blistering-mustard-agent(mustard gas), V.X.-nerve-agent, sarin-nerve-agent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chemical weapons, chemical weapons, and more chemical weapons
No, because the mission is ongoing. Vladimir Putin was able to get his allies in Syria to agree with a UN proposal to allow inspections and to turn over chemical weapons. The same plan was also proposed by several diplomats, including John Kerry, but fortunately, Putin was able to move it forward, having previously stopped any efforts to punish Syria. It is still unclear whether Syria will in fact turn over all of their chemical weapons, and President Obama has said the US reserves the right to take future action if they do not.
Absolutely not! Both were pushing for a peaceful resolution to the situation.