Procrastination on Syria
Syrian Foreign Ministry: Chemical and Biological Weapons Are Secured and Would Only Be Used in the Case of External Aggression
Jul 23, 2012
Syrian Arab news agency - SANA - Syria : Syria news ::
Jul 23, 2012
DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Foreign and Expatriates Ministry on Monday stressed Syria's stance that any chemical or biological weapons will never ever be used during the crisis in Syria notwithstanding the developments inside the country.
A statement by the Ministry, read by spokesman Dr. Jihad Makdissi in a press conference, said that such weapons stocks are secured and directly monitored by the Syrian Armed Forces and would only be used in the case of external aggression on the country.
A statement by the Ministry, read by spokesman Dr. Jihad Makdissi in a press conference, said that such weapons stocks are secured and directly monitored by the Syrian Armed Forces and would only be used in the case of external aggression on the country.
So Syrian statement is similar to the one used by powers holding Nuclear weapons then....
No such agreement exists on nuclear weapons and I think it unlikely ever to occur. Besides the nuclear powers, many non-nuclear states appreciate that the large-scale stability of the last 70 years would have been impossible without them.
Chemical weapons are no use as a military strategic deterrent. As demonstrated by Saddam, their primary use is to put down rebellions by uppity locals in such a gruesome way as to deter any future attempts. A well-trained military is certainly hindered by them, but no more.
Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Jul 2012 at 20:13.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A statement by the Ministry, read by spokesman Dr. Jihad Makdissi in a press conference, said that such weapons stocks are secured and directly monitored by the Syrian Armed Forces and would only be used in the case of external aggression on the country.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 23rd Jul 2012 at 20:46.
Which would be fine if 188/196 UN members hadn't signed up to making chemical weapons illegal. Whilst I accept that Syria was not a signatory, it does indicate they're pissing into a global wind if they think that holding a chemical stockpile as a 'deterrent' is defensible. Do you defend it?
No such agreement exists on nuclear weapons and I think it unlikely ever to occur. Besides the nuclear powers, many non-nuclear states appreciate that the large-scale stability of the last 70 years would have been impossible without them.
Chemical weapons are no use as a military strategic deterrent. As demonstrated by Saddam, their primary use is to put down rebellions by uppity locals in such a gruesome way as to deter any future attempts. A well-trained military is certainly hindered by them, but no more.
No such agreement exists on nuclear weapons and I think it unlikely ever to occur. Besides the nuclear powers, many non-nuclear states appreciate that the large-scale stability of the last 70 years would have been impossible without them.
Chemical weapons are no use as a military strategic deterrent. As demonstrated by Saddam, their primary use is to put down rebellions by uppity locals in such a gruesome way as to deter any future attempts. A well-trained military is certainly hindered by them, but no more.
If their sole purpose is a deterrent then it is effective......
Israel with nukes and bio weapons
Saudi's with Pakistan nukes
Taiwan with nukes and bio weapons
All are a threat IF forced into a corner.
Syria stated its position which is no difference to any other state or do you feel that only a few states should have the right to have a deterrent ?
I thought I was pretty clear but here goes...
Only different in that its chosen deterrence method is viewed as 'beyond the pale' by 96% of the governments in the world. That's pretty different in my mind.
'Deterrent' isn't synonymous with 'WMD'. The right of states to have WMD is restricted by the NPT, the CWC and BWC and whether or not you think those are fair treaties is beside the point, because the vast majority of nations (including Ireland!) signed up to all 3 after years of debate and review. The virtually-universal rejection of CW and BW by people of all creeds and cultures is powerful and is undoubtedly the reason why the Syrian government (not normally viewed as 'fluffy') felt the need to issue its statement.
All states are allowed to have a conventional deterrent and one could argue that Syria's formidable GBAD and large regular army has done quite a good job over the last 30 years. You can be assured that the Israelis are not scared of chemical war!
Syria stated its position which is no difference to any other state
or do you feel that only a few states should have the right to have a deterrent ?
All states are allowed to have a conventional deterrent and one could argue that Syria's formidable GBAD and large regular army has done quite a good job over the last 30 years. You can be assured that the Israelis are not scared of chemical war!
Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Jul 2012 at 21:55.
Only different in that its chosen deterrence method is viewed as 'beyond the pale' by 96% of the governments in the world. That's pretty different in my mind.
'Deterrent' isn't synonymous with 'WMD'. The right of states to have WMD is restricted by the NPT, the CWC and BWC and whether or not you think those are fair treaties is beside the point, because the vast majority of nations (including Ireland!) signed up to all 3 after years of debate and review. The virtually-universal rejection of CW and BW by people of all creeds and cultures is powerful and is undoubtedly the reason why the Syrian government (not normally viewed as 'fluffy') felt the need to issue its statement.
All states are allowed to have a conventional deterrent and one could argue that Syria's formidable GBAD and large regular army has done quite a good job over the last 30 years. You can be assured that the Israelis are not scared of chemical war!
All states are allowed to have a conventional deterrent and one could argue that Syria's formidable GBAD and large regular army has done quite a good job over the last 30 years. You can be assured that the Israelis are not scared of chemical war!
The pretence of countries that they wouldn't use them is laughable as in the last 100 years the countries who have used chemical and nuclear weapons are the ones telling everyone else they can't have them.
No doubt some will argue that the horrors of chemical weapons in WW1 persuaded countries not to use them yet Kurds were gassed after that even when effect known because it was politically expedient to do so.
While nukes shouldn't be used post WW2 the nuclear powers saw nothing wrong using service personnel as guineau pigs and would do so again if it could get away with it.
Agent Orange used in Vietnam even when its effects known was use of a chemical weapon.
The use of Phosphorus against civilians pretty much breaches ICRC guidelines but hasn't stopped in being used by any of the major blocs.
Countries attempting to use morality about weapons is laughable especially when countries hold these weapons or even worse destructive one and would use them when threatened by an external force.
Isn't the holding of a deterrent done specifically to prevent extenal threats and safeguard the nation rather than something to threaten others ?
If thats not the case then we in the UK have been lied to for 60 plus years.
Last edited by racedo; 23rd Jul 2012 at 23:27.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC the US has always classed use of chemical or biological weapons in the "weapons of mass destruction" category and threatened to retaliate with a bucket of instant sunshine
GK:
It is interesting to recall that when I was involved with OIF back in 2004, the term used by our Army, our Sec Def, and our Coalition regarding quite a few of the people we were shooting at and dropping bombs on was
Foreign Fighters.
Granted, among the captured were no small number of young men from Libya, Saudi, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia, etcetera, who were there to help in the "cause" against the
Uh
Foreign Troops (us, and by "us" I refer to all of the nations whose troops served with the coalition)
who were in Iraq doing this, that, or the other.
"Foreigners" are apparently fair game.
Hmmm, looks like we are missing a trick on our own southern border, on this side of the pond.
It is interesting to recall that when I was involved with OIF back in 2004, the term used by our Army, our Sec Def, and our Coalition regarding quite a few of the people we were shooting at and dropping bombs on was
Foreign Fighters.
Granted, among the captured were no small number of young men from Libya, Saudi, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia, etcetera, who were there to help in the "cause" against the
Uh
Foreign Troops (us, and by "us" I refer to all of the nations whose troops served with the coalition)
who were in Iraq doing this, that, or the other.
"Foreigners" are apparently fair game.
Hmmm, looks like we are missing a trick on our own southern border, on this side of the pond.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 24th Jul 2012 at 15:11.
IIRC the US has always classed use of chemical or biological weapons in the "weapons of mass destruction" category and threatened to retaliate with a bucket of instant sunshine
The biggest long term loser in this rebellion (and that of all the neighbouring states) will be Israel.
Not only will they simultaneously lose their disingenuous claim to be "the only democratic state in the ME", but they will also lose the support of all the ME dictators from whom undemocratic peace agreements have been bought by US/Israel with payments to their personal Swiss bank accounts.
When true democracy takes hold in ME, Israel will have to either acquiesce and accept their 1967 boundaries, or go nuclear.
Not only will they simultaneously lose their disingenuous claim to be "the only democratic state in the ME", but they will also lose the support of all the ME dictators from whom undemocratic peace agreements have been bought by US/Israel with payments to their personal Swiss bank accounts.
When true democracy takes hold in ME, Israel will have to either acquiesce and accept their 1967 boundaries, or go nuclear.
Trim Stab, I suspect that there will be choices in between your two extremes.
Excluded middle fallacy: look it up.
Excluded middle fallacy: look it up.
Russian Navy Baltic and Northern Fleet elements have now passed through the Strait of Gibraltar and into the Mediterranean. Positional info from the Morse Code weather.
Baltic Fleet Tanker Lena
25th July, 06 GMT
8345 Kilohertz
RMP DE RKO81 25061 99358 70049 22233 @0622Z
35.8N 04.9W Heading South East at 11-15 Knots
Map Link
Baltic Fleet Tanker Lena
25th July, 06 GMT
8345 Kilohertz
RMP DE RKO81 25061 99358 70049 22233 @0622Z
35.8N 04.9W Heading South East at 11-15 Knots
Map Link
No such agreement exists on nuclear weapons and I think it unlikely ever to occur. Besides the nuclear powers, many non-nuclear states appreciate that the large-scale stability of the last 70 years would have been impossible without them.
Actually the NNPT states that nuclear countries were supposed to get rid of their weapons. They ignored that and simply used the treaty to stop anyone else getting weapons.
How many wars have their been in the last 70 years of 'stability'? two nuclear states (UK and US) have been involved in most number of wars.
So you could argue the NNPT has made warfare more likely.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Syria or Iran?
Donley: New Bunker-Busting Bomb Ready To Use
The Air Force’s 30,000-pound behemoth bunker buster is ready to be used if needed, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Wednesday.
The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, is designed to destroy deeply buried bunkers that protect chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, but Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Wall Street Journal earlier this year that the bomb needed more development to be able to take out Iranian bunkers.
Since then, Syria has disintegrated into full civil war, making the U.S. government worried about the Syrian regime’s stockpile of chemical weapons. “The Syrian regime needs to protect these weapons,” Defense Department spokesman George Little said Tuesday. “And I think I’ve been very clear, as have others in the U.S. government, that it would be unacceptable not to secure them.”
After speaking at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington on Wednesday, Donley was asked if the MOP was available to be used. He was not asked where it might be used. “If it needed to go today, we would be ready to do that,” he said. “We continue to do testing on the bomb to refine its capabilities, and that is ongoing. We also have the capability to go with existing configuration today.”
Donley: New Bunker-Busting Bomb Ready To Use
The Air Force’s 30,000-pound behemoth bunker buster is ready to be used if needed, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Wednesday.
The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, is designed to destroy deeply buried bunkers that protect chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, but Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Wall Street Journal earlier this year that the bomb needed more development to be able to take out Iranian bunkers.
Since then, Syria has disintegrated into full civil war, making the U.S. government worried about the Syrian regime’s stockpile of chemical weapons. “The Syrian regime needs to protect these weapons,” Defense Department spokesman George Little said Tuesday. “And I think I’ve been very clear, as have others in the U.S. government, that it would be unacceptable not to secure them.”
After speaking at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington on Wednesday, Donley was asked if the MOP was available to be used. He was not asked where it might be used. “If it needed to go today, we would be ready to do that,” he said. “We continue to do testing on the bomb to refine its capabilities, and that is ongoing. We also have the capability to go with existing configuration today.”
MOSCOW, July 26 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s navy chief said on Thursday that a flotilla of Russian warships off the coast of Syria would not dock at a port leased by Moscow in the violence-stricken Middle East country.
“The joint fleet flotilla will not enter the port of Tartus,” Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov told journalists. “It is carrying out military drills in the Mediterranean.”
The flotilla is comprised of 10 warships, plus escort vessels. Chirkov also said the flotilla was carrying marines.
“The joint fleet flotilla will not enter the port of Tartus,” Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov told journalists. “It is carrying out military drills in the Mediterranean.”
The flotilla is comprised of 10 warships, plus escort vessels. Chirkov also said the flotilla was carrying marines.
Syrian rebels threaten to attack Russian naval base - World - DNA
You start to figure it nay not be going as NATO and Qatarabia want, when France starts demanding outside action ro prevent killing while arming the SFA, Turkey closing the border because Syria gave the Kurds bases and everybody realising that Al Qaeda are getting involved.
Israel happy for Status Quo as better the devil you know,as they found when Libya collapsed and all the missiles headed straight into Gaza.
Israel happy for Status Quo as better the devil you know,as they found when Libya collapsed and all the missiles headed straight into Gaza.