Agreeing to get rid of Syria\u2019s chemical weapons was the hard part\u2014and \u201cwas\u201d is, admittedly, an optimistic word. But if Russia, the U.S. and Syria can actually agree to destroy Syria\u2019s chemical weapon arsenal, it turns out that the process of destroying them is not as difficult as one might imagine [um, except for the slight complication of securing them during a raging civil war in Syria, replete with lots of groups who would love to get their hands on these weapons of mass destruction, and the possible harm that could be done to civilians and the environment by a military approach to chemical-weapons destruction.] But, military and political logistics aside, here\u2019s a roundup of articles describing how to get this job done, and some new developments that are in the works:<\/p>\n

Incineration and neutralization<\/b><\/p>\n

The two most common ways used by the U.S. to destroy chemical weapons are incineration and neutralization. According to Wikipedia<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The primary method is incineration, where liquid agents are burned in a furnace of temperatures over 2,000\u00a0degrees Fahrenheit. \u00a0For chemical agents in delivery vessels (i.e. mortars, bombs, artillery shells, etc.), this is a multi-step process. First the delivery vessels are robotically disassembled in a reverse order from that which they were originally assembled. Next the chemical agent<\/a> is drained out of the projectile and sent to the liquid incinerator as the disassembled projectile parts are placed on a conveyor belt and fed into a metal furnace where they are melted at close to 1,500\u00a0\u00b0F<\/a> for 15 minutes to ensure that any contamination has been completely destroyed. [This method has been used since 1979.]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The second method is neutralization. Basically, this method chemically neutralizes and cooks the weapons. Wikipedia<\/a> says:<\/p>\n

In the United States, neutralization was first selected as an alternative to incineration to destroy stockpiles of chemical agent stored in bulk. Depending on the type of agent to be destroyed, neutralization destroys the chemical agent by mixing it with hot water or hot water and sodium hydroxide. The U.S. Army\u2019s Chemical Materials Agency applied this method to safely eliminate its stockpile of mustard agent in Edgewood, Md., and VX nerve agent in Newport, Ind. Both stockpiles were stored in large steel containers without explosives or other weapon components. The industrial wastewater produced by the process, known as hydrolysate, was sent to a permitted commercial hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facility for treatment and disposal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Military options<\/b><\/p>\n

If a military attack is the \u201cpreferred\u201d method [we can hope not], there are options [no guarantees that nearby civilians wouldn\u2019t be hurt, though].<\/p>\n

Before we commence bombing, here’s some background: Some earlier forms of chemical weapons presented problems for disposal, because they were essentially large amounts of toxic substances packed into containers such as bombs, artillery shells and canisters. They also were prone to leaks and premature explosions, so weapons makers split them into \u201cbinary\u201d devices, in which the two essential substances were kept separate within the weapon, until an explosive force broke down the barrier and created the chemical reaction that resulted in the poisonous substance. This \u201csafety\u201d feature made them harder to destroy, because bombing them would release the toxins.<\/p>\n

But, according to Extreme.tech.com<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2026fortunately, some common precursors, like the isopropyl alcohol used to create sarin gas, can be incinerated. If enough heat is created quickly, the military<\/a> believes the production of sarin gas can be greatly reduced or even eliminated. For this purpose it has funded the creation of the BLU-119\/B (aka CrashPad \u2014 with the PAD standing for Prompt Agent Defeat.) The CrashPad is a 420-pound weapon with a \u201cblast-fragmentation\u201d warhead designed to incinerate chemical agents and precursors before they can escape into the surrounding area. This is accomplished by using white phosphorous in the payload, resulting in a thermobaric or high-heat weapon that uses oxygen in the environment to burn.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Extremetech also describes another chemical-weapons-busting device, something incongruously called a \u201cPassive Attack Weapon (PAW), an oxymoron if ever there was one. But I digress\u2026<\/p>\n

For chemical and biological agents that are heavier than air, simply ripping things apart can work. Destroying their containers \u2014 whether bomb casings, artillery shells, or storage canisters \u2014 and letting the agents settle to the ground could greatly reduce the area affected. The CBU-107 is a specially designed bomb containing up to 3,700 metal fragments \u2014 350 14-inch rods, 1,000 7-inch rods, and 2,400 2-inch rods \u2014 that scatter throughout a 60-meter target area. If exploded in a WMD stockpile, this PAW (Passive Attack Weapon) should destroy nearby canisters, shells, and bombs, releasing their agents locally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Extreme Tech adds, somewhat sanguinely:<\/p>\n

The result of a PAW strike will still be a toxic mess, but hopefully one that only affects a limited area. The PAW has one other trick up its sleeve: Because the rods are propelled at very high speeds, they will heat up whatever they hit. So, much like an\u2026anti-tank round can melt its way through tank armor, the PAW\u2019s payload may be able to incinerate many of the chemicals located where it is detonated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But, in the end, Extreme Tech does acknowledge the risks:<\/p>\n

Use of any of these munitions is made much more complex if the targeted weapons are housed near populated areas, of course.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

New and improved: Mobile unit for on-site, chemical weapon destruction<\/b><\/p>\n

<\/a>