Military Review

Russia does not fit the schedule for the elimination of chemical weapons

42
The Russian authorities are going to postpone the program for the disposal of chemical weapons for 5 years. This program started in Russia at the end of the 90 of the last century. In total, about 5,5 thousand tons of chemical munitions remain in Russia, the last ton of which, according to new plans, will have to undergo a detoxification procedure in the 2020 year. The reason for the breakdown of the deadlines for the completion of the liquidation of chemical weapons, which were defined by the agreement to the “Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons”, is the late opening of the last specialized enterprise for the disposal of toxic substances. However, Russia will not experience serious sanctions or political complications due to the postponement, but the risk to the population and the environment will remain until the last ton of chemical weapons is destroyed.


The ability of poisonous substances to cause the death of animals and people has been known since very ancient times. In the XIX century, poisonous substances began to be used during large-scale military operations. But the real birth of chemical weapons occurred during the First World War. Started in 1914, the world war quickly enough acquired a positional character. This did not suit the generals, forcing them to look for new types of offensive weapons. The German army began to use massive attacks on enemy positions using poisonous and suffocating substances. 22 April 1915 of the year near the Belgian town of Ypres, the Germans conducted a gas attack using chlorine. This attack went into history, as demonstrated the effectiveness of the massive use of toxic gas, which has become a means of warfare.

The duration of the chemical warfare agents is determined by their persistence, that is, the ability for a long time to infect the area and the objects and people on it. Infected terrain and equipment are dangerous both because of the likelihood of contact damage, as well as due to inhalation of chemical warfare vapor. Therefore, there was a need to develop protection not only at the time of application, but also for a long time (hours or even days). In turn, the long-term use of personal protective equipment led to the fact that the physical load on the body increased, and this led to the exhaustion of personnel, a decrease in the degree of their fighting capacity (by 20 – 30%) and a disruption of control of divisions (disorganization).
Russia does not fit the schedule for the elimination of chemical weapons

The total damage from the use of chemical weapons by the enemy includes: direct losses of personnel of units that occur during prolonged contact with contaminated terrain and equipment; drop in the combat capability of parts due to increasing loads; loss of people and funds that are used to eliminate the consequences of the use of chemical weapons. In addition, as a result of the long-term use of chemical weapons, severe genetic and environmental consequences can arise, the elimination of which will require both large amounts of manpower and resources, and a significant amount of time (decade).

Considering all this, in the first half of the 20th century, more and more new chemical agents were actively created in the world. Currently, toxic substances are divided into several types: skin-blistering, nerve-paralytic, asphyxiating, common, psychochemical and irritating. At the same time, some of them relate to weapons of non-lethal impact, such substances are often used by law enforcement services to disperse unauthorized meetings and demonstrations. For example, American police often use tear gas sprays or sedatives such as diazepam. If we talk about chemical warfare agents, the most widespread in the world are: soman, sarin, tabun, VX (nerve-paralytic action), lewisite (skin-blistering action), diphosgene (suffocating), and chloropicrin (irritant).

By the end of the 20th century, a large number of chemical weapons had been accumulated in the world, while the USSR and the USA, which accounted for the bulk of chemical weapons stocks, became the owners of the most diverse and large arsenals. Russia inherited from the USSR about 40 thousand tons of toxic substances (agents) for various purposes and actions. About 32 thousand tons of them accounted for highly toxic organophosphorus toxic substances of neuroparalytic effects: sarin, soman VX. The blistering effects: lewisite - 7000 tons, mustard gas - 700 tons, and mixtures thereof (about 200 tons). At the same time, the manufacture of chemical weapons in the USSR was stopped in the 1987 year.

According to the Ministry of Defense of the country, about 31,5 thousand tons of chemical agents were stored in the USA. At the same time, almost half were represented by toxic substances of the neuroparalytic effect: VX and sarin, and the second with skin-blistering substances: mustard gas. In the US, the manufacture of chemical weapons was stopped in 1992 year. According to US sources, approximately 40% of all weapons were stored as ammunition ready for use (projectiles and mines of various caliber, aerial bombs, NURS, cassettes and tanks), about 60% were stored in special monochromatic containers.

By the end of the 20th century, chemical weapons were no longer viewed as a real deterrent during hostilities, although a number of states are still engaged in development in this direction. All the ammunition accumulated by this time was placed in special storage depots, for the maintenance and inspection of which countries were forced to spend millions of dollars each year. Despite the very strict storage conditions for such substances, the risk of an environmental catastrophe in these areas increased every year.

As a result, the “Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” was opened in 1993 in Geneva for signing. Most states of the world have joined this convention, although by and large this document was conceived only for 2 countries: Russia and the USA, which at that time possessed more than 90% of all world chemical weapons stocks. This convention, which is not subject to non-lethal chemical weapons, entered into force in the 1997 year. After that, 6 countries openly acknowledged the presence of toxic substances in them - Albania, India, Libya, Russia and the United States, as well as a state that refused to be mentioned in official documents (this state was South Korea). The program for the disposal of chemical weapons started in the last years of the 20th century.

According to the international treaty, the countries that signed it were supposed to destroy 1% of their stockpiles of chemical weapons by April 2000, 20% by April 2002, 45% by April 2004, and 100% chemical weapons - by April 2007. However, due to the need to build a number of fairly technically complex facilities for the disposal of chemical munitions, the last term could be postponed to April 2012 of the year. The first right to postpone the term was used in the USA.

However, by April 2012, neither the United States nor Russia had met, in January 2012, the United States reported the destruction of 90% of their chemical weapons, and in November 2012, Russia reported the disposal of 70% of its active agents. At the same time, both states again announced the postponement of work completion dates. Since we are talking about 2-s countries with the largest reserves of chemical weapons in the world, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was established to monitor the destruction of chemical agents, has prepared a new schedule, according to which 100% Chemical agents must be destroyed before the end of 2015. However, this time both countries almost exactly again break.

Washington has not officially requested a rescheduling, but in the 2010 year, the Americans admitted that they could completely get rid of chemical weapons stocks only by the year 2021-2023. Today, in the US, detoxification is waiting for the order of 4 thousand tons of agents. In this case, the US law on the disposal of chemical munitions provides for 2 significant breaks in the process - from 2012 to 2015 years and from 2017 to 2018 years. At this time, the United States hopes to build new plants for the destruction of chemical agents near 2's large warehouses Blue-Grass and Pueblo, which contain 3,2 thousand tons of toxic substances. Russia will most likely have to extend the disposal period. It is assumed that the deadline for work may be shifted to 2020 year. The reason for the breakdown is to delay the commissioning of the last plant for the disposal of chemical munitions "Kizner" in the territory of Udmurtia.

According to the targeted federal program for the destruction of chemical weapons, which was approved in December 2012, the launch of the enterprise in Udmurtia is scheduled for 2015 year. At the same time, according to the plenipotentiary representative of the President of Russia in the Volga Federal District Mikhail Babich, the plant will be able to start work at the end of 2013 of the year (not in full force). However, even in this case, he will not be able to have time to dispose of the thousand tons of chemical agents remaining in the country of 5,5 by the 2015 year. It is assumed that Kizner will be able to dispose of no more than 1,8 thousand tons of chemical weapons per year. In this case, it is necessary to dispose of 5 thousand tons of organic substances.

At the beginning of 2012 of the year, 6 of waste disposal companies operated in the Russian Federation: Gorny (Saratov region), Kambarka (Udmurt Republic), Leonidovka (Penza region), Maradykovo (Kirov region), Pochep (Bryansk region), “Shchuchye” (Kurgan region). At the same time, Gorny and Kombarka completed the processing of chemical agents in 2008 and 2009, and began processing industrial waste.

It is reported that the plant opened in Kizner will be adapted for the destruction of complex ammunition. We are talking about missiles, bombs and artillery shells. In addition to chemical weapons, such munitions also contain explosives. Disposal of this kind of ammunition takes more time, since they must first be disassembled, after which a separate detoxification of toxic substances and destroy the explosive. At the same time, in Russia, the neutralization of soman and sarin is carried out using water and monoethanolamine, VX - potassium isobutylate, lewisite - by the method of alkaline hydrolysis.
Chemical Weapons Destruction Plant in Kambarka

At the same time, complex ammunition in the USA is destroyed without dismantling, for these purposes the installations SDC200, DAVINCH, T-60 are used, which are designed to eliminate artillery shells of caliber up to 155-mm, as well as rockets. In these installations, the munitions are blown up in a special chamber, after which the excreted chemical agents, together with water and oxygen, are fed into the combustion chamber. Already from there the products of combustion are transferred to a filter system with activated carbon and neutralizing chemicals, after which the gas purified from harmful impurities is simply vented to the atmosphere.

According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, at the end of January 2013, 16 thousand tons of various chemical agents, which is 55,5% of all world reserves, were destroyed during the 78 years of the convention on the planet. About 15 thousand tons of chemical munitions that were produced in 1970-80's are still not destroyed, of which about 10 thousand tons are from Russia and the United States.

Information sources:
-http: //lenta.ru/articles/2013/04/08/chemicals
-http: //fptl.ru/Chem%20block_Him%20orujie.html
-http: //www.rhbz.info/rhbz3.1.1.html
-http: //www.rau.su/observer/N11_2003/11_06.htm
Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Enjoy
    Enjoy April 11 2013 09: 14
    +2
    Someone will necessarily react negatively to the destruction of chemical weapons, but for me, this is a means for terrorists. In open fields, front to front is no longer fighting in our time, more in settlements - this time. In normal armies, with protective equipment and training, everything is in order, but among civilians - on the contrary - they are two.

    Those. if there is a major conflict with the use of chemical weapons, civilians will suffer the most from it, and the party using it will probably not fulfill any military tasks.
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 11 2013 10: 32
      +1
      You know, with such an approach as yours, it is possible to utilize strategic nuclear forces. After all, the population of a potential adversary can suffer the same from him. fool
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 11 2013 11: 58
      +4
      Quote: Enjoy
      Someone will necessarily react negatively to the destruction of chemical weapons, but for me, so


      Naturally react. Such a thing is convenient - just spray one VX tank over Washington and solve the problems of the world for the next 100 years ...

      Quote: Enjoy
      Those. if there is a major conflict with the use of chemical weapons, civilians will suffer the most from it, and the party using it will probably not fulfill any military tasks.


      It has long been known from the bombing of Dresden that it is easiest to destroy an army by depriving the country of weapons production. Accordingly, poisoning workers is the easiest way, and most importantly, material values ​​will not be affected.

      And you thought for whom 31 thousand tons of OM were produced?
    3. StolzSS
      StolzSS April 11 2013 14: 32
      0
      Yes, not the most, but it will suffer. YES in the current realities, this is a weapon for terror of the population and nothing more. Natives like smoking rats from cities, but it is not even economically profitable so it is better to destroy this rubbish while there is money and the will of the rulers.
    4. opkozak
      opkozak April 11 2013 16: 27
      +1
      Quote: Enjoy
      Those. if there is a major conflict with the use of chemical weapons, civilians will suffer the most from it, and the party using it will probably not fulfill any military tasks.

      Recalled the 90s when Iraq captured Kuwait. Saudi Arabia bought 5 million from Ukraine. gas masks.
    5. Georgs
      Georgs 22 May 2013 16: 12
      0
      Enjoy wrote:
      Someone will necessarily react negatively to the destruction of chemical weapons, but for me, this is a means for terrorists. In open fields, front to front is no longer fighting in our time, more in settlements - this time. In normal armies, with protective equipment and training, everything is in order, but among civilians - on the contrary - they are two.

      Those. if there is a major conflict with the use of chemical weapons, civilians will suffer the most from it, and the party using it will probably not fulfill any military tasks.

      You just don't know how convenient WMD / WMD is. And it does not last long (modern, of course, not some kind of "Orange") and mows a lot of living things at once. But what happened, how to fight off the Chinese? And so I shook off 250 kg to Beijing - and silence (the current dead with braids along the roads :)). A joke of humor. In any case, the combat salvo standard of the destroyed enemy manpower at the CW is simply enormous. So, while we are dragging on with the final destruction of the last stocks, you can sleep relatively peacefully.
  2. Delink
    Delink April 11 2013 09: 54
    +5
    There was already a similar article.
    Let them not be in time, And in general they will stop the elimination of chemical weapons. It will still be useful to us.
    Let everything be stored in warehouses.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 11 2013 12: 04
      0
      In fact, this crappy thing is to poison people with chemistry. Purely my opinion is that destroying chemical weapons is worth only to make a new one, but certainly not on the same scale as it was. To make military warfare agents for war, such airborne weapons so that they are very toxic, fluid, but not very resistant, so that they naturally decay completely in a couple of days. For example, instead of chasing the Taliban from the caves, letting gas go there ... or to the Syrian terrorists in underground tunnels ... or to the terrorist training camp in Qatar - there’s only one bomb and there is no camp.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri April 11 2013 18: 13
        0
        I completely agree with you that this type of weapon suits perfectly well for smoking out "unwanted" elements from those cracks where they are sometimes hammered. However, for the conduct of large-scale hostilities, the use of gas is not advisable, not effective, and most importantly not economical. The first two points relate to the aspect that almost all armies today are equipped with individual chemical means. protection, in addition, gas, as shown by the practice of the First World War, turned out to be a rather zealous weapon: when using it, it is necessary to take into account not only the current wind direction, but also the entire wind rose of the region, otherwise there was a high probability, together with the enemy's positions, to cover our own, which at times happened. The second aspect concerns the fact that the approximate calculations carried out by the Entente countries showed that to achieve a more or less desirable effect, it takes about 50-60 gas shells, while the use of conventional ammunition, the effectiveness of which was much higher, was equal to only 30-40 shells. The economy must be economical! It is this that most likely explains the fact that gas weapons were no longer used on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War, although there was in the arsenal of the opposing sides.
        Conclusion: gas weapons as a class are necessary, but not on a scale that allows their widespread use.
        1. Georgs
          Georgs 22 May 2013 16: 31
          0
          My soul, what do you remember WW1? Well, you would still remember pre-Petrine Russia! Then poisoned with what? All sorts of industrial intermediates, which are now millions of tons in chemical. industries are produced. Modern BOV is a creepy, very effective and highly cost-effective weapon. This is not mustard for you with phosgene chlorine. In vain, is it, by mutual agreement that we and the amers are so briskly plaguing? By dirtyness and effectiveness, it can only be compared with biol. offensive systems. But then you can never recover from those then, and the chemistry will gradually decompose. Not very fast, of course, but in a very real time.
      2. Georgs
        Georgs 22 May 2013 16: 21
        0
        Quote: Geisenberg
        In fact, this crappy thing is to poison people with chemistry.

        So, people a crappy thing is not only poison chemistry. Shoot, explode, infect, burn (napalm and nuclear weapons), harass residual radiation - including Prepared lesson. But at the moment, any WMD / WMD (for us, anyway) is a weapon of last chance. When there will already be nowhere to go. Either they are us, or we are them, but most likely we are each other.
    2. Zynaps
      Zynaps April 11 2013 18: 53
      +2
      But is it that chemical weapons, like explosives and other substances, have certain storage periods? well i.e. experts insist (on which grass, by the way?) that the Russian Federation should not rush into the disposal of chemical weapons produced at least 26 years ago and even older? especially in light of the fact that for more than 20 years the country has not had powerful investments in fixed assets and because of this, man-made disasters occur regularly enough. Do you want to get a chemical ulcer on the body of Russia? local such chemical Chernobyl? So there is an even more marvelous way to get it (by the way, unlike chemical weapons, the problem is completely hushed up) - there are thousands of warehouses with expired pesticides for agriculture. Do they not need to be disposed of either? and cho - come in handy as the adversary comes.

      experts, la ...
  3. smel
    smel April 11 2013 09: 56
    +4
    And for me it’s so important that it doesn’t work out as always - we will do our job, but there are no Americans. So again, we will begin to invent and build a bicycle at the expense of taxpayers, ripping off the elderly and the unrequited electorate
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 11 2013 12: 06
      0
      And that’s all. I repeat, to destroy chemical weapons is only to get rid of junk.
  4. Sirocco
    Sirocco April 11 2013 10: 30
    +3
    If we do not fit, then we can ask for help from "partners" from the EU and the United States. We will cover the transportation costs.))) We will send these products on our own laughing
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 11 2013 12: 09
      +2
      Stop. Still pay for transport ?! In no case ! Pickup! laughing am
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco April 11 2013 14: 18
        +1
        I will not agree with you. Better, for sure. For this, you can arrange delivery yourself. Here, after all, it’s like that we’ll deliver what you can send on your own lol
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg April 11 2013 15: 42
          +3
          - Vasily Ivanovich! How much is an atomic bomb ?!
          - A lot of Petya, 100 million ...
          - Well this is what wealth flies to us in the garden !!!!!!

          Something like this laughing
  5. knn54
    knn54 April 11 2013 13: 09
    +3
    And why do the Yankees need chemical weapons if there is GMO. Ba! Familiar all faces ...
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 11 2013 14: 20
      +2
      Quote: knn54
      if there is a GMO.

      There is not only GMOs, but LGBT people there. And this is worse than chemical weapons laughing
    2. Zynaps
      Zynaps April 11 2013 18: 02
      +1
      around GMOs hysteria is organized by manufacturing companies of the so-called natural products and agricultural chemistry. over the past 20 years, humanity and agricultural cattle have been devoured under 2 billion tons of genetically modified soybeans and even more corn. a sea of ​​alcohol has been driven out of GMO corn (what does Malakhov say there + - does alcohol from GMO help to turn brains into a tube?). the world has long been taken to mass cultivation
      120 GMO crops from 32 manufacturers. and this is just the tip of the iceberg, patamushta
      the very pulp of GMOs - 85% are animals and microorganisms, which no one is against. and they don’t act precisely because GMO animals and microorganisms do not take bread from agricultural chemistry producers. To oppose GMOs today is as if to prove the advantages of horse-drawn transport over an internal combustion engine.

      By the way, the good old selection is the same production of GMOs, only very long in time. because a useful sign of the body must first be noticed
      then select, strengthen, multiply. you see, in 15-20 years and a new variety is ready. well, with the old methods it will be possible to eat kui in a very short time. the choice is small. in addition, citizens have become dull and brainwashed over the past 20 years by mass disinformation media. they don't remember the biology textbook for grade 10 high school, especially the article "Metabolism". why and why consuming GMOs and transgenic products (by the way, citizens absolutely do not understand the difference between these two concepts), people do not grow tentacles, scales and horny outgrowths.

      The main problem of GMOs is that the crop cannot be put on seeds. There is a binding to the manufacturer. and very bad if it is a foreign seed producer.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco April 12 2013 04: 12
        0
        It seems to me that everything is drumming on our stomach, GMOs or not. With this approach to genomes, you should abandon all foods, and do cannibalism, laughing You are right, all this is "Fix" tricks laughing
  6. Algor73
    Algor73 April 11 2013 13: 39
    +2
    Chemical weapons must be destroyed first of all - ammunition is not eternal, a leak will begin, etc. such weapons pose a danger not only to the enemy, but also to those who own it. Enough nuclear weapons to deter. And OM for local wars, and with the current tactics of their conduct, the use of such substances is inappropriate, and storage is a costly affair.
  7. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich April 11 2013 13: 45
    0
    An interesting situation. After the destruction of chemical weapons, a large number of reactive masses remain, which have good toxicity. Now they are stored in a special way. And what to do with them is unknown! It turns out that they coped with one time bomb, acquired another ...
    And yet, the amount of chemical. weapons in the world exceeds all reasonable limits.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 11 2013 15: 44
      +1
      Nothing especially remains there. The article clearly states this. One type of waste is phosphate fertilizer for agriculture.
    2. maksuta
      maksuta April 11 2013 23: 15
      0
      Now they are stored in a special way ------------ The whole special way is poured with concrete ... Armenians.
    3. Georgs
      Georgs 22 May 2013 16: 39
      0
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      An interesting situation. After the destruction of chemical weapons, a large number of reactive masses remain, which have good toxicity. Now they are stored in a special way. And what to do with them is unknown! It turns out that they coped with one time bomb, acquired another ...
      And yet, the amount of chemical. weapons in the world exceeds all reasonable limits.

      And, honey! You would know how many non-military, but simply toxic waste was left everywhere from the Ministry of Chemical Industry and all kinds of engineering ministries. Just wonder what it is like in the vicinity of Dzerzhinsk, in the Volga steppes here and there. And in a pile of similar places. So, all this resin from the disposal of organic matter is no longer so significant.
  8. Gorchakov
    Gorchakov April 11 2013 16: 05
    0
    Let it be ... It has not interfered with anyone for so many years, it will not hinder now ... And do not care about all these agreements with the Evil Empire ....
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps April 11 2013 18: 57
      0
      correctly! let it rust, give leaks, accidents and technological disasters! s against! But there are also thousands of warehouses with expired agricultural pesticides. even from the houses of individual experts you can not pump out the shit and do not take out the garbage - they will also come in handy as binary weapons - chemical and bacteriological. also write to the asset against the evil empire.
  9. pinecone
    pinecone April 11 2013 16: 35
    0
    If destroyed, then simultaneously develop and produce new, more efficient, as the Americans do.
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps April 11 2013 19: 01
      +1
      teens note. So far, nothing has been invented more efficiently than VX from OB. but this same VX, even by itself during storage, is a deadly threat. OV - very dangerous shit. especially in light of the general lack of care, cuts and poor financing of infrastructure investments. accident for SShHPP is not enough for someone? I want more with a chemical odor?
  10. Kir
    Kir April 11 2013 18: 20
    0
    Only for the sake of everything, neither of which and not when it is necessary to destroy, subject to deep processing yes! with simultaneous replacement with a new one, and the way that the Yankees practice, what to say is a very convenient way of hiding the real volumes of what is being disposed of, and besides, we have extra resources to do what can be done from "recyclable" from fresh , and besides (though I already wrote) the same mustard gas, an intermediate product of synthesis in paint and varnish.
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps April 11 2013 19: 10
      0
      nonsense. Americans just correctly assess risks and systematically, without any substitution, get rid of chemical weapons. get rid. without any secret production in paintwork. because enough nuclear weapons. chemical weapons - not a battlefield weapon. this is a WMD. the use of chemical weapons in necessarily lead to an answer with anything. for example, nuclear weapons. and since chemical weapons are very troublesome to manufacture, store and dispose of, it is pointless to have them in service for a nuclear power. chemical weapons have long been recognized as such a palliative for small satrapies who are not able to create nuclear weapons. big powers abandoned chemical weapons. and done right. more it is an eructation of the First World War. even WWII abandoned its mass use. Well, and a nahoyker to produce clearly unnecessary and hemorrhoids materiel? development is carried out mainly by non-lethal and police chemical weapons, camouflage smoke and aerosols - that's what is on the agenda.
      1. Kir
        Kir April 11 2013 19: 47
        0
        That is, you are 100% sure that they’ll be disposed of systematically ?, that they’ll get rid of the phrase, then there’s no doubt about it, because how to fix it to the left and even with an increase, then the definition gets rid of, by the way, if I need to clarify, the same Germans even quite adapted the BOW for processing ornamental plants from pests, and with regards to nuclear weapons, let’s say in recycling too! Yes, and storage. so that ......
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps April 11 2013 23: 32
          0
          Quote: Kir
          That is, you are 100% sure with a% tail that they are systematically disposed of?


          the state of the American chemical weapons repository - the Edgewood arsenal has been controlled since the times of the USSR. it would be different - there would already be a stink at the UN level. to contain an arsenal of poisonous shit for a nuclear power is unnecessary. it has long been understood. chemical weapons - non-conventional. in response, one will be hit by a nuclear club. so why fence the garden? about 100% guarantees - so I do not do conspiracy theories. chemical weapons arsenals are not a needle and can be easily monitored with resp. the contract.


          Quote: Kir
          Yes, and with regards to nuclear weapons, then let’s say in recycling! Yes, and storage. so that ......


          confuse warm with soft. NW is by far the most powerful weapon that mankind has. it is able to cool the ardor of anyone. owner of an arsenal of chemical weapons in particular. therefore, the costs of its storage and processing are acceptable. but the danger of possessing chemical weapons does not pay back the costs. therefore, it is liquidated by those who have nuclear weapons. called the principle of reasonable sufficiency. it should not be denied to the Americans.
          1. Kir
            Kir April 12 2013 02: 36
            0
            It is blindly seen how mutual disarmament was controlled, and with regards to the stench, this is mainly the prerogative of the sha and his lackeys. and besides, when it bothered them a lot, it’s also unforgettable that the amers will never go to obviously disadvantageous for them, so there are several options here, one of which developed more advanced BOVs, the other one simply and never there were so many, and the most likely for a snack. Arsenals of BWA are located somewhere outside their territory in, say, custody, so by the way, with regards to the second and third options, I have suspicions that for some of them the same is the case with nuclear weapons.
            In general, with regards to the UN and other World Institutes, as long as this organization is on the land of world aggressors and provocateurs, there will never be any good.
  11. Dusk
    Dusk April 11 2013 19: 03
    0
    America does not fit into the breakdown of individual states.
    It’s a pity that not such a headline ...
  12. Rainger
    Rainger April 11 2013 19: 11
    0
    Correctly destroying this ineffective rubbish in FIG from it only problems:
    1. Ammunition in chemical equipment and storage tanks for explosives are not eternal and have their own property deteriorates.
    2. Chem. weapons are ineffective in principle, the percentage of losses in the WWII from the OM was 0.4% of the total number of war victims.
    3. The use of organic matter depends on the horizontal and vertical movements of the air masses to predict the behavior of which is not yet possible in principle.
    4. Quote: "In turn, the long-term use of personal protective equipment led to the fact that the physical load on the body increased, and this led to the exhaustion of personnel, a decrease in the degree of its combat effectiveness (by 20-30%) and a violation of the accuracy of command and control of units (disorganization ). " (This applies to both the enemy and their units).
    5. Organizationally, the accumulation of a sufficient amount of OM in the troops for an effective attack in view of the special conditions for the storage of OM is a danger to their own troops.
  13. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf April 11 2013 20: 49
    0
    No need to rush, suddenly these things in the household will come in handy. You never know what is needed in business, especially in the military.
    1. Rainger
      Rainger April 11 2013 20: 59
      0
      Kamrad, if you are not aware, then the OM is unsafe during storage and is not effective in battle ...
  14. shinobi
    shinobi April 12 2013 06: 22
    0
    Well, I think a small amount of which the thread is extremely poisonous and modern will be left in reserve. So, just in case. That was. In the form of binary ammunition. There, if the components are not mixed and spaced, they are absolutely safe to store.
    1. Georgs
      Georgs 22 May 2013 16: 46
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      Well, I think a small amount of which the thread is extremely poisonous and modern will be left in reserve. So, just in case. That was. In the form of binary ammunition. There, if the components are not mixed and spaced, they are absolutely safe to store.

      So, technologies remained. Specialists too. In the pilot installation, as soon as possible to weld the required quantity for a counterattack is not a particularly difficult problem. Moreover, modern poisons are so edible that millions of tons are not needed. And with binary ammunition, it's generally simple: keep non-toxic components ready and the whole problem. It remains only to fill in different ammunition compartments.