I feel disturbed by short-sighted comments made by activists (Greeks or others) such as this one highlighted in the article:
> “We will not let this happen,” said Yannis Haronitis, an activist and protest organizer. “They want to destroy these weapons — well, let them turn Syria’s back yard into a toxic waste dump, not ours.”
So dumping the wastes in Turkey the black sea would be fine?!?!?
In order to tackle a problem you need to understand how it starts. Every time a war like this one starts the countries involved should at least save some money about the side-effects which will involve everyone else. Examples of these side-effects:
* How the chemical weapons used will be destroyed.
* What will happen with people and populations affected by the war.
* What will happen to all these immigrants who will overflow other nations, especially Europe.
So I think the organizations, activists and the countries involved (Greece, Turkey, Italy, Marocco, etc.) should start pressing at an international level the countries who fuel these wars (US, China, Russia, the NATO, etc.) to start considering the side-effects A PRIORI and have a couple of plans and money ready.
Of course in an ideal world, no kind of war should be justified, but the truth that people don't care what is happening 2 blocks away. That's the root of the problem... Because a fire starting 2 blocks away will eventually hit you too sooner or later, one way or another. We're not as disconnect as some believe.
>I will have to assume they are using the sea because its the least likely assailable ___location by anyone who might seek to take the weapons?
Largely political. They couldn't find any nations willing to host the weapons for destruction, so doing it in international waters was the best available option.
Well, honestly the part that confuses me is that the article tells us that half of Syria's weapons have already been disposed of in other European countries.
It's been a while since I've read up on it, but as I recall, Syria was also turning over stockpiles of potentially weaponizable industrial chemicals. That may be where the discrepancy is here.
EDIT:
Some more reading suggests that they're actually being shipped to Italy for storage to get them out of Syria ASAP, and then the actual processing/destruction is occurring in international waters.
There are articles claiming that the Syrian government have started to bomb civilians using chlorine gas instead.
At least that will be easier to dispose of -- I assume the international community in typical style will help the Syrians dig swimming pools. At least the civilians that aren't starved/tortured/etc to death...
How can Russia/Iran/China get away with supporting this horror militarily? Why is no one upset about these new attacks?
Why don't they just eject those chemical weapons into outer space? Even though its expensive, it's safer than just dumping it into the sea. Our generation might not suffer the consequences of this. But our children, and grandchildren will surely suffer from these environmental pollution.
Because space isn't this thing where you eject stuff like a garbage chute.
I recommend reading up on rocketry, orbital mechanics, and modern space programs because a) it's really cool stuff! and b) you'd quickly realize how ridiculous, dangerous, and counterproductive this suggestion is.
--Headline is inaccurate and sensationalist.--
They're not being dumped. They're being destroyed onboard ships at sea.
The linked article even says as much, but here's an earlier article describing the situation in a bit more detail.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/a-look-at-the-...