US destroys remaining chemical weapons stockpile

[ManualF150]

US destroys remaining chemical weapons stockpile

America's last remaining weapons containing the GB nerve agent and mustard gas were destroyed last month. It comes 26 years after the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was implemented.

www.dw.com

"The end of destruction of all declared chemical weapons stockpiles is an important milestone."

By destroying the munitions, the US sends a message that chemical weapons are no longer acceptable in the battlefield.

But yet, North Korea, Israel, Egypt and South Sudan are some of the countries which have not signed on to the agreement.

So chemical weapons are no longer acceptable, but nukes are? Aren't nukes technically chemical weapons because of the chemical processes that make them go bang?

It's like playing verbal judo saying you can't have firearms, but you can have guns. Aren't guns technically firearms?

 

[spat]

US destroys remaining chemical weapons stockpile

America's last remaining weapons containing the GB nerve agent and mustard gas were destroyed last month. It comes 26 years after the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was implemented.

www.dw.com

"The end of destruction of all declared chemical weapons stockpiles is an important milestone."

By destroying the munitions, the US sends a message that chemical weapons are no longer acceptable in the battlefield.

But yet, North Korea, Israel, Egypt and South Sudan are some of the countries which have not signed on to the agreement.

So chemical weapons are no longer acceptable, but nukes are? Aren't nukes technically chemical weapons because of the chemical processes that make them go bang?

It's like playing verbal judo saying you can't have firearms, but you can have guns. Aren't guns technically firearms?

Nukes are not chemical weapons.

They are even less "chemical weapons" than normal explosives weapons.


Chemical weapons rely on the action of the chemical directly on the targets.

Explosives rely on a chemical reaction to produce
a mechanical effect on their targets.

Nuclear weapons have no significant chemical effect at all (the built in chemical reactions in the triggering explosives is insignificant).

Nuclear weapons generally rely on a nuclear (not chemical) reaction to produce mechanical effects on their targets in the same way conventional explosives do with chemical reactions.

There are some rare nuclear weapons that are intended to produce radiological effects in their targets (i.e. neutron or salted bombs), but I'm not sure if anyone even has any in their inventory.

 

[Acer-m14]

But yet, North Korea, Israel, Egypt and South Sudan are some of the countries which have not signed on to the agreement.

sound the same for Climate Change ... Global Warming .. what ever the F u want to call it ..

China orders shit tons of coal ..

China orders coalmines to raise production to address power crunch

Record high prices and shortages of electricity have crippled industrial output

www.theguardian.com

USA coal mines shut down .. Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s “coal gaffe” is a microcosm of her twisted treatment by the media

She navigated a hall of mirrors.

www.vox.com

 

[stokes]

They need to make room for all the new bio weapons they have been making in wuhan.

 

[Paxal]

US destroys remaining chemical weapons stockpile

America's last remaining weapons containing the GB nerve agent and mustard gas were destroyed last month. It comes 26 years after the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was implemented.

www.dw.com

"The end of destruction of all declared chemical weapons stockpiles is an important milestone."

By destroying the munitions, the US sends a message that chemical weapons are no longer acceptable in the battlefield.

But yet, North Korea, Israel, Egypt and South Sudan are some of the countries which have not signed on to the agreement.

So chemical weapons are no longer acceptable, but nukes are? Aren't nukes technically chemical weapons because of the chemical processes that make them go bang?

It's like playing verbal judo saying you can't have firearms, but you can have guns. Aren't guns technically firearms?

“all declared”. Just PR I’m sure.

 

[Cooolone]

Agree... Nukes are "Physics" not "Chemical" as most explosives are...

But considering the amount of $ we spend on munitions, we wouldn't really need chemical weapons to accomplish goals. Chemical weapons are used by inferior forces wanting to release an arbitrary agent upon unsuspecting targets but also relinquish control as well over that agent.

Interesting article I seen lately is how mineral wealth and morning is going to cause issues for our stockpile of weapons as Cobalt and some others being used for EV everything, mostly mined in China and Russia are being controlled and possibly limited exports by those countries soon. The U.S. better wake up! Unfortunately, this empty brain moron in the WH is going to set us back worse than Carter did... Is crazy!

 

[stokes]

Interesting article I seen lately is how mineral wealth and morning is going to cause issues for our stockpile of weapons as Cobalt and some others being used for EV everything, mostly mined in China and Russia are being controlled and possibly limited exports by those countries soon.

Exactly why China snuck into Afghanistan after we made a fumbling exit. If I'm not mistaken, Afghan has one of the biggest lithium deposits in the world, if not the biggest.

 

[Robin]

That took a lot of nerve.
Robin

 

[FrankenCub]

Not to worry, they have enough chemical weapons stashed away to use on Patriots in the future.

 

[Acer-m14]

still waiting on the .gov video of the destruction of so called chem weapons ..

 

[GOYABEAN]

They might as well hand them the key's live stock and barrel I pity the next generation going to be in a world of hurt and incarceration as slaves

 

[prambo]

 

[Saltwater60]

China is happy to hear this.