This BBC article explores the
various chemical nerve agents used in the Aug. 21st chemical attacks
in Damascus, as well as the estimated size and scope of Syria's chemical
weapons stockpile. One item worth noting: Syria has never signed the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OCPW) Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) Agreement, thus a formal declaration of its possessions and capacity for
warfare has never been fully declared or documented. Some believe the country
may contain the largest collection of chemical arms in the world. In 2002 the United
States made a statement, based on a report from the US Congressional Research
Service, which claims Syria likely began amassing its chemical weapons in 1972
or 1973, after the country was given a small number of chemicals and delivery
systems by Egypt prior to the start of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. According to
US, British, French, and Israeli intelligence, this was not the first time the
Syrian government resorted to the use of chemical weapons to suppress internal upheaval.
The editorial also highlights the primary locations where production, storage,
and research of chemical agents were conducted within Syria. Creating a permanent
prohibition on chemical weapons may be nearly impossible. Should more steps be
taken by peace keeping organizations such as the UN to prevent emerging chemical
and nuclear powers from amassing such alarmingly robust and dangerous weapon stockpiles? Even-though many of these emerging powers are simply catching up with the rest of the chemically and nuclear armed world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22307705
This is a fascinating article. It's intriguing that no one knew just how large Syria's chemical weapon program was until after the weapons were used. Also, I think you raise a good question here regarding organizations like the UN stepping in to prevent large weapons stock from being amassed. I think that even though, like you said, many of these countries are merely catching up with the other developed nations, most of the countries attempting to do this are not stable enough to harbor such a large amount of weapons. To put the whole thing into perspective, developed countries like the United States or Russia would never use weapons in its country in a place where mass civilians could be harmed. Countries like Syria are simply not ready to handle the responsibility of harnessing such damaging technology, and until they are I think organizations (like you mentioned, the UN) should step in.
ReplyDelete