Reasons to treat chemical weapons differently from nuclear weapons

Treat Chemical Weapons Differently From Nuclear Weapons. HUFFINGTON POST Scott Sigmund Gartner Professor of International Affairs at Penn State’s School of International Affairs 08/30/2013 The Obama administration has dug itself a hole in Syria by treating chemical weapons like nuclear weapons. While both are weapons of mass destruction, they are critically different on three key dimensions.These dimensions should shape U.S. chemical weapons policy in Syria now and with other countries in the future.

First, although nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II, chemical weapons have been employed in virtually every type of conflict, including interstate wars (Iran-Iraq), civil wars (Yemen), terrorist attacks (Japan), and by individuals (U.S.). Thus, rather than violating a rarely crossed “red line,” Syrian gas reflects an all-too-familiar, fatal pattern, making absolute prohibitions likely to lead to the problematic dilemma currently facing the Obama administration.

Second, the nuclear club continues to grow (North Korea, possibly Iran soon), but the number of states possessing chemical weapons and the size of their stockpiles has recently begun to shrink — and shrink radically. Compared to nukes, chemical weapons have less ego attached to them; countries can give them up without a loss of face or dramatic concerns about their security. Responses to chemical weapons use need to keep in mind both who currently has them and who eliminated these weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, unlike the feckless Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is a strong organization dedicated to the pursuit of universal chemical disarmament: the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW — located in The Hague). OPCW’s 189 member-states agree not to use, stockpile, manufacture, or distribute chemical weapons and to open themselves to inspections. The results are astonishing: the OPCW has verified the destruction of 80 percent of the world’s known stockpiles of chemical weapons, with programs established to destroy most of the rest. Even states like India, a nuclear power engaged in an ongoing clash with Pakistan, eliminated 100 percent of its stockpile. With little fanfare, the OPCW has overseen the most comprehensive and effective disarmament program in weapons of mass destruction history.

The success of this disarmament effort should drive U.S. foreign policy on chemical weapons. Syria is one of only five states in the world that has not yet signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). We have a vested interest in requiring the hold-outs to join the CWC and pursue comprehensive chemical weapons disarmament (the other non-signatories are Egypt, North Korea, Angola and South Sudan — two states, Israel and Myanmar, signed but have not yet ratified). Universal ratification and implementation of the Convention by the remaining seven states would dramatically lower the likelihood of future chemical weapons use. Convention membership should be a requirement for receipt of any aid from all donor countries.

There are, however, concerns….. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-sigmund-gartner/treat-chemical-weapons-di_b_3843032.html

1.This Month

PETITION

Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition

United Nations: demasking the Torture of Julian Assange. Rico Brouwer and Nils Melzer

Three Mile Island (& Fukushima) Lies & Cover-Ups w/ Gundersen & Wasserman

Energy efficiency – theme for July 2019

Energy efficiency represents the single largest potential contributor to global emissions reduction, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA 2017). It should be a key part of the global energy strategy, for several reasons:

It could reduce global electric demand by more than 20 per cent, based on current rates in the U.S. power sector, while maintaining high levels of services such as heating and lighting.
It avoids the need for increased energy, capacity and grid services, making it the least expensive way to decarbonise at scale.
It can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by billions of tonnes.

A dramatic example of the power of energy efficiency is lighting. In 2017 the United States passed the milestone of 1 billion LED and CFL lights installed, avoiding 142 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide emissions, at a cost of about $7 per ton of avoided carbon dioxide. In contrast, the cumulative installed capacity of rooftop solar reached 8,000 MW in 2017, saving 8 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide, at a cost of $360 per ton. Lighting efficiency thus yielded almost 18 times the avoided carbon dioxide, at about 2 per cent the cost per ton of rooftop solar.

Google provides another example of the power of energy efficiency. Its data centers now use 50 per cent less energy than the average data center, according to the company. Google also developed an improved chip, the TPU, which performs 83 times better than standard CPUs. The new chip allowed Google to reduce power consumption at its data centers by a factor of 30—far exceeding the effect on Google’s carbon footprint of all of the company’s renewable energy purchases. ” – John Woolard, Eco Business, 10 June 2019

nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope