Syrian chemical weapons to be destroyed at sea because no country will take them - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25146980[/url] [quote]A plan has been hatched to destroy Syria's chemical weapons at sea using US Navy auxiliary vessel MV Cape Ray. Industry sources told BBC Newsnight the plan will put a mobile destruction plant aboard that uses water to dilute the chemicals to safer levels. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has set 31 December as its deadline for removing the toxic substances from Syria. So far countries have shown a marked reluctance to take on the task. Albania and other countries rumoured to be the destination for the chemicals have insisted they will not take them, despite the international community agreeing that disposal was one of the most urgent security problems in the world.[/quote]

no shit no one wants those damn things.

Will this put chemicals in the sea? If so, isn't that fucking shitty?

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43011303]Will this put chemicals in the sea? [/QUOTE] Technically, yes.

Why not launch them into space? A thousand years from now we could turn the tide of some war between aliens or something.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43011317']Why not launch them into space? [/QUOTE] Huge waste of money

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43011317']Why not launch them into space? A thousand years from now we could turn the tide of some war between aliens or something.[/QUOTE] In actuality, it'd probably destroy a future mission.

Why doesn't Russia just take them, and dump them in the thousands of thousands of miles of artic waste? [editline]28th November 2013[/editline] Russia is literally the best garbage dump in the world for this kind of thing.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43011333]Huge waste of money[/QUOTE] Think of it as an investment. [t]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs22/f/2007/324/2/4/Genocide_by_Abiogenisis.jpg[/t]

Fuck, anywhere but the sea.

What chemicals are they?

So we ask them to disarm and when they agree to, suddenly we're just like "Well we don't want to do [I]that[/I]". Jesus we're idiots. If you ask someone to disarm, at least be prepared to help fucking disarm them. [editline]28th November 2013[/editline] It's fucked up that we are all so willing to launch rockets and missiles at them for having chemical weapons, but when they try to get rid of them, we refuse to help.

Why not destroy them in Syria? It's their fucking problem, let them keep it.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43011303]Will this put chemicals in the sea? If so, isn't that fucking shitty?[/QUOTE] [quote]The process planned for on board MV Cape Ray - called hydrolysis - will produce an estimated 7.7m litres of effluent. The OPCW says this will be packed in 4,000 containers. The deadline for proposals as to who might then take this less toxic cargo, which is comparable to many common industrial by-products, is Friday.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43011415]So we ask them to disarm and when they agree to, suddenly we're just like "Well we don't want to do [I]that[/I]". Jesus we're idiots. If you ask someone to disarm, at least be prepared to help fucking disarm them. [editline]28th November 2013[/editline] It's fucked up that we are all so willing to launch rockets and missiles at them for having chemical weapons, but when they try to get rid of them, we refuse to help.[/QUOTE] Maybe they shouldn't have had an illegal secret chemical weapons program in the first place huh, then maybe the world wouldn't have to clean up this fucking horrible mess.

I thought Russia was taking the chemical weapos.

They ruled that out pretty quickly.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43011651]Maybe they shouldn't have had an illegal secret chemical weapons program in the first place huh, then maybe the world wouldn't have to clean up this fucking horrible mess.[/QUOTE] Yeah we should've just shot every missile in the region at 'em. That would've been better than them peacefully surrendering their WMD's.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43011651]Maybe they shouldn't have had an illegal secret chemical weapons program in the first place huh, then maybe the world wouldn't have to clean up this fucking horrible mess.[/QUOTE] lol how is it illegal or secret in any way Syria hasn't signed to any treaties that pprohibits them from owning chemical weapons the only reason they are getting rid of them is because USA said that they will start a war if they dont

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43011303]Will this put chemicals in the sea? If so, isn't that fucking shitty?[/QUOTE] The ocean is incredibly good at diluting any bad things because its so vast. I remember reading somewhere that after Fukushima tuna fish have 1/10th the radiation of a banana.

i could take them theres these old ladies who completely ignore the entry forbidden signs near our patch of forest and keep stealing all the mushrooms i think its about time to teach them a lesson

[QUOTE=Midas22;43011849]The ocean is incredibly good at diluting any bad things because its so vast. I remember reading somewhere that after Fukushima tuna fish have 1/10th the radiation of a banana.[/QUOTE] The water doesn't care, it's got the power of diffusion, but stuff like radiation or certain modern chemicals can't be digested, so it sticks around. It makes its way up the food chain, keeps concentrating, actually becomes lethal, and throws off the eco balance. This is the kind of stuff that only starts becoming a problem once the perpetrator's already out of office or under the earth, but it's gonna stick around for a lot longer. So from a political perspective an easy solution. Nuclear energy isn't a hot debate because a Fukuchernobyl happens every Tuesday. It's because we are notoriously bad at dealing with garbage, we just stuff it under mountain-high carpets and forget about it. As usual we only start worrying once shit hits the fan and pollutes the ground water or similar. Nuclear waste is especially difficult to deal with, and while it can be diluted, it cannot be detoxified, and it'll take thousands of years until it cases affecting all life around it. Not to mention the famous garbage islands and vulnerable low-level organisms like microbes that can't deal with even small amounts of toxic waste but make up a highly important base level of the food chain. Fishery already screws enough with the ecologic balance of the oceans. And since we still don't know a lot about the deep sea, who knows what damage might have been caused there without us ever noticing. We've already destroyed a whole fucking lot by throwing our trash into the oceans. If the water starts turns muddy or people can't eat wild fish anymore it's already way too late.

I love how all the sudden once we solve the Syrian Chemical Weapon Crisis nobody gives a fucking shit anymore. [IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/syria/syria.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43011651]Maybe they shouldn't have had an illegal secret chemical weapons program in the first place huh, then maybe the world wouldn't have to clean up this fucking horrible mess.[/QUOTE] Its not like they're the only ones.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;43012044]It's because we are notoriously bad at dealing with garbage, we just stuff it under mountain-high carpets and forget about it. As usual we only start worrying once shit hits the fan and pollutes the ground water or similar. Nuclear waste is especially difficult to deal with, and while it can be diluted, it cannot be detoxified, and it'll take thousands of years until it cases affecting all life around it. [/QUOTE] What? (I can only talk for the US here). We've done a pretty damn good job with nuclear waste, and the Yucca Mountain storage facility is not just "stuff it under mountain-high carpets and forget about it", It's an ACTUAL containment facility staffed to deal with any incidents. Also, there's no such thing as the famous garbage islands, there are large connections of trash between ocean currents; but no islands.

Everyone demanded their destruction, yet nobody had the balls to dismantle them. Oh god, the hypocracy.

[QUOTE=Turing;43011816]lol how is it illegal or secret in any way Syria hasn't signed to any treaties that pprohibits them from owning chemical weapons the only reason they are getting rid of them is because USA said that they will start a war if they dont[/QUOTE] Syria is signed to the CWC which outlaws the stockpiling of chemical weapons and requires the destruction of the current stock, last I checked Syria wasn't doing anything about their stock until being forced to do so now.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;43013133]Syria is signed to the CWC which outlaws the stockpiling of chemical weapons and requires the destruction of the current stock, last I checked Syria wasn't doing anything about their stock until being forced to do so now.[/QUOTE] Syria also wasn't a signatory to the CWC until being forced to do so now :v: [img]http://puu.sh/5wjR8.png[/img]

[QUOTE=smurfy;43013154]Syria also wasn't a signatory to the CWC until being forced to do so now :v: [img]http://puu.sh/5wjR8.png[/img][/QUOTE] Huh, I swear I saw that they were in way before that, maybe they weren't ratified until now or something. Well then, my bad.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;43012044]The water doesn't care, it's got the power of diffusion, but stuff like radiation or certain modern chemicals can't be digested, so it sticks around. It makes its way up the food chain, keeps concentrating, actually becomes lethal, and throws off the eco balance. This is the kind of stuff that only starts becoming a problem once the perpetrator's already out of office or under the earth, but it's gonna stick around for a lot longer. So from a political perspective an easy solution. Nuclear energy isn't a hot debate because a Fukuchernobyl happens every Tuesday. It's because we are notoriously bad at dealing with garbage, we just stuff it under mountain-high carpets and forget about it. As usual we only start worrying once shit hits the fan and pollutes the ground water or similar. Nuclear waste is especially difficult to deal with, and while it can be diluted, it cannot be detoxified, and it'll take thousands of years until it cases affecting all life around it. Not to mention the famous garbage islands and vulnerable low-level organisms like microbes that can't deal with even small amounts of toxic waste but make up a highly important base level of the food chain. Fishery already screws enough with the ecologic balance of the oceans. And since we still don't know a lot about the deep sea, who knows what damage might have been caused there without us ever noticing. We've already destroyed a whole fucking lot by throwing our trash into the oceans. If the water starts turns muddy or people can't eat wild fish anymore it's already way too late.[/QUOTE] Fantastic. Your point about low-level organisms was excellent. By the time you realise that your [I]1/10 the radiation of a banana[/I] has destroyed an ecosystem that took billions of years to build up and was required for humans to exist at all, it's already far too late to do anything about it. [img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/9248_10151797124773375_68692815_n.jpg[/img]