[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I don’t know.
[/QUOTE]
No, you don’t know. But you want those who do know to shut up.
Intentional. We seem to be so concerned about Assad using CWs again, but not so concerned that we will be worse off if the rebels get their hands on them.
And by “we”, I mean them-- the people supporting the bombing.
Depends on the type; a lot (most?) of nerve gas warheads are binary types, where there are two (relatively) non-lethal components that are mixed right at the gas deployment by the warhead/bomb, so destroying those might not be so risky for bystanders, assuming the bombing doesn’t mix them up.
Others, like sulfur mustard, Lewisite, chlorine, or cyanogen chloride aren’t typically binary, so blowing them up might just release them onto the public.
What you’re reading is from letters and testimony that he was required to prepare outlining the possible results of strikes against Syria. These are his responses to inquiries from Congress, he absolutely must answer those requests and answer them truthfully excepting a narrow number of situations where he can claim state secrets or national security require him not to elaborate. He was doing his job. It is the job of the military to make predictions based on their expert knowledge. Almost certainly anything Dempsey said to Congress was very similar or identical to reports he had prepared for the President, since the CJCS serves at the pleasure of the President it would make very little sense for him to give the President one set of information and then withhold any misgivings until talking to Congress, his duty would be to make his misgivings known to the Commander-in-Chief as well. The President will not consider military advice exclusively, because the Department of State, the NSC and other parties are also experts in overlapping areas here and the President may decide their predictions are more valid than those of the CJCS.
According to most expert reports I have read, the only surefire safe way to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles is to confiscate them and dispose of them in specialized incinerator facilities.
Some of the agents would need to be exposed to temperatures over 2,000 F in order to completely destroy them, in a traditional bombing there is a significant risk of long term environmental damage and significant risk that some of the chemical weapons (for example nerve agents) would be expelled outward as part of the explosion and anything or anyone in the explosive radius would be exposed to them. I’ve read estimates of 20-30% of the chemical substances could be expelled out as part of an explosion while the rest would probably be destroyed or not dispersed.
We bombed a chemical weapons storage site during the Persian Gulf war with a massive artillery barrage, and over 20 years later it is still basically a HAZMAT site no one can go near. Many of the chemical weapons storage facilities in Syria are in heavily populated areas.
I’ve read some theories that if you could just expose the materials to the air (imagine some sort of super shrapnel munition that inundated an area with shards of metal such that it punched holes in the storage vessels) and then started a really big fire you would “more safely” dispose of them–but that’s not something we can really do technically and it would still pose serious risks to the environment and surrounding civilians.
If it were me, I would take advantage of the arrogance available to a nation with nearly absolute technical superiority.
"To whom it will concern:
The Syrian Air Force base located approximately 20km south east of Damascus will be bombed the shit out of beginning at 12:30 pm local time. The attack will last for ten minutes. As of 12:46 pm, no further munitions will be incoming. Medical staff and evacuation may proceed at that time without fear of our intereference. The site will be surveyed in the subsequent few hours, and if it is determined that any important targets were missed, an additional attack may be launched. We will advise of that decision in advance if an official diplomatic message of “pretty please” is forwarded to SecState Kerry by way of the Swiss Embassy or the UN.
Have a nice day."
Both the US and USSR developed binary warheads. They were never anything close to more than a small portion of either country’s stockpile. Iraq produced some binary weapons primarily because its basic nerve agent production had lousy purity. Syria is belived to have binary missile warheads (Scud missiles) and binary aerial bombs in addition to its large unitary stockpile.
US statistics are still classified as to numbers of each type weapon. As an entire system is destroyed, approximate figures as to number and quantity of munitions and fillers is released. Most of the US and USSR stockpiles have been destroyed [del]or sunk at sea in the old days[/del].