Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe complexities of dealing with Assad's chemical weapons
The Obama Administration is currently weighing its options, but has made clear that it will wait for more evidence of chemical weapons use before making a decision on military force...The current discourse, however, has failed to account for the complexities of dealing with Syrias chemical weapons. The disposal process will be long-term and will rely heavily on co-operation from the post-Assad government. Planning for an armed intervention must include finding, securing, and destroying Syrian chemical weapons.
...
Although little is publicly known about the Syrian chemical-weapons complex, there is a good chance that they are located underground, in order to prevent the release of toxic chemicals and to harden the facilities against bombing.
Thus, ground troops would have to be used to secure these facilities. The Pentagon estimates that it could take up to 75,000 troops to secure every suspected chemical weapons site. This could include having to race some of the rebel groups to the sites if the government begins to fall. The rebel groups have little or no training in handling chemical weapons and could cause significant damage in their haste to acquire the armaments.
...
This is one more reason why framing the cost of intervening as negligible and the commitment as limited is irresponsible, considering that work would continue for years after Mr. al-Assad is forced from power. The international community, no matter what route the Obama Administration opts to pursue, will have its hands full with Syrias chemical weapons for the next decade or so.
...
Although little is publicly known about the Syrian chemical-weapons complex, there is a good chance that they are located underground, in order to prevent the release of toxic chemicals and to harden the facilities against bombing.
Thus, ground troops would have to be used to secure these facilities. The Pentagon estimates that it could take up to 75,000 troops to secure every suspected chemical weapons site. This could include having to race some of the rebel groups to the sites if the government begins to fall. The rebel groups have little or no training in handling chemical weapons and could cause significant damage in their haste to acquire the armaments.
...
This is one more reason why framing the cost of intervening as negligible and the commitment as limited is irresponsible, considering that work would continue for years after Mr. al-Assad is forced from power. The international community, no matter what route the Obama Administration opts to pursue, will have its hands full with Syrias chemical weapons for the next decade or so.
Much more detail at the link below:
Syrias chemical weapons pose a decade-long problem for the world
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 519 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The complexities of dealing with Assad's chemical weapons (Original Post)
Benton D Struckcheon
Aug 2013
OP
leftstreet
(36,101 posts)1. Evil-doers of evil! Er, was Syria part of the Axis of Evil?
I can't remember
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)2. Oh, they always were.
Cold War commie allies and all.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)3. Bunker busters
This is a reasonable use for them, unless they're old-school weapons (not kept in two parts and mixed before use) and/or held in population centers.