How to deal with chemical weapons

The Syrian civil war is still raging, and the international community has focused on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against civilians. There are reports that Russia may reach an agreement with Syria to take over and store Syria's chemical weapons. Next, let's take a look at what chemical weapons are and how to safely handle them.

What are chemical weapons?

Broadly speaking, chemical weapons are toxic chemicals released by explosive means (such as bombs, shells, or missiles). Chemical weapons kill humans through terrifying reactions including asphyxiation, nerve damage, blood poisoning, and blistering.

During World War I, chemical weapons were used for the first time, where toxic gases were released from containers. Nowadays, typical chemical weapons are in liquid form, stored in bombs or shells. Chemicals like sulfur mustard (commonly known as mustard gas) or sarin can disperse in the air like mist. Therefore, technically speaking, they are not gases; they belong to liquid aerosols, whose droplets suspend in the air.

The use of chemical weapons

Chemical weapons were first witnessed during World War I, where Britain, Germany, France, and others released a total of 124,000 tons of chemical warfare agents.

Before World War II, Italy used chemical weapons in Ethiopia, and during World War II, Japan used chemical weapons against China.

During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States were developing and stockpiling chemical weapons. The United States never used chemical weapons in war, while a declassified CIA document claimed that the Soviet Union used them during its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Egypt was the first country to use chemical weapons in war after World War II. In 1963, Egypt became involved in Yemen's civil war. The Egyptian army dropped sulfur mustard bombs on enemies hiding in caves.

In the 1980s, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein used sulfur mustard and the nerve agent tabun against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and against the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988.

In the ongoing Syrian civil war between the Bashar al-Assad dictatorship and loose opposition groups, it seems that chemical weapons have been used against civilians. Syria's chemical weapons stockpile predates the recent conflict. After suffering a series of defeats in wars with Israel, the Syrian government began stockpiling sulfur mustard, sarin, and VX (a nerve agent). Syria may have acquired its first batch of chemical weapons as early as 1973 and publicly admitted to possessing them in 2012; a Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated that chemical weapons would only be used to repel foreign invasions.

Aren't there treaties against chemical weapons?

Of course, there are! In fact, there are several. Even before the appearance of chemical weapons, the earliest convention banning them was already in effect. At the Hague International Law Conference (Hague Convention) in 1899, signatory countries agreed not to use "asphyxiating or poisonous gases." During World War I, Germany, France, and Britain violated this agreement.

Currently, chemical weapons are also prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention. This convention was passed by the UN Security Council and came into effect in 1997. It bans the production and use of chemical weapons, authorizes the destruction of chemical weapons, and encourages international cooperation in the trade of chemicals and chemical products. Five countries have not signed this treaty: Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan, and Syria.

This treaty has quite strict regulations regarding the classification of chemical weapons. For example, Agent Orange, a defoliant and herbicide used by the U.S. during the Vietnam War. Although it is associated with cancer, heart disease, and congenital malformations, according to the provisions of this convention, it does not count as a chemical weapon.

US Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. (US military archival photo, Wikimedia Commons)

How do the military deal with chemical weapons?

Al Mauroni is the director of the US Air Force Counterproliferation Center in Alabama and the author of "Chemical Demilitarization: Public Policy Aspects". He told reporters from Popular Science that the method depends on the design of the chemical weapon.

Chemical weapons are usually stored centrally. At storage sites, large amounts of toxic agents are stored in metal containers equipped with taps, along with ready-to-use chemical weapons. This does not mean that chemical weapons have been dealt with; at best, it is a kind of design supervision. No one thought about opening the American M55 chemical weapons rockets to pour out the chemical agents and then safely dispose of them. Everyone thought it was safest to launch them. That's your thinking.

There are usually two ways to deal with chemical weapons: incineration and neutralization. Incineration uses a large amount of heat energy to convert most toxic chemicals into ash, water, and carbon dioxide. Neutralization uses water and caustic alkali compounds such as sodium hydroxide to break down chemical agents. Both methods produce waste: incineration produces ash, and neutralization leaves behind large amounts of liquid waste that must be stored or further treated.

Can chemical weapons be handled on the battlefield?

It is feasible in practice, although there are some issues. Mauroni introduced a treatment process carried out in Iraq in 1991. "We accidentally discovered a bundle of rockets, you might suspect they contained certain chemical agents," he said. "If actions are rushed, the emergency solution on-site is to blow them up at a suitable location." The US Army Ammunition Disposal Team will destroy them in a ratio of 10 parts explosives to 1 part suspected chemical weapons.

This falls under the category of design supervision. In this situation, no one considers safe disposal. The heat generated by the explosion will destroy almost all the chemical agents in the chemical weapons, and the "extremely low concentration" of chemical agents that remain will dissipate into the atmosphere, which people consider largely harmless. However, this dispersion may be one of the culprits of Gulf War Syndrome, a condition that affects veterans of the Gulf War.

How does the US military handle chemical weapons?

The US military has a mobile chemical weapons disposal team. Although it caught media attention due to the Syrian chemical weapons controversy, Mauroni believes that the mission of the mobile chemical weapons disposal team is not so mysterious. The United States has nine fixed chemical weapons storage and disposal sites. Two of these disposal sites are still under construction, one in Pueblo, Colorado, and the other in Richmond, Kentucky. Mauroni said, "Both chemical weapons storage sites have leaks, so the mobile team will go to neutralize the chemical agents."

If the chemical agents can be burned, what about the outer metal shell?

Mauroni explained, "We can use thermal decontamination. You cannot heat the metal until it vaporizes, but you can heat the ammunition to burn off the chemical agents inside. After such a treatment process, the metal scrap can be sold to steel mills." Thermal decontamination is carried out under extreme high temperatures.

Are some chemical weapons relatively easier to handle?

Precursor chemicals are usually components for making chemical weapons and are not yet considered chemical weapons themselves. They are easier to handle because they have industrial uses and can be sold to civilian companies.

"As for sarin, mustard gas, or VX, they are more difficult to handle," Mauroni said. Sarin volatilizes when handled. Mustard gas and VX seep into the soil. This means that the contaminated soil must be dug up and cleaned. But apart from that, their handling process is basically the same: transfer them to a tank for neutralization or incineration.

During World War I, French soldiers used poison gas to attack German trenches. (US military archival photo, Wikimedia Commons)

Which countries have handled chemical weapons?

The countries with the most experience in handling chemical weapons are the United States and Russia, obviously due to the massive chemical weapons stockpiles left over from the Cold War. Mauroni introduced that Russia once had a maximum of 40,000 tons of chemical weapons, and the United States had approximately 30,000 tons of chemical weapons. Both countries have massively disposed of chemical agents using incineration and neutralization.

Besides Syria, are there countries that have abandoned chemical weapons and sent them to other countries for disposal?

Yes! A typical example is Albania. It sent its 16 tons of chemical weapons to the United States for disposal. The destruction work was completed in 2007, costing $48 million.

How long does it take to clean up a chemical weapons site?

Years, more likely decades, depending on the scale of the chemical weapons stored at the site. In 1986, the US Congress passed a law mandating the destruction of the US chemical weapons stockpile. Although a large portion of the chemical weapons inventory has been destroyed, the destruction work will continue for at least another ten years, with the last site's chemical weapons disposal starting in 2020.

What is the bottom line for chemical weapons disposal?

"There won't be any easy solutions, no magic powder, and no miraculous vaporization stations," Mauroni said.

No matter what method you choose, waste will be produced. Our bottom line is: safety and efficiency. Especially when we invest $2 billion at each disposal site, we have no reason not to do well. When money is not an issue, you certainly want to fully ensure the safety of the surrounding communities. Don't rush, take your time, and it will definitely turn out well.

However, there are major problems with disposing of chemical weapons in Syria: "You can't slow down, and you can't guarantee safety," Mauroni said. "When you try to do these things, you are constantly in obvious danger. To transport and destroy chemical weapons and ensure safety, you will pay a high price and face very severe challenges."