Russia to destroy all of its chemical weapons by end of 2017 - Polidicks

[QUOTE]A top Russian official says Russia will destroy all of its chemical weapons by the end of next year, a year earlier than previously announced. Col.-Gen. Valery Kapashin, a military official in charge of storage and elimination of Russia’s chemical stockpiles, told news agencies on Thursday that the remaining weapons will have been disposed of by December 2017. As a signatory of the international Chemical Weapons Convention, Russia already has destroyed about 93 percent of its chemical weapons, according to Russian officials. Russia had to build several plants in the past two decades to dispose of the world’s largest chemical weapons arsenal[/QUOTE] [URL]http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/835071/russia-to-destroy-all-of-its-chemical-weapons-by-end-of-2017[/URL]

Thats...surprising. I feel just a slight bit of doubt in their sincerity on this but that is the western bias in me.

[quote]Russia already has destroyed about 93 percent of its chemical weapons, according to Russian officials[/quote] Any international body to back this up?

I honestly doubt they will destroy everything.If i was in charge i would just destroy some medium and small caches for PR and keep the rest.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;51269485]Holy shit. I feel like this should be getting more attention.[/QUOTE] there's a real possibility this may be PR fluff, so people are likely taking it with a grain of salt

Well yeah, why use chemical when you can go nuclear.

I'll believe it when there's genuine proof and not just 'feel good that we say we're doing good' bullshit.

Well that's really nice actually

Russia: we lied anyway, have fun believing our propaganda!

Kinda weird after they just showed off a new nuclear missile literally named Satan 2.

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;51269561]Kinda weird after they just showed off a new nuclear missile literally named Satan 2.[/QUOTE] The name Satan 2 was not made by russia, I believe the un called it that. It's called the rs-28 samart.

Excellent. The United States is also in the process of destroying our chemical weapon stockpiles - we've gotten rid of 90% but that last 10% is expected to take until 2023 for some reason. Libya is also in the process of destroying their old chemical weapon stockpiles. Syria has supposedly completed their stockpile destruction, but they haven't been certified as doing so, and there is some evidence that they've been using them. Other than that, only two countries have chemical weapon stockpiles: North Korea and Israel. Both have not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans their production and mandates their destruction, and both are unconfirmed but strongly suspected to have chemical weapon stockpiles. Chemical weapons serve no purpose in modern warfare. Soldiers are too easily protected against it, so it is only really useful at murdering civilians. Anything you could do with chemical weapons can be better done with other weapons. Even air-dropped landmines would be preferable - particularly given the modern laws requiring them to self-destruct. War is hell, but we can at least try to keep out of the deeper circles. As for the deterrence factor... we still have nukes. I don't know what Russian or Chinese or British policy is, but American policy is that weapons of mass destruction are equivalent. Shell us with chlorine? We can respond with uranium. Probably won't (I believe it's more focused on bioweapons), but simply having that as policy is deterrence enough.

Rather unexpected considering their other recent moves, but good on them. Chemical weapons are nasty stuff.

[QUOTE=JimmyBowen;51269578]The name Satan 2 was not made by russia, I believe the un called it that.[/QUOTE] NATO, not UN. During the Cold War, we didn't know the Soviet designations for equipment, and our soldiers wouldn't remember Russian-language names anyways, so we invented our own. The first letter indicates the general type of thing it is - S is for surface-to-surface missiles, so we had Stiletto, Scorpion, and the well-known Scud. "Satan" was one of those reporting names used. Russia refers to it as the "RS-28 Sarmat".

This is a good thing, and makes sense from both a tactical and PR standpoint. Think about it. They've got smart weapons, nukes, and other high-powered artillery sitting around, and chemical weapons are much more risky while in storage (if they leak, workers might get killed outright), aren't precise (tactical nukes can be low-enough yields to hit specific targets, and guided missiles even more so, but chem weapons are total war munitions), and are not good for PR.

Wow, I'm actually not skeptical about something our MoD has said for once! [sp]I'm convinced it's a lie[/sp]

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;51269561]Kinda weird after they just showed off a new nuclear missile literally named Satan 2.[/QUOTE] Well they need to make room for all them new rockets.

I have no doubts that both the U.S. and Russia still have a sizeable amount of chemical weapons and some other outlawed crap, just cause.

I'll wait to see the proof myself.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51269361]Any international body to back this up?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sgt.Kickass;51269479]I honestly doubt they will destroy everything.If i was in charge i would just destroy some medium and small caches for PR and keep the rest.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GayIlluminati;51269548]there's a real possibility this may be PR fluff, so people are likely taking it with a grain of salt[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RikohZX;51269556]I'll believe it when there's genuine proof and not just 'feel good that we say we're doing good' bullshit.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons[/url]

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;51269561]Kinda weird after they just showed off a new nuclear missile literally named Satan 2.[/QUOTE] Satan 2 is a NATO Reporting Name. All surface to surface missiles have a nato reporting name beginning with S. The russian name for it is "Sarmat." Since it is very similar in design to the previous model, with similar throw weight capabilities, it makes sense to re-use the previous designation. If russia really is destroying their chemical weapons stockpiles, then they are probably going to exclusively invest in nuclear weapons in the future. Chemical weapons are the least effective of the WMD trio because they inflict the least amount of casualties compared to other payloads of similar size (a warhead carrying gas inflicting 1000 casualties vs the 10,000 a small nuke could inflict and the +50,000 a bioweapon could inflict), and they are the most susceptible to environmental effects.

how are they going to resolve hostage crisises now???? [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1539130"]oh right[/URL]

so basically its Russia to destroy all of its chemical weapons ( That we know of ) by end of 2017

[QUOTE=ThurnisHaley;51270267]I have no doubts that both the U.S. and Russia still have a sizeable amount of chemical weapons and some other outlawed crap, just cause.[/QUOTE] Since the eradication of smallpox the last two cultures in the world are in US and Russian govt labs. It wouldnt suprise anyone if they still had samples of chemical weapons hidden away.

Chemical weapons are a shadow compared to bio-weapons.. so there isn't much in the way of confirming that since most countries seldom announce their possession or research into such efficient killing contraptions.

[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;51269552]Well yeah, why use chemical when you can go nuclear.[/QUOTE] few reasons. some nerve agents, for instance, can be dropped into a valley and just let to sit there (some are heavier than air). pretty much instantly kill anyone who walks into said valley. silently. [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Bradyns;51271116]Chemical weapons are a shadow compared to bio-weapons.. so there isn't much in the way of confirming that since most countries seldom announce their possession or research into such efficient killing contraptions.[/QUOTE] chemical are more dangerous mainly because they're more likely to be used. bioweapons have a nasty habit of breaking containment and as such are insanely risky to develop, whereas chemical (by comparison) are easy to develop and deploy, and you can easily control where it deploys a biochemical weapon can potentially spread from your target to you.

Chemical weapons are pretty easy for any first world nation to defend against, it isn't really that big of an issue, but a nice gesture anyways.

[QUOTE=cxcxxxxx;51271107]Since the eradication of smallpox the last two cultures in the world are in US and Russian govt labs. It wouldnt suprise anyone if they still had samples of chemical weapons hidden away.[/QUOTE] Samples of chemical weapons may be legally retained for medical research (ie. finding treatments for it or using it as a cure for disease), or for defense testing (ie. making sure gas masks actually protect against it). For chemicals which have "few to no uses except as weapons or weapon precursors", any amount over 100 grams must be declared, and no amount over 1000kg is permitted. Chemicals which have legitimate large-scale non-weapon uses are still subject to regulation and inspection - eg. phosgene is used in the production of polyurethane plastics. So yes. Russia absolutely will retain some chemicals which could be used as weapons. And we will know exactly what it is, where it is and what they're doing with it, just as they know about ours.

[QUOTE=tehMuffinMan;51270856]how are they going to resolve hostage crisises now???? [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1539130"]oh right[/URL][/QUOTE] [video=youtube;7Y_eUbRdodA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y_eUbRdodA&ab_channel=staritskii[/video]