1

Biological weapons (not including certainly obscenely-complex biologically-derived toxins) are actually pretty easy to reproduce, depending on the agent. Viral agents can be manufactured in the same apparatus used for making vaccines. Bacterial agents can be cultured in a home-made hot-house using eggs. However the same scaling and weaponizing problems you mentioned for chemical agents apply here two. If you're interested in the subject, I highly recommend Biohazard by Ken Alibeck. It discusses the history of Soviet biological weapons programs during the later part of the Cold War.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Convention on chemical weapons by manu0601 · 2013-09-14 13:24 · Score: 1

Syria never ratified the 1994 convention prohibiting making and ownership of chemical weapons. Neither did Israel or Egypt. It means that it is perfectly legal for them to have that weapon stockpile.
OTOH, US and Russia ratified that treaty and only disposed half of their chemical weapon stockpile. That story is not a big victory for international conventions. Just the stronger bending the arm of the weaker.
1. Re:Convention on chemical weapons by msobkow · 2013-09-14 13:52 · Score: 2
  
  Syria just signed on. That's the whole point of this discussion.
  As to the US, they've destroyed something on the order of 90% of their chemical weapon stockpile, though it took 30 years so far and will take a few more before they're done.
  Nukes are another story entirely.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
We have a duty... by Macdude · 2013-09-14 14:10 · Score: 1

Don't we also have a duty to preserve a world free from flying killer robots for our children?
Isn't it the killing that's the terrible thing, not the method that's used? This reminds me of the stupidity of classifying some crimes as "hate crimes", as if it's worse that someone gets beat up because they're gay than if they get beat up because they're walking down the wrong street.

--
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
1. Re:We have a duty... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-15 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it the killing that's the terrible thing, not the method that's used?
  Would you rather go in a flash, or in bleeding, puking, shitting agony for minutes to hours? Hey, it's a false dichotomy, there's a lot of ground in between, and all around as well, but I think the method used is highly relevant.
  
  This reminds me of the stupidity of classifying some crimes as "hate crimes", as if it's worse that someone gets beat up because they're gay than if they get beat up because they're walking down the wrong street.
  Hate crimes are just one step away from slavery. It's attempting to force a whole class of people to behave in the way that you feel is fit. It's an act of terrorism against the entire class.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
shocker by slashmydots · 2013-09-14 14:15 · Score: 1

I bet they're seeing the tax dollar investment in chemical weapons as a bit of a waste now that they used them like twice and the entire world stepped in to force them to destroy them. SURPRISE, they're illegal on Earth. Do they not have history class there in Syria or what? I can't imagine them being particularly cheap to assemble and store.

That's like a guy in some certain state having spent money on 50 automatic rifles and then firing one at a target once only the have the police confiscate them all since they're illegal in that state. Hmmm, not such a smart monetary expenditure at that point, huh?
Putin by gd2shoe · 2013-09-14 16:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

Granted. There is still a danger, though, as Russia prepares to re-approach the world stage. If it does so from the perspective of loathing -- blaming the US for their economic struggles instead of their own totalitarian arrogance, then it could lead to Cold War II or World War III.
The real threat from this angle is not Russia, but Putin specifically. He still sees things largely in Cold War terms. He thinks that the US sees Russia as a caged and chained animal. That's isn't how we see them, but he's eager to force us to change our opinion. That type of brash approach could lead back to brinkmanship.
It is how we treat Putin, personally, within his position of power that will ultimately determine how Russia makes itself felt. The US could really benefit from them as a partner and ally, but we've been doing a good deal to distance ourselves from him as an individual. That is going to cost us. I just hope the price isn't exorbitant.

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
1. Re:Putin by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-09-16 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  You mistake the propaganda that the ruling elite (which includes Putin) in Russia feeds to its populace, with what they actually think. The "caged and chained animal" is populist propaganda; it goes well, because Russian society still retains a healthy dose of anti-Americanism from the Soviet days (in some ways further increased by the mess that West-aligned politicians, enamored with "classic liberalism", have made in the country economy in the 90s - a lot of people still think there was some grand conspiracy behind that, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin were on CIA payroll). It's also convenient because it creates a nebulous external threat, which can be used to justify a lot of oppressive measures - much like in US similar stuff is justified by al-Qaeda threat. But the people in power are very cynical and don't actually believe all that stuff themselves. Just make note of where their own children study, and where they buy real estate. Hint: it's not Russia.
  As far as "distancing yourself" from Putin... he's just another dictator, albeit of a softer variety. These come and go, and to think that personal relationship with him would somehow translate to the feelings of your average Russian citizen - or even the next government - is very naive. In fact, it may well be reverse from what you say - if he gets toppled instead of a peaceful transition, being friendly to him could well be treated much like US cozying up to the Shah in Iran was after their revolution.
2. Re:Putin by gd2shoe · 2013-09-16 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, they don't believe that about themselves. They think that we believe it. That's the problem.
  
  As far as "distancing yourself" from Putin... he's just another dictator, albeit of a softer variety.
  True. And you're right about the dangers of being buddy-buddy with him. We've certainly made that mistake in enough places. I just think that it's also a mistake to shun, slight, and/or belittle him.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Re:Adroitly navigated by Obama and Kerry by gd2shoe · 2013-09-14 17:16 · Score: 1

It absolutely wasn't expected. I believe that this was discussed behind closed doors with Russia, but they blocked it, or were dragging their feet. When Kerry said it on tv to Syria, very sternly, he expected to be ignored. He was trying to bag a few lose international points. Putin decided that they couldn't have that. Why let the US look good, when Russia can take the credit?

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Re:Adroitly navigated by Obama and Kerry by fustakrakich · 2013-09-14 19:20 · Score: 1

It absolutely wasn't expected.
To tell you the truth, I don't believe it. In this business there can be no surprises. The drama you see on the TV does not happen in the back rooms. In fact I don't believe they discuss chemical weapons at all, outside of prices and delivery dates. They do their business, then they put on their red noses and do a song and dance in front of the cameras, then go home and bang their wives, girlfriends, hookers, with total indifference towards anything outside the gate.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Adroitly navigated by Obama and Kerry by gd2shoe · 2013-09-14 19:30 · Score: 1

In international politics, surprises are bad, bad news. They make you look like you're not in control. That's precisely why Putin went along with this in the first place. It makes the US look like it's not in control, and Russia is. Kerry absolutely didn't see this one coming. (He may have secretly been hoping for something like it, but he really didn't expect the Russian back-hand.)

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Re:one question by dmpot · 2013-09-15 00:01 · Score: 1

From what I've read cultists also seriously kludged their deployment resulting in a good bit of the gas ending up in the ventilation shafts rather than in the subway tunnels.
Though deployment of Sarin was far from perfect, the gas was released mostly inside of trains, so I am not sure why ventilation shafts playing any important role in that. In any case, despite a huge number of people who were exposed to the sarin, only very few of them died, because of impurity.
There was another attacked conducted by Aum Shinrikyo just 9 months prior to the attack on the Tokyo subway. In that attack sarin was released in one neighbourhood on unsuspected people late in the vening, which caused seven deaths (plus one more victim, who suffered severe brain damage, died 14 years later). So, this is a scale that a well orgganized terrorirst group can achieve.
The death toll in the Ghouta attacks in Syria clearly indicates that military-grade gas and delivery systems were used. I think there will be more evidences when the UN report will be released.
Just like that? by gelfling · 2013-09-15 02:04 · Score: 1

Poof, oh we made a mistake. No more chems? Magic?
Doublespeak... by ZosX · 2013-09-15 03:39 · Score: 1

"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."
The United States needs to start dumping its own stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons then.....

--
zosxavius photography
1. Re:Doublespeak... by samwichse · 2013-09-16 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  The US has been destroying its chemical weapons for the past 30 years and is up to 90% disposal as per the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  Full compliance is expected by 2023.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Progress_of_destruction
  Ignorance illuminated.
  Sam
2. Re:Doublespeak... by ZosX · 2013-09-16 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. After posting that I ended up researching it myself. Funny what people tell you is the truth. I had always believed that we were still sitting on stockpiles of weapons.
  
  --
  zosxavius photography