Where and what are the chemical weapons in Syria?
By Richard Engel, Jim Miklaszewski and Robert Windrem, NBC News
Experts agree that the program is the most advanced in the Third World, and that the Syrian government has used the poisonous arms against its own people "multiple times" in recent years.
The arsenal
The size of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal is not known with any precision, though the French government has estimated it to be more than 1,000 tons.
The lack of certainty poses a problem, according to intelligence and arms control experts. “No one but the Syrians knows the inventory, and if the rebels overrun one of these depots, there are worries about the physical control of the weapons," said one U.S. official, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity.
The experts say that Damascus’ program is distinguished by its size, diversity, quality and reliability. President Bashar Assad’s regime is believed to possess sarin, VX (a persistent form of sarin that could render a city uninhabitable “for some days,” according to the CIA), tabun (another older nerve agent) plus blistering agents like mustard, phosgene and hydrogen cyanide. In addition, it is believed to have large stores of “precursor chemicals” that it could use to create more of the toxic agents.
<snip>
However, weapons have been moved around the country over the last year for operational reasons, a process that has “accelerated quite a bit” as the threat of a retaliatory strike by the U.S. has increased, according to Pentagon officials. At the same time, U.S. intelligence has been tracking the movements -- not because the U.S. intends to target the chemical weapons, but in an effort to determine if the Syrians may be preparing for new attacks against the rebels.
Weapons systems
Syria has many ways of using chemical weapons to attack remote locations, including a few dozen SS-21 ballistic missiles with a maximum range of 72 miles; 200 Scud-Bs, with a maximum range of 180 miles; and 60 to 120 Scud-Cs, with a maximum range of 300 miles. All these missiles are mobile, enabling Assad and his generals to quickly move or hide them, according U.S. intelligence officials.
Syrian fighter-bombers also can carry bombshells filled with chemicals. Even simple artillery shells can be loaded with chemical weapons and fired at targets within a relatively short range, according to U.S. experts.
Rationale
<snip>
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite
How are missile strikes going to deter Assad? He could care less about the Syrian people. If he has to gas Gawd and everybody, he will. Bashir seems to be of a mind to take everybody down with him if the threat grows too great. This arsenal would do it. And the Middle East would become as unstable as it has ever been.
Russia seems to exert some influence on Assad, but who knows in reality? Putin just might find nothing on the other end if he pulls back on the reins.
We would need a MAJOR boots on the ground operation to even begin to corral these weapons. That would put soldiers in direct danger of being poisoned. Even a major operation would probably fail to find them all.
If Assad is killed, that is no assurance of a better situation. I have neither seen nor heard of another major player he depends on. The many groups who have made pacts with the devil to join forces to fight Assad will probably turn on each other. Then what? Who controls what?
I understand the international treaties signed and laws passed. I have watched as The Hague tries to punish war criminals. It is a noble idea. In reality, it is unrealistic to have rules for war. Countries decide what they will follow and when.
The US is on a moral high horse while refusing to even begin to punish our own who would have been hanged at Nuremberg. What hypocritical horseshit.
That "red line" that people are now fighting over was passed a long time ago if truth be told. It was well before the present time and when Kerry thought it was fine to dine with Assad. The time to act is not in the middle of a hot mess when we are relatively clueless. If you wait until rats are cornered to fight, good luck with that.
I don't have an answer that makes everybody feel right and satisfied. I don't think there is one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
"
I)f the rebels overrun one of these depots, there are worries about the physical control of the weapons."
This argument is so tangled. We are going to bomb Assad's regime, which will tip the scales to some degree to the rebels. Yet, one of our reasons for bombing Assad is that we are concerned that the rebels could overrun Assad and get some of these weapons. Yet, we have no actual plan to secure or destroy the weapons, just to punish Assad. And people are buying this shit?
