yes they used them to kill some unliked people and ended up murdering 1400 inocent people
There is evidence that suggests Syria has used chemical weapons during its civil war. Multiple reports, including findings from international organizations, have documented the use of chemical agents such as sarin gas and chlorine by the Syrian government and non-state armed groups. These attacks have resulted in civilian deaths and injuries, constituting war crimes.
i think using chemical weapons in war is not the best idea in the world but if that is all we have to use then i guess we will use it. but i also think that creating a way to kill our enemies without our weapons hurting our soldiers sould be made.
Good for whom? The people using them might find them more useful to terrorise their enemies than are conventional weapons. They kill people but cause less physical damage to property than other weapons and are more easily created and less expensive than nuclear weapons. The people being attacked by chemical weapons are often civilians who will experience no good from the use of these weapons, except the possible reactions of those appalled by their use.
The most important applications are the fabrication of chemical and nuclear weapons.
I have not heard of them being used for this. Canaries were however used to detect mine gas in the past.
this is relaxer is use for a apply chemical
Yes, the United Nations sent a team to Syria to get the chemical weapons.
I think he would not because. Syria already handed over their chemical weapons. But Obama no matter what wants to attack.
According to current negotiations, it does not. The reason that some people make the argument that Israel should have to give up weapons is to create a chemical and nuclear weapons free Middle East. This has the slightly sinister motive of making Israel appear more vulnerable. The premise of Israel having to level with Syria is flawed since while Israel does have nuclear weapons, it has never threatened to use them nor has it actually used them. Conversely, Syria has both threatened to use and has used chemical weapons both in war and against civilian populations. Those who misuse such weapons should be punished whereas those who do not need not be bothered.
Dismantling chemical weapons is important because chemical weapons can cause damage to a larger group of people giving them illnesses, birth defects, defects in their body and leads to many deaths as we have seen in some cases like Syria.
The common justification is having weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was accused of having nuclear weapons that proved later to not true. Syria was accused of using chemical weapons against Syrian people although the inspection team have not yet proved whether the chemical weapons used by the government or by the opposition.
Very probable Al-Qaeda don't use chemical weapons.
Because they're cheap, effective and don't destroy roads, houses or equipment.
syria sources say they have stock piles of chemical/biological weapons althought there weapons are old they have lots of it.
Syria has never had any nuclear weapons.
No, chemical weapons disperse quickly within a short distance of the release point. They are unfortunately rather unpredictable often affecting the user as well as the target. If used in Damascus, Syria it is unlikely that there will be any effects outside the city. Excellent question.
blistering-mustard-agent(mustard gas), V.X.-nerve-agent, sarin-nerve-agent.
Th Chemical Weapons Convention was ratified by Morocco at 29.04.1997.