Same chemicals believed to have been used in Syrian attack being stored at army depot (Kentucky) - Polidicks

[QUOTE]RICHMOND, Ky. (WKYT) - The chemicals believed to have been used in the Syrian attack are the same type stored at the Bluegrass Army Depot. Sarin is one of several toxins stored at the Bluegrass Army Depot. Those chemical weapons are scheduled to be neautralized in the coming years.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Craig Williams, the director of the Kentucky Environmental Foundation's Chemical Weapons Working Group, says they've been working with the military as they plan the disposal of those chemicals. The original plans included incinerating many of those chemical weapons, but that project was scrapped after there was an outcry about those toxins being burned. Williams says the plan is to neutralize and destroy those chemicals by 2023[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Same-chemicals-belived-to-have-been-used-in-Syrian-attack-being-stored-at-army-depot--418679973.html"]source[/URL]

Why would it take so long to neutralize the chemcials? Seems a bit suspicious.

[QUOTE=Sombrero;52074529]Why would it take so long to neutralize the chemcials? Seems a bit suspicious.[/QUOTE] How? If they where intending of doing something with it they wouldn't be working with an independent organization to destroy them. It makes no sense.

[quote]The original plans included incinerating many of those chemical weapons, but that project was scrapped after there was an outcry about those toxins being burned. [/quote] So what now? I figure burning them would break the chemical bonds to make them into something less deadly. Are they going to make them react with something to neutralize them or just leave them in containers until they degrade on their own

[QUOTE=Sombrero;52074529]Why would it take so long to neutralize the chemcials? Seems a bit suspicious.[/QUOTE] 1. Hundreds of thousands of tons of those chemicals were made and put into munitions over the better half of a century. 2. You can't just take a bomb and chuck it into an incinerator, they all have to be dismantled (which they were never designed to be done so without exploding first) by hand. 3. Individuals dismantling the ordnance have to be properly protected and sterilized every day. This all makes for a very slow, tedious, and expensive task taking thousands of man hours. I don't think you fully comprehend just how much nerve agent the US made during the cold war, it by far outweighed our nuclear arsenal.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52074684]1. Hundreds of thousands of tons of those chemicals were made and put into munitions over the better half of a century. 2. You can't just take a bomb and chuck it into an incinerator, they all have to be dismantled (which they were never designed to be done so without exploding first) by hand. 3. Individuals dismantling the ordnance have to be properly protected and sterilized every day. This all makes for a very slow, tedious, and expensive task taking thousands of man hours. I don't think you fully comprehend just how much nerve agent the US made during the cold war, it by far outweighed our nuclear arsenal.[/QUOTE] plus chemicals like these have exposure limits so the people dismantling them can only do so much work before they have to leave for a while

[QUOTE=Dr.C;52074636]So what now? I figure burning them would break the chemical bonds to make them into something less deadly.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. Even if it did, you run the risk of non-neutralized toxins getting carried into the air by the heated air and smoke.

What's the point of this article, even? It's not exactly like we're gassing ANYONE, let alone our own.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52074914]What's the point of this article, even? It's not exactly like we're gassing ANYONE, let alone our own.[/QUOTE] I donno, seems like he's trying to connect the Syrian incident to the US and blame them for it or show there's at least some connection? (I'm talking about OP but I'm probably very wrong) "X has thing and used thing, Y also has thing but that thing isn't being used and is being dismantled by Y" ok?

im one of the biggest tin foils on facepunch but seriously? just because the US of all places has sarin bombs? they probaby have gallons of mustard gas just to be sure lol

What the fuck, where is the link? Aside from US having chemicals? Hell, you could say just change the country to Russia or even North Korea and it'll be the same

What a crappy article.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;52074636]So what now? I figure burning them would break the chemical bonds to make them into something less deadly. Are they going to make them react with something to neutralize them or just leave them in containers until they degrade on their own[/QUOTE] It's actually the most general method of destroying chemical weapons, or any organic material in general. Pretty much nothing can survive the >1,000°C found in a correctly-operated incinerator. The outcry is probably from uninformed folks who don't know better. Some nerve agents and mustard agents can be destroyed by hydrolysis however, so it's not like incineration is the only way.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52075146]It's actually the most general method of destroying chemical weapons, or any organic material in general. Pretty much nothing can survive the >1,000°C found in a correctly-operated incinerator. The outcry is probably from uninformed folks who don't know better. Some nerve agents and mustard agents can be destroyed by hydrolysis however, so it's not like incineration is the only way.[/QUOTE] The issue is the weapons are combined with explosive bursting charges.

[QUOTE=download;52075152]The issue is the weapons are combined with explosive bursting charges.[/QUOTE] I know, but that was covered by UncleJimmema above so I didn't find it necessary to mention that.

[QUOTE=-Rusty-;52075094]I donno, seems like he's trying to connect the Syrian incident to the US and blame them for it or show there's at least some connection? (I'm talking about OP but I'm probably very wrong) "X has thing and used thing, Y also has thing but that thing isn't being used and is being dismantled by Y" ok?[/QUOTE] I only linked/posted it because it was in the local news, I had no ulterior motives for linking it. Its interesting that we still have these kinds of chemical weapons hanging around. I in no way believe our government had any hand in what assad did (if thats what you're implying I think.)

This in on the same level as those "X happened in the town I live in" posts

[QUOTE=Durandal;52075212]I only linked/posted it because it was in the local news, I had no ulterior motives for linking it. Its interesting that we still have these kinds of chemical weapons hanging around. I in no way believe our government had any hand in what assad did (if thats what you're implying I think.)[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's why I said I'm probably very wrong about my thoughts of why you posted it. I guess it's just the way you worded the title that made it seem this way to me.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52074914]What's the point of this article, even? It's not exactly like we're gassing ANYONE, let alone our own.[/QUOTE] its a local news piece so probably just to raise awareness that the army has thousands of tons of nerve agents stored nearby. OP used the title in the article so its not editorializing. the syrian connection is kind of stupid but then sometimes thats what you have to do to grab attention

[QUOTE=Sableye;52075576]its a local news piece so probably just to raise awareness that the army has thousands of tons of nerve agents stored nearby. OP used the title in the article so its not editorializing. the syrian connection is kind of stupid but then sometimes thats what you have to do to grab attention[/QUOTE] I'd like to believe this is just to bait conspiracy nuts into believing Trump staged everything.

[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;52077669]I'd like to believe this is just to bait conspiracy nuts into believing Trump staged everything.[/QUOTE] doesn't seem to be the case though. locals probably aren't aware that not only does the US have the same terrible weapons, theyve been stored next to their town

[QUOTE=Durandal;52075212]I only linked/posted it because it was in the local news, I had no ulterior motives for linking it. Its interesting that we still have these kinds of chemical weapons hanging around. I in no way believe our government had any hand in what assad did (if thats what you're implying I think.)[/QUOTE] We still have nuclear weapons of all kinds hanging around. Its not at all surprising or suspicious that the US still has stockpiles of the worlds deadliest weapons. For about 60 years the world was gearing up for a war of anihlation; why is it still surprising that these weapons cant be done away with overnight? [editline]9th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;52077826]doesn't seem to be the case though. locals probably aren't aware that not only does the US have the same terrible weapons, theyve been stored next to their town[/QUOTE] I live in North Dakota, the nuclear stockpiles here between ND and SD were so large that if we broke off from the US we would become the nation with the 3rd largest nuclear weapons armament. They still drive nuclear munitions on armored convoys through downtown Minot on a regular basis. Nobody in the Dakotas is pissing their pants about the minute potential of one of these bombs exploding. Living next to a military base with weapons is not a surprise to anyone ever. Quit trying to blow this up into something contraversial

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52074684]1. Hundreds of thousands of tons of those chemicals were made and put into munitions over the better half of a century. 2. You can't just take a bomb and chuck it into an incinerator, they all have to be dismantled (which they were never designed to be done so without exploding first) by hand. 3. Individuals dismantling the ordnance have to be properly protected and sterilized every day. This all makes for a very slow, tedious, and expensive task taking thousands of man hours. I don't think you fully comprehend just how much nerve agent the US made during the cold war, it by far outweighed our nuclear arsenal.[/QUOTE] I would imagine chemical weapons are ridiculously easy to find on the black market if there's militaries trying to get rid of them

Yeah this is a bit too tin foil hat at the moment, not downplaying the seriousness of the attacks but Sarin is pretty well known and its synthesis and chemical makeup have been in the public domain for years. The more likely answer is that some other country besides the US synthesized the chemicals beyond pulling some bullshit heist on this random army depot.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52074914]What's the point of this article, even? It's not exactly like we're gassing ANYONE, let alone our own.[/QUOTE] Did you see that weapon storage explosion in Ukraine a week ago. All those weapons were not stored properly. It shows there are weapon deposits everywhere around the world, just looking for trouble. There are nuclear bombs that are yet to be disassembled, toxic gasses, unused mines, etc...

[QUOTE=AntonioR;52084402]Did you see that weapon storage explosion in Ukraine a week ago. All those weapons were not stored properly. It shows there are weapon deposits everywhere around the world, just looking for trouble. There are nuclear bombs that are yet to be disassembled, toxic gasses, unused mines, etc...[/QUOTE] A properly designed ammunition dump has a buffer zone around it large enough to not harm members of the public.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52083277]I would imagine chemical weapons are ridiculously easy to find on the black market if there's militaries trying to get rid of them[/QUOTE] Uh no. The point of getting rid of them is so theyre not used, why would a country just illegally sell them? [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AntonioR;52084402]Did you see that weapon storage explosion in Ukraine a week ago. All those weapons were not stored properly. It shows there are weapon deposits everywhere around the world, just looking for trouble. There are nuclear bombs that are yet to be disassembled, toxic gasses, unused mines, etc...[/QUOTE] Ukraine, along with other former soviet bloc countries, are known for improper storage of munitions. Plus, those werent chemical and nuclear weapons

Hardly news, being from there the fact that Kentucky has a chemical weapons disposal plant at all is pretty common knowledge. Though, I don't think it was their aim to link the gas attack in Syria as a false flag or anything but to be alarmist and write a "LOOK AT WHAT THE BIG BAD GUBERMENT IS DOING IN YOUR AREA! YOUR FAMILY ISNT SAFE!" article. Still shitty journalism though.