Slashdot Mirror


Mediterranean Sea To Possibly Become Site of Chemical Weapons Dump

An anonymous reader writes "The organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has proposed destroying at least 1000 tons of the confiscated Syrian chemical weapon stockpile out at sea, which some fear will destroy delicate ecosystems vital to sea and human life alike. The OPCW claims the plan is 'technically feasible' and is apparently willing to risk ecological disaster to destroy the toxic contents of the weaponry in or above the sea. Members of the press were told, 'the group is considering whether to destroy the chemical weapons in the ocean, either on a ship or by loading them onto an offshore rig.'"

7 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. send them to washington DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    unlike DC, we're still not sure if there's intelligent life on mars.

    1. Re:send them to washington DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      unlike DC, we're still not sure if there's intelligent life on mars.

      I wouldn't be so nasty, ok I would.
      Yeak dump it over Washington DC no great loss would ensue.

  2. Isn't there a way of destroying them in place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no good place on land or sea to dump this stuff, unless maybe the Russians accepted huge sums of money for dumping in Siberia.

    Destroy the munitions in place with the proper personnel on hand to verify the destruction.

  3. They're destroyed first...that's the whole idea by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole idea is that the chemical weapons are destroyed FIRST...they are being destroyed AT SEA, not "destroyed" by simply dumping them into the ocean.

    The fact that the other blog entries hosted at the same site as TFA include:

    - Rihanna Displays Illuminati Hand Gesture at Latest Music Award Performance

    - SSDI Death Index: Sandy Hook 'Shooter' Adam Lanza Died One Day Before School Massacre?

    - 15 Citizens Petition to Secede from the United States

    - Will U.S. Troops Fire On American Citizens?

    - Illuminati Figurehead Prince William Takes the Stage with Jon Bon Jovi and Taylor Swift

    - Has the Earth Shifted â" Or Is It Just Me?

    - Mexican Government Releases Proof of E.T.'s and Ancient Space Travel ...should give you a hint as to the veracity of the content. (And yes, I realize it's simply a blog site with a variety of authors and content.)

    As should the first comment, from "LibertyTreeBud", saying:

    "Why not add it to some new vaccine? Or, perhaps add it to the drinking water and feed it to the live stock? These creatures will do anything for profits. Lowest bidder mentality rules."

    What "creatures", exactly? The international organization explicitly charged with the prohibition and destruction of chemical weapons? What alternatives are people suggesting, exactly?

    If you want a real article discussing this situation factually, not the tripe linked in the summary, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25146980

  4. Re:the key word is "destroy" by Shoten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like they aren't planning on just dumping the weapons into the ocean, they are going to literally destroy them. As another poster said, probably by incineration. So no, you won't be fishing up rusted nerve gas canisters.

    You hit it on the head.

    The thing to balance here isn't the threat of all that stuff being dumped into the ocean, but the ecological consequences should a more-accessible site for consolidation and destruction of the weapons be attacked. An attack would almost certainly release some agent into the atmosphere, and of course should the attackers make off with any of the weapons or chemicals then you'd probably have an even larger release down the road. Despite what the Call of Duty franchise of games put forth, isolated military sites in the middle of open ocean are quite easy to defend, and make it very difficult for an attacker to abscond successfully with anything of significant weight. The defenders can easily establish a no-go zone that extends for quite some distance, and use active means (divers, passive sensors, sonar) to detect anything larger than a fish that approaches either above or below the surface. It's a lot harder to deny access to such a large area on land, and even harder still to find a country willing to accept such a large stockpile on their own territory (which means transporting the hazardous materials through their territory, starting with either a large airport or a seaport...both of which would suffer greatly in the event of a spill). This way, the materials can leave Syria and stop posing a major threat to civilians as soon as they are over the water.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  5. Re:Specific chemicals please? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Read TFA. You'll be pleasantly surprised at what they actually plan to do vs what everyone assumes they are doing.

  6. Another Samzenpus fuckup. by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article is so bad it can be considered a troll.

    How dare this shit get by the editors, even on Farkdot.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."