US Army destroying all its chemical weapons

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The U.S. Army has destroyed about 90 percent of its aging chemical weapons after it wraps up work this week in Utah, where it has kept its largest stockpile -- a witches' brew of toxins, blister and blood agents that accumulated through the Cold War.
The Army's Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah's west desert burned its last hard weapons in a 1,500-degree furnace on Wednesday -- projectiles that contained mustard agent, which can produce painful skin blisters. The last tray of 23 projectiles came out of a furnace at 2:11 p.m. after baking for two hours, a process that rendered the mustard agent harmless.

The depot -- which at its peak held some 13,600 tons of chemical agents, making it the world's largest -- expects to complete the job by the weekend when it incinerates bulk supplies of Lewisite, a powerful skin, eye and lung irritant.
"It gives me great joy and satisfaction to be done," said Ted Ryba, the Army's project manager at the depot, after the last of the mustard agent projectiles were seen emerging from the furnace on a conveyor belt.
The U.S. is part of an international treaty to rid the world of chemical weapons, a campaign taking place with spotty success around the globe. The goal was supposed to be accomplished by April 29 but will take years longer.
"Clearly, it's still a tremendous example of what the world can do," said Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group in Berea, Ky., an advocate for safe disposal. "You've got 188 of 194 countries on the planet signing the treaty. It's an impressive effort, a great step forward for the safety of the world."
The U.S. has acknowledged it will take as long as 2021 to finish destroying the final 10 percent of its chemical weapons at depots in Pueblo, Colo., and Richmond, Ky. Russia is farther behind in its effort, having destroyed only about 48 percent of a large cache of chemical weapons, according to the Organisation of for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, Netherlands.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/1...tah-1334099040/?test=latestnews#ixzz1juoeORnO

VERY nice! These things should be made extinct
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
VERY nice! These things should be made extinct

I suppose that's what nukes are for. No need to double dip into toxins when you're armed and loaded. I won't object but I will note that WMDs are the perfect counter to large gatherings of armed forces.

On a sad note, I guess there'll be no sequel to The Rock.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,910
0
0
We are the only country in the world to dismantle and destroy our stockpile nuclear and others voluntary. And we did make a mean Nuclear bomb in our time.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,397
4,455
136
We are the only country in the world to dismantle and destroy our stockpile nuclear and others voluntary. And we did make a mean Nuclear bomb in our time.

250px-Peter_GB1.jpg


Where in the hell are you from anyway, Johnny?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,851
26,638
136
Where in the hell are you from anyway, Johnny?

I was about to ask the same thing.

The Russians dismantled a good portion of their nuclear arsenal. They even shipped the weapons grade uranium to the US for down blending.

South Africa and India also abandoned the bomb. India changed its mind and later re-acquired the bomb.

On the chemical weapons front, the US has done very well getting rid of most of its supply. The stockpile has been marked for demolition since the '80s but it turned out to be a royal pain in the ass to destroy the weapons without hurting one's self.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
I was about to ask the same thing.

The Russians dismantled a good portion of their nuclear arsenal. They even shipped the weapons grade uranium to the US for down blending.

South Africa and India also abandoned the bomb. India changed its mind and later re-acquired the bomb.

On the chemical weapons front, the US has done very well getting rid of most of its supply. The stockpile has been marked for demolition since the '80s but it turned out to be a royal pain in the ass to destroy the weapons without hurting one's self.



Well of course India has to have it, they have the Pakis on their border and they frequently clash with them. Nuclear weapons keep the peace. It's why the Arab states haven't tried to wipe out Israel again. This is also why Iran wants nuclear weapons, they will insure that the US never invades it like it did to Afghanistan and Iraq. Two nations on Iran's borders.

I've never understood the disdain for nuclear weapons. They are horrific and the world witnessed it, but it prevented the US and Soviet Union from going to war and why we've never had a World War III.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,397
4,455
136
I've never understood the disdain for nuclear weapons. They are horrific and the world witnessed it, but it prevented the US and Soviet Union from going to war and why we've never had a World War III.

I think that's called "20/20 hindsight".
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
I'm sure we have super aids lying around in a lab somewhere. Or some more anthrax.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
I was about to ask the same thing.

The Russians dismantled a good portion of their nuclear arsenal. They even shipped the weapons grade uranium to the US for down blending.

South Africa and India also abandoned the bomb. India changed its mind and later re-acquired the bomb.

On the chemical weapons front, the US has done very well getting rid of most of its supply. The stockpile has been marked for demolition since the '80s but it turned out to be a royal pain in the ass to destroy the weapons without hurting one's self.

You believe the Russians?

So naive.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Honestly I thought we were farther along than this. IIRC, they finished incinerating the chemical weapons in Anniston, AL a while ago.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,910
0
0
I was about to ask the same thing.

The Russians dismantled a good portion of their nuclear arsenal. They even shipped the weapons grade uranium to the US for down blending.

South Africa and India also abandoned the bomb. India changed its mind and later re-acquired the bomb.

On the chemical weapons front, the US has done very well getting rid of most of its supply. The stockpile has been marked for demolition since the '80s but it turned out to be a royal pain in the ass to destroy the weapons without hurting one's self.

South Africa was the first and only country to build nuclear weapons and then voluntarily dismantle them.
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/south-africa/nuclear/
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,851
26,638
136
You believe the Russians?

So naive.


I believe the U.S. Enrichment Corporation's bitching to Congress about being required to implement the down blending provisions of the treaty that led to the Russian actions. Russian weapons grade uranium disposal created a uranium glut that drove down nuclear fuel prices and took years for the market to clear.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I dont think a sane country would use nuclear weapons anywhere near their own borders. Wind directions change all the time and it would be dangerous. Nuclear clouds of fallout can also drift hundreds of miles on the wind. Remember Chernobyl? A lot of European Beef was contaminated. I think if a nuke went off around Isreal or the middle east it would probably contaminated 5-10 countries.

Lets just say I am doubtfull we have destroyed everything both Chemical and Biological. They are probably getting rid of all the old stuff, because it becomes unstable.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I am not sure we would bother to keep any, other than small amounts to be used for antidotes (biological stuff). No need for them when our conventional military is so darn powerful. And just like with nuclear, a change in the wind can demolish your own troops.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,910
0
0
I dont think a sane country would use nuclear weapons anywhere near their own borders. Wind directions change all the time and it would be dangerous. Nuclear clouds of fallout can also drift hundreds of miles on the wind. Remember Chernobyl? A lot of European Beef was contaminated. I think if a nuke went off around Isreal or the middle east it would probably contaminated 5-10 countries.

Lets just say I am doubtfull we have destroyed everything both Chemical and Biological. They are probably getting rid of all the old stuff, because it becomes unstable.

How do you think Israel manage to nail those old russian tanks the Palestinians used when the bombings were ineffective with the ballistic missiles and other the airforce used? With Neutron bombs only way to get those old tanks as they are hard as a rock.
Do not think of nuclear weapons as the big one like with Nagasaki. Neutron bombs dont have a big bang but kills anyone inside a specific target very quickly. Almost like personal nuke
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
I've never understood the disdain for nuclear weapons.

The expectation of Iranian weapons being used is much higher than our own.

Think of it this way when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Not everyone is fit to own a gun, let alone every nation fit to wield such power.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,709
871
126
For that to be true, wouldn't they have to have them in the first place?

Which is the step the international community is trying to stop.

Wouldn't chemical weapons be more favorable than nuclear to be used in war? The land becomes useful much sooner. Not sure what the lifetimes are for these chemicals when released but I'm sure they could engineer ones that are lethal but lose effectiveness within a week.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
I suppose that's what nukes are for. No need to double dip into toxins when you're armed and loaded. I won't object but I will note that WMDs are the perfect counter to large gatherings of armed forces.

On a sad note, I guess there'll be no sequel to The Rock.

In The Rock they stole from the Navy, OP is about the Army. :p
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Well of course India has to have it, they have the Pakis on their border and they frequently clash with them.

The real reason that India has nuclear weapons is China. Pakistan doesn't have the potential to be an existential threat to India. China does.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
The real reason that India has nuclear weapons is China. Pakistan doesn't have the potential to be an existential threat to India. China does.

You think China is a serious military threat to India's existence? Don't get me wrong the Chinese military is nothing to scoff at, but the US military is far superior and look at the trouble we've been having in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hell look at the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and they certainly didn't shrink from indiscriminate force. China attempting to take and hold India militarily is laughable.