Early disposal of chemical weapons has saved billions

Site of the Federal Office for the safe storage and disposal of chemical weapons (chemical disarmament.rf) reports that the early liquidation of the entire chemical arsenal available in Russia resulted in a considerable amount of financial savings. The message states the amount of budget savings:

The chemical disarmament program was completed in September three years earlier, saving 9,6 a billion rubles to the state budget.

Recall that at the Kizner facility in the Republic of Udmurtia, the last ammunition in Russia, which had a filling in the form of a toxic substance, was destroyed. In total, about 40 thousand tons of toxic substances that were part of chemical weapons were destroyed at special enterprises in Udmurtia, the Bryansk region and other regions of Russia.

At the same time, the American "partners" are clearly not going to take the same path that Russia has taken. In the United States every time they say that they do not have adequate funds for the full utilization of chemical weapons. At the same time, the States do not allow poisoning agents and international specialists from regulatory organizations to their disposal facilities, which, by definition, raises questions.

Comments

[Teberii]

Here you have the money for the strategic train.

[Spartanez300]

Well, let the American "partners" sit on these timed land mines, maybe they will explode under their ass.

[Dezinto]

money for a strategic train.

Well, where is that money, already sweaty palms scattered. Saved means cn .... earned.

[Chestnut]

Here the message is this, do not stop, you should abandon nuclear weapons, reduce armaments, generally close the army, and save a lot!
It’s enough to go to church, light a candle for rest health of the country.
And abroad, not only did not abandon chemical weapons, but also further expand the range of tools for killing enemies.
The DNA of the Russians is going to produce DNA of bombs and DNA of radars, even Hitler didn’t get to that !!!

[vladimirZ]

Here the message is this, do not stop, you should abandon nuclear weapons, reduce armaments, generally close the army, and save a lot! - Chestnut

You're right!!! Only near-minded people can rejoice in the "early", ahead of the US in this direction, disarmament of the Russian armed forces "from chemical weapons."
Destroyed another "deterrence weapon." The treacherous 5th column in the leadership of the state acts to the detriment of Russia and its defenses.

[Saburov]

Early disposal of chemical weapons has saved billions

To whom? USA?

It’s easier to write this: Early disposal of chemical weapons saved US billions in the field of reducing the defense capability of the Russian Federation.

PS In war, all means are good.

[aszzz888]

... of course, well done - no words ... and the mericatos will destroy their chemical weapons for another 200 years, if they still do not find use for it ...

[Teberii]

They are doing this, the example of Syria.

[Lexus]

Piglet instead of "javelins" will be sent ... let it stink at our side. And do not care about "concerns" ... Spent TVELs of Westinghouse do not take. So they’ll bring chemistry. How to dump ...

[Mountain shooter]

Well ... Well and goodies ...

[native Russian]

it remains only to throw a bullet into our heads and then ask what others don’t do so we won what kind of fellows killed themselves ...

[aszzz888]

native Russian Today, 12:40 New
all that’s left for us is to shoot a bullet to ourselves and then ask

... I think this does not apply to chemical weapons ... the costs of maintenance and security alone ...

[Nemesis]

The Kremlin’s rather dubious and reckless decision ... NATO does not refuse its chemical weapons and the Russian Federation should not have done so.

[PalBor]

Quote: Nemesis

The Kremlin’s rather dubious and reckless decision ... NATO does not refuse its chemical weapons and the Russian Federation should not have done so.

And for finger it is needed with other numerous and no less effective methods of destruction?
High maintenance costs, the likelihood of a leak, oh well ...

[Chestnut]

Quote: PalBor

And for finger it is needed with other numerous and no less effective methods of destruction

The main task of chemical weapons is to create unsuitable zones for the life of the enemy. These are essentially “walls” that reliably protect against crowds of enemies.
I drove into the zone, sneezed through my ears lungs.

High maintenance costs, the likelihood of a leak, oh well ...

If you are afraid of complex tasks and costs, nothing can be achieved in life.

[Nemesis]

NATO can use chemical weapons against the Russian Federation and this will require a similar answer ... Today the Russian Federation does not have chemical weapons, but use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical attack .... sorry, I don’t see such (heroes) in the Kremlin, which means NATO , again, everything will get away with it ... And at the expense of leaks ... If you do not store chemical weapons in tin barrels, but put them in appropriate containers, made of stainless steel or composite materials, then there will be no problems ...

[kunstkammer]

Early disposal of chemical weapons has saved billions

Zamechatiyiilno! It is necessary to save further ... for example, the utilization of Russian billionaires will save ... the utilization of the naibulin, sinful, red-nana-boys, millennial-curly ... what is your income. I mean - the harvest!

[kunstkammer]

Quote: Nemesis

The Kremlin’s rather dubious and reckless decision ... NATO does not refuse its chemical weapons and the Russian Federation should not have done so.

So this decision was made by NATO representatives in the Kremlin.

[Zomanus]

Obsolete disposed of. In which case we’ll freshen up a fresher substance.
So it is with arsenals. We’ll dispose of everything old through Syria,
in return we put fresher products for ourselves. It should be so.

[Old26]

Quote: Chestnut

Here the message is this, do not stop, you should abandon nuclear weapons, reduce armaments, generally close the army, and save a lot!

No need to invent what is not. No one talks about giving up nuclear weapons.

Quote: Chestnut

And abroad, not only did not abandon chemical weapons, but also further expand the range of tools for killing enemies.

And where exactly?

Quote: Nemesis

The Kremlin’s rather dubious and reckless decision ... NATO does not refuse its chemical weapons and the Russian Federation should not have done so.

I'm afraid to disappoint you. None of France. England has no chemical weapons. Shaving, EMNIP destroyed it year in 2009-2012. The French - even earlier. Which of the remaining NATO members has chemical weapons left? Announce the whole list, if you affirm it

Quote: Chestnut

The main task of chemical weapons is to create unsuitable zones for the life of the enemy. These are essentially “walls” that reliably protect against crowds of enemies.
I drove into the zone, sneezed through my ears lungs.

Army units are just more prepared for operations in the chemical destruction zone. The maximum for which chemical weapons are suitable is the destruction of the population in cities ...

[Chever]

Keep

[bk316]

Why are you right, these are trolls. Not a single competent commentary during its existence at VO.
Either they simply do not find it difficult, or they are illiterate.
They would write the same thing about biological.
I was on duty a couple of times on duty at art warehouses with chemical munitions - horror ...

[acetophenone]

Chemical weapons are good against partisans or the civilian population. Against an army with normally operating chemical arms, nuclear weapons are more effective.