How can chemical weapons be destroyed?

[jebert]

I’ve heard that bombing stores of chemical weapons would not destroy them, but just release them into the environment. Would the use of napalm somehow burn up the toxic agents? If not, is there any way these weapons can be destroyed or neutralized without humans having to access them and chemically process them?

[skdo23]

In a nutshell, chemical weapons are destroyed either by incinerating them at high temperatures or by mixing the chemical agent another substance that will neutralize it.

[jebert]

From the link:

The United States has been at the forefront of the chemical weapons reduction efforts since the late 1960s, when President Richard Nixon imposed a moratorium on the production of chemical weapons in the U.S. In 1979 the first pilot program for chemical weapons destruction was established; the preferred disposal technology commonly used today originated from this program.[1] The first major program to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles in the United States began in 1990, two years before the drafting of an international agreement that called for a halt in production as well as the destruction of existing chemical weapons.[2] The first destruction site was located at Johnston Atoll, just over 600 miles (970 km) southwest of Hawaii. Since then two sites have been set up under management of the Department of Defense and six locations managed by the Army, all located within the United States.[2] While there is an almost universal agreement that the elimination of chemical weapons is in the best interest of all mankind, there are many concerns surrounding the destruction operations. Safety of personnel and surrounding communities is a main concern, and this has been addressed in several ways. The pollution produced by the preferred destruction method involving the incineration of the chemical agents and the munitions that contained them was another concern.[1] The program has been incredibly expensive; in the 2011 budget proposal submitted to Congress in February 2010 just over half a billion dollars was allocated for two of the destruction sites.[1] This amount of money would create many benefits for the surrounding communities in the form of both jobs and equipment provided to local cities and counties.

As of late January 2010, 22,300 tons of 31,500 tons of chemical weapons have been destroyed- accounting for 70 percent of the original stockpiles.

It would follow then that even a missile or bomb strike (with bunker busters, if needed) followed immediately with napalm to incinerate would still be very dangerous to humans in the immediate vicinity, and thus the caches of weapons themselves would be off the list of potential targets. No way to take the gases away from Assad without having foreigners in-country to do it.

[Ethilrist]

A nuke set off at ground level would probably do the job, but that carries its own set of problems.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Ethilrist

A nuke set off at ground level would probably do the job, but that carries its own set of problems.

To avoid problems and be sure about the results, best to launch from orbit.
I imagine that absent ideal circumstances, destroying the stockpiles with conventional weapons will prevent a belligerent from effectively deploying the chemical weapons in the future.