With Syrian Regime Collapsing, Chemical Weapons Are Up for Grabs
Not good
The Bashir Assad regime in Syria is loading of some of its weapons with deadly nerve agents, and mixing together the chemical precursors needed to carry out a sarin-laced attack. But that may not be the biggest chemical threat Syria faces. There's also an increasing chance that a terror group might get its hands on some of the planet's most gruesome chemical arms.
Assad's chemical corps have spent years buying up and experimenting with the chemicals needed to make the nerve agent sarin; not even an increasingly bloody civil war has kept the labs from running. Today, Syria-watchers in the U.S. government believe, these chemical engineers may be skilled enough in handling sarin that the nerve agent might remain deadly for up to a year. ("This is not a 'move it or lose it' situation," one American official tells Danger Room.) And during that time, the sarin could be acquired by one of the Islamic extremists working in the loosely led rebel movement to topple the Assad regime. In other words: There's the prospect of chemically armed terrorists emerging from the Syrian civil war.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Western governments are training some of the more responsible Syrian rebel groups in chemical weapons security."
Who chooses the 'more responsible' groups? I doubt this will turn out well.