How will the chemical weapon sites be secured?

[Harmony Blue]

How come no one in the U.S. major media outlets is not asking this question to our reps?

[lamp_shade]

1. I know but I'm not gonna tell you.

[Union Scribe]

2. It's such an obvious problem

It's crazy this hasn't been one of the central discussions in media and government.

[Harmony Blue]

7. It is obvious to foreign media outlets

because the fear is that radical factions of the Syrian resistance may obtain chemical weapons and destabilize the region.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. There is no objective to "secure" the chem site as per the admin. n/t

[KittyWampus]

4. they aren't trying to oust the regime. Depose Assad… yes. Get rid of his generals… no.

[FSogol]

5. With explosions!

Should all possible US military strategies be discussed via the media in advance of operations?

Maybe that's why they haven't said?

[Harmony Blue]

10. Well that is true

but to secure chemical weapon sites it will require boots on the ground no? Somebody has to do it right? Right?

[FSogol]

13. The thought is (AFAIK) that surgical strikes would take out the Syria Air Force

allowing the rebels to seize the facilities. Alternately the air strikes could allow some Syrian General (who is not as bad as Assad, they promise) to seize control, and oust Assad. The US, in exchange for support, would buy the chemical weapons (similar to how Kerry and Obama worked to secure Russian nukes).

[Harmony Blue]

16. What is stopping AQ

from strolling right in while the cruise missiles are flying or after the aftermath and pick up some of the chemical weapons stockpile?

[hobbit709]

6. With magical thinking.

[durablend]

11. If it were up to the Republicans...

We could just "pray them away"

[Harmony Blue]

17. The sad thing is there are many Fundie Republicans

that believe this living in the south.

[Mnemosyne]

8. ...

[Harmony Blue]

14. I understand this sentiment

but sadly it is true no? There has been discussion of targeting delivery systems however doesn't that increase the propensity that the chemical weapons are used unconventionally like IED's?

[HooptieWagon]

9. Wishful thinking?

Rainbows and Unicorns?
If Assad did use chemical weapons, its not logical to assume he'll just walk away from them because of a "symbolic strike". It is logical to assume a desparate Assad would use them again in response to a US strike or invasion. Then what? Is the WH even thinking down the road?

[sarisataka]

12. Simple

[jsr]

15. Duh. Master Lock.

[Wilms]

18. The same way we secured munitions and museums in Iraq.

Oh. Wait.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. By underpants gnomes...

1. Bomb Syria
2. ????
3. Profit

[JoeyT]

20. I would assume they're not going to secure them.

The only way I could imagine doing it would be to hit them with large incendiaries in the hopes that it would burn enough of the Sarin off that it doesn't kill a bunch of people, but I'm neither a chemist nor a general, nor do I pretend to know how much mission creep is going to kick in.