This is the reality of what Israel is doing (part 5)

[Eyesopenwideawake]

I used to start these threads with the fervent hope that each will be the last. I don't anymore.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/05/israel-destroying-palestinians-war-hope

I'd wondered about the efficacy of bombing chemical weapons stores. It's (sadly) not very difficult to make them anyway.

You have experience of chemical synthesis?

You don’t? Almost gassed myself with chlorine gas after adding an ammonium based cleaner into a bleach filled toilet. If I can create chlorine gas with £1.50 worth of over the counter cleaning products from Tescos I am sure a murderous regime being funded billions by Putin could manage.

Well that was just silly.
Creating and stockpiling enough to wipe out a village requires a little more finesse.

Obviously chemical synthesis means something different to you.

Bombing chemical weapons stores risks setting off the weapons (which can then cause substantial harm). It's generally considered more sensible to secure them and use appropriate safety techniques to destroy them. Secure incineration is one preferred method.

I don't know much about chemical weapons, science was never my strong point, but this article from 2013 does outline the dangers associated with bombing them as opposed to disposing of them properly under controlled conditions

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/bombing-chemical-weapons-sites-could-endanger-civilians-cause-environmental-catastrophe-experts-warn

Yes that's what article I posted suggests thanks

Bombing is somewhat insecure incineration. Perhaps the risk analysis was; we can leave them but there's a high chance they will be used against us or we can try to get access to destroy them safely but by the time that's agreed (if ever) they will have been removed elsewhere.

Not privy to those decisions myself, or to the nature of the 'weapons' being destroyed. Rather a lot of fuss was made about the USA leaving viable weapons behind in Afghanistan.

Very early days after Assad's abandonment of Syria, in a notoriously unstable region who knows what will stabilise it. Assad & Hussein & the Ayatollahs create stability of sorts, but at what cost?

Secure incineration of chemical weapons isn't just setting them on fire as a whole building, so bombing them really isn't just a 'somewhat insecure' variant of the process.

Well not that much finesse. It’s not exactly modern technology.

Bombing is somewhat insecure incineration
You don’t say! Especially since most of the damage from a bomb is due to kinetic energy not thermal.

Perhaps the risk analysis was; we can leave them but there's a high chance they will be used against us or we can try to get access to destroy them safely but by the time that's agreed (if ever) they will have been removed elsewhere.

So the risk analysis was we will bomb them to ensure we protect Israelis from a hypothetical risk but put Syrians living in the area at definite risk due to bombing them (as outlined in the article I posted) nice.

Depends on the bomb I imagine.

Er, yeah.

It is absolutely cutting edge technology, unless you rely on the internet for your info.

The hypothetical risk analysis is pretty wild. Israel has been bombing Syria intermittently for years with the excuse that the Assad regime was hostile to the existence of Israel. Syria didn’t use these weapons on Israel, so whatever risk there was wasn’t high enough for Israel to just decide to invade and destroy them in ‘self defence’ like it is now.

Now that the Assad regime has been overthrown by US funded and backed rebels, how can the risk of Syrian weapons being used on Israel have gone up? These are allies of the US and Israel that are now in control of Syria.

Then you will know that the purchase of certain intermediates will create interest.
Rather like cyber fraud, you hope there are more white hats.

The chemical weapons that Assad had were circa 1980s at best.

And you know this because.....

Most don’t need to be purchased via international trade. These aren’t rare like plutonium or enriched uranium that rile up Interpol and Five Eyes. These are cheap, common chemicals that a sovereign nation can build factories to produce. They are often used in many legitimate industrial processes as well.

The purchasing of large quantities by a private individual is monitored within a country due how low tech making chemical weapons are, so the threat of domestic terror attacks using such agents is high.

I am better experienced, read and educated than you on this.
I have two masters degrees from senior military colleges gained during 20yrs of service in the armed forces.

Interesting. In light of your views.

I'm not sure the Assad regime in Syria paid much attention to international norms and regulations.

It's scarily simple to produce very toxic substances from everyday feed stocks. It's basic A level stuff, an undergrad would have no problem at.

Look at the thugs who manage to get hold of highly caustic substances to use against women and girls.

Not quite WMD.
Those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous would hurt themselves in their efforts.