Of course people opposed to military strikes are horrified by the use of chemical weapons

[MNBrewer]

75. Agent Defeat Weapons, for YOUR edification

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/

"Pentagon budget documents show that testing of so-called Agent Defeat weapon continues. Getting one to work without causing more harm than good has been a struggle. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has spent tens of millions of dollars developing and testing the weapon. The Navy dropped out of the Agent Defeat program in 2005 because byproducts from its explosion proved toxic."

and

"The Air Force has two Agent Defeat weapons, CrashPAD and the Passive Attack Weapon (PAW), according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. Instead of explosives, these relatively low-tech weapons use metal rods or fragments to pierce containers holding toxic chemicals, allowing them to escape.

To be effective in densely populated areas, an Agent Defeat bomb must destroy toxic chemicals without dispersing them.

In 2002, the Navy announced that it was developing the weapon and pairing it with bombs designed to penetrate fortified buildings. The Navy described it working this way: after bursting into a storage bunker, the warhead would spray copper plates at high speeds to tear into tanks containing toxic chemicals. Material within the warhead would burn so hot it would vaporize the chemicals that escape. A byproduct that explosion would generate chlorine gas, a disinfectant."

***********************************

So, using these weapons will: 1) allow the chemical weapons to escape from their holding tanks - GREAT idea!; 2) create their own toxic by products; 3) or create chlorine gas, which itself is essentially a chemical weapon.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/165580-destroying-chemical-weapons

"Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association framed the problem in his recent testimony on the subject, “If you drop a conventional munition on a storage facility containing unknown chemical agents — and we don’t know exactly what is where in the Syrian arsenal — some of those agents will be neutralised and some will be spread. You are not going to destroy all of them.”"

and

"The result of a PAW strike will still be a toxic mess, but hopefully one that only affects a limited area." HOPEFULLY....wishful thinking?

and

"Use of any of these munitions is made much more complex if the targeted weapons are housed near populated areas, of course. Similarly, none of them have had extensive field tests — although they have been simulated on USAF’s SERPENT attack simulator. As a result, many weapons experts predict that if strikes in Syria do occur, they may not attempt to directly destroy its chemical weapon stockpiles."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/how-the-us-could-take-out-syrias-chemical-weapons-14826307

The major caveat: Even if these kinds of weapons work exactly as planned, knocking out Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles is not just a weapons engineering challenge. Intelligence is key and, as the war in Iraq showed, pinning down WMD is notoriously difficult. It’s no use taking out a warehouse with the latest hardware if the chemicals were never there, or if they were moved out the previous day. And any action on a stockpile is hazardous. Anything less than 100 percent destruction risks exposing innocent civilians to lethal chemical agents. Agent defeat weapons might offer some options in an unstable and dangerous situation in Syria, but they are certainly not an easy, risk-free solution."