Trump is destroying U.S. chemical weapon stockpiles

ikr just like mix fire with gasoline jeez

>Using chemical warfare weapons is evil villain tier
lol get a load of this fucking normie over here

"using chlorine gas is the most evil thing a person can do"
~napalms u~

The more WMD's you have, the bigger the risk of someone unauthorized accessing them.

Attached: son-saul.jpg (570x391, 45K)

He should be using them on LA.

>implying they aren't being destroyed because their past their shelf life
>implying fresh stuff isn't being made

Yup. They're very expensive to maintain and house. Stupid to waste money on something you can't even use, but I'm sure some private contractor padded a lot of pockets

Because they preserve infrastructure. Bombs do not. I agree it's a pretty evil way to kill a person though.

most of it is probably close to EOL or just simply will reach expiration date anyway.

Nukes destroy property chemical and biological only destroy living things. We could remove entire populations and move into the area in a few weeks

pretty lame rebuttal without any kind of statement backing it up. smug without substance comes across as retarded.

>less efficient

They are actually more efficient if you want to eradicate civilian population.
You can target massive areas with minimal effort.

Afair the US alone has (stil) enough chemical/biological agents stocked to kill the whole world population at least twice.

>use a chemical weapon when it's less efficient at killing
It's MORE efficient ya tard since you don't need to level buildings to kill commies.
Also, it DENIES enemies area of use.
It makes your enemy fight in MOPP4 gear, reducing their effectiveness.

If War is Bad and you want to end it as quickly as possible, use ChemWeps.
You're not a warmonger are you goyim?

Most of the stockpile isn't efficient for that use case. Its old school poison gas that would contaminate everything and need deep decontamination. If you really wanted to do that you could use a modern bioweapon that eliminates people fairly quick but naturally dies off after a month and requires almost no decontamination.

Even so that strategy would be mostly useless except in some specific circumstances. Maybe you could biobomb command and control or missile centres to kill the occupants but preserve the hardware. Those use cases don't need the millions of litres of poison gas in the stockpile.

Conventional weapons at this point is fucking useless look at how the EU was overtaken without even firing a bullet

The new weapon in town is information censoring and promises of gibsmedats

Yes, it's expensive to maintain and store, and easy enough to recreate if needed. Besides, we've been gradually destroying them for the last 20 years anyway. What we should do is invest in dedicated tactical nukes rather than rely on the B-61 in low-yield mode for that role. It's a horrible waste of nuclear material.

Drones are a far more effective tool for both targeted strikes and area denial. There's no reason to waste money storing and guarding caches of chemical weapons we're never going to use.

Underrated

Our government would never use them, they are expensive to store, and if they fell into the wrong hands it could be horrendous. Better to just get rid of them, shore up our nuclear reserve, and rely on deadly viruses to kill only humans

Death is death, chemical weapons aren't used because they're far less efficient to use than conventional weapons and the risk of collateral damage is greater.

>Keeping that shit in large quantities is fucking expensive and fucking dangerous
Aren't they all stored as binary precursors? I thought they were even binary in the weapon and mixed in flight.

>Yes, it's expensive to maintain and store
Why?

Because it requires a ton of security and there are problems such as leaking bombs with chemicals that are often corrosive

PS case in point Bopal disaster -- that was not even actual chemical weapons, just industrial chemicals

So you're saying

1) The US military has security problems with its weapons.
2) They have problems storing the allegedly (but in reality not at all) "corrosive" precursors, when just storing them in glass or plastic like any other chemical would be fine.

Care to explain yourself?

Don't really need stockpiled chemical weapons when you can just make them on demand. In a crisis, chem weapons aren't usually rolled out right away, so it's not as critical to have a supply on hand.

Besides, the stockpiles probably aren't composed of the latest and greatest chemical weapons. It's not the worst idea to periodically get rid of all your old shit to make room for better weapons. Bit wasteful, but building extra facilities is expensive too.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying it's very high risk and the facilities are aging. Have you nit heard about our ultra poor state if nuclear missile silos?

Explain why it's high risk to store (non-corrosive) binary precursors? Are Americans incapable understanding of the technicalities of barrels?

Barrells don't last 50 years you fuckwit

So put the stuff in new barrels. Jeez.

Good riddance, they're potential terrorist targets waiting to happen for an "accident".

You seem to know what you're talking about. How come we don't use temporary cluster mines??

>implying them would even be the targets

Proofs

Attached: 1493404657087.jpg (564x564, 51K)

>Have crack open hundreds of tons of super dangerous chemicals and transfer them to new barrels periodically and wonder why it's potentially dangerous

Why the fuck would we?

but you do.

Attached: M139 Air Volcano Mine System.jpg (1280x721, 67K)

Chemical weapons are shit weapons for back before nukes and drones were invented. Times have changed and that shit is a waste of money and space. Destroy the shit, keep antidotes.

Look what happened when people decided to bring cavalry vs. Panzers. That's what chemical weapons amount to today.

It less efficient actually
All have trouble penetrating structures, even more so if the target is prepared and took steps to insulate its structures.
It denies area to both you and your enemy, and does so for a longer time than explosives, which is not a good thing most of the time. If the area you want is not worth shelling any more then you should move troops in it to take control of it, which is harder when your troops have to wear special gear. If it's not worth moving troops in then why are you shelling it in the first place? and why couldn't it be done with cheaper explosive shells
The point about gear is true, but cuts both ways and also makes your weapons useless once the enemy is wearing it 24/7h, meaning you can't just stockpile chem-weapons and must also keep conventional around.
Which brings up how Chem/Bio weapons are more expensive than explosive ones, which compounds with their higher storage/maintenance cost in a very bad way. Wars are an economic thing first and foremost, the one with the biggest budget has a massive advantage that just can't be beat by tech or motivation except in the most outlandish scenario.
Lastly you probably underestimate how bad it gets once you start letting the boys go hog wild with it, some part of France are still barely fit for agriculture/habitation even now because of shit that was used about a 100 years ago.
>If War is Bad and you want to end it as quickly as possible, use ChemWeps.
War is bad for the public opinion, and you want it to stay as positive as possible lest the elected guy in charge of you tells you to quit doing it. So don't use chemweapons, and don't use nukes either, because both of those make it so you can't line the pockets of the guys in charge, they in turn keep the public opinion up.

naw, he is just clandestinely removing them from inventory for use on the border

silent weapons for quiet wars

>silent weapons for quiet wars
lawl. glad you're having a fun halloween.

Chemical weapons are fucking disgusting and this is coming from someone who thinks every country has the right to be armed to the teeth with hydrogen bombs.

Just punch "silent weapons for quiet wars" in to your favorite search engine :^)

It is if you plan on using chemical weapons as an excuse to bomb countries for Israel.

You can no longer sell them to Saddam.

I don't mind. Got plenty of nukes...

we cant use them or faggots would cry and it cost shekels to keep them around

They are precursor chems.

The reality of the matter is they are probably keeping some Biological Agents, specifically Nerve Gasses, older chemical agents are next to useless against modern CBRN equipment

Yes, that's one factor. Another factor is that war has changed and we're not doing Dresden firebombing style warfare anymore.
Chemical weapons that happen to hit civvies is a PR nightmare.

A modern nerve agent dispersed over a city in the proper quantity and altitude would kill a majority of the population within 1 minute 30 seconds

You just revealed how incredibly stupid you are.

all you have to do to render them inert is just shut down the molecules
NATO countries have had the tech for decades lmao, bongs can confirm

It's highly likely the US and Russia (and others) have ICBM's tipped with Nerve Agents for an airburst dispersal.
Hit a major area with a one-two punch.
Said Nerve agent could be:
An area denial agent (long lasting)
Or a shorter lasting agent designed to be dispersed intact in nuclear conditions.

There was open talk of this during the cold war

It's indelible in the molecule.

While partly true, precursors are still toxic/caustic, and inhaling the vapors is harmful/fatal

All can be curcumvented by growing a set of balls, finding a way around muh-war-crimes and getting people to look the other way or support it.

Because then you can fire bullets
Use the nukes
And dont have to gibs

This is the new superweapon, the key to solving these problems, finding a way to get around that.

Attached: 1540769356243.jpg (460x381, 38K)

This right here. Good move on Trumps part.

They are probably extremely expensive to store due to regulations and the fact that they are pretty dangerous while being relatively easy to make in an emergency.
So yeah, there is no need to keep a big stockpile if you have the industrial base to build more at any moment.

You my friend
Must have never heard about Micro-Nukes
Use two shaped charges made of plutonium. Line up several small cores behind it using the initial explosion as a gun-type accelerator to smash them together.
> Detonation yield unpredictable but somewhere in the range of 50-500 Tons.
Its a fizzle of course. But it uses plutonium which they're desperate to get rid of from the reactor storage stockpiles. And it only needs about maybe 1-2 Kilos of material.

This started back in the 70s.
Another fact about it is when it explodes people believe its a munitions depot or truck bomb of some kind, hard for an average person to tell the difference between 1 Ton and 1 Kiloton. So nobody wheels out the geiger counters, at least not for a significant period of time. If you blew up one of these in peacetime there's very little fallout and you could censor that info being given to reporters too.

Attached: plutonium is going big.png (196x220, 48K)

Yes. We have orbital weapons. we don't need chemical weapons that we can't really use anyway

Not all chems are binary and even the precursor are toxic

Why keep it when any industrial chemical plant could switch production within 1 week if not 24 hours. All of these fall in dual use and many of the weapons are derived from pesticide or are themselves either industrial chemicals or biproducts of industry

what kind of weapon ISN'T made out of chemicals? in fact what fucking THING isn't made from chemicals, apart from plasma?

>Is this a wise thing to do?
stockpiles become old and begin to breakdown. what is being destroyed is out of date and unusable.

>remove stockpiles

>use land to build manufacturing plants on

No. Trump is already literally Hitler in eyes of his opponents so he should just act the part. That achieves nothing.

McDonalds is shit anyway

Does destroyed mean “sent to Mossad for false flag operations”?

Is there a scenario where chemical weapons are the best tool for the job?

Hitler hated chemical weapons, so by destroying them he sorta is.

If you're firing ICBMs you might as well have a nuke on it, it'll be just as bad (possibly even less) from a PR standpoint. Pictures of smoking ruins is not as bad as wriggling screaming children coughing up blood.
It also comes with the added benefit of removing your target facility from the map.
Nothing will area denial like irradiating the ground.
Lastly, gas, mists, or whatever your dispersal method is it'll greatly limit the range of your payload when compared to a nuclear one. Heat just doesn't get blow away by winds to settle on the ground while shockwaves do but that's the whole point.
We're back at the cost problem in a way, ICBMs are expensive and using one to cover a relatively small area with gas is just not worth the cost.
Also sending an ICBM to a country will surely mean that you'll get some launched back at you, meaning you want to take those out, meaning nukes and military targets not gas and civilian ones.

Would it really be possible for an operation like this to happen? Having the specific type of planes needed to deliver the evenly distributed payloads with minimal counter action? I feel like the logisitics is the entire reason nuke and missile science is still the defining symbol of strength.

If the city is small enough, that all the windows are open while most people are outside anyway, assuming multiple planes arranged in an optimized pattern to hit the whole city at once, taking into account everyone is braindead and doesn't react to planes flying in formation dropping gas by going inside and blocking vents, and hoping no one in flight control bats an eye at a fleet of planes heading towards a city with no flight plan.
Then yes that's definitely a possibility, as long as we are lenient on the "majority" part of that post.
Since most of those gas can be kept in liquid form I'd imagine crop-dusters could work.
Logistics is the foundation for any armed force anyway.
You could probably extend that to civilizations as well if you play around with what you consider a civilization.

No

They were already supposed to be destroyed. I am not sure what is taking so long.

fourth post best post

We destroy a certain amount per year per agreement.