The Challenge of Taking out Chemical Weapons

Source: BBC; Reuters; Navy Times; Globalsecurity.org; USA Today Research

Kevin A. Kepple, Anne R. Carey and Oren Dorell, USA TODAY

A lot of research and work has been done to develop weapons to neutralize chemical weapons, and are on going.
The weapons, which would be attached to a bomb dropped from an aircraft, are supposed to neutralize chemical weapons where they are produced or stored.

Syria has the greatest amount of chemical weapons in the world.
The question is how they are stored.
From earlier situations, like in Irak and Palestinian areas, we know that some leaders chose to use areas of high population density, and place weapon factories in villages, or store weapon in ambulances and schools. 
This in order to prevent an enemy to attack, and to lower the support of the enemy by giving the possible attack great civilian losses.
 They sacrifice their own people i order to protect their weapons.

Weapons who take out chemical weapons work in this way:
"After bursting into a storage bunker, the warhead would spray copper plates at high speeds to tear into tanks containing toxic chemicals. Material within the warhead would burn so hot it would vaporize the chemicals that escape. A byproduct that explosion would generate chlorine gas, a disinfectant." *

The important thing is to take out all of it.
Destroying only part of the toxic chemical agents and spreading the rest, could cause a serious mass-casualty.

The weapons developed are the same that are available for an eventual attack at Iranian underground nuclear facilities.

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), Wikipedia, US Air Force

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP):
This 30,000-pound bomb designed to penetrate through dozens of feet of concrete, is now ready. A lot bigger than the 5000-pound GBU-28, a laser-guided bunker-buster, that was used in Iraq during the first Gulf War.
It's a weapon system designed to accomplish a difficult, complicated mission of reaching and destroying the adversaries’ weapons of mass destruction located in well protected facilities.  It is more powerful than its predecessor, the BLU-109.  

An F-15E releasing a GBU-28. Source: Wikipedia, TSGT Michael Ammons, USAF

GBU-28:
A 5,000-pound (2,268 kg) laser-guided "bunker busting" bomb nicknamed "Deep Throat".
 It was designed, manufactured, and deployed in less than three weeks due to an urgent need during Operation Desert Storm to penetrate hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. Successfully used twice during the Gulf War.


CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon:
A 1000-pound bomb that breaks open in the air to produce a shower of 3700 steel and tungsten darts ranging in size from an ounce to a pound, which hammer an area two hundred feet wide. The chemical agents still release into the air. But many chemical agents are heavier than air and an are said "not to travel far" if released at ground level. The action of sunlight and air are said will degrade them.

It may be realistic to assume that such an attack will  involve chemical releases, and that any populated areas near chemical factories or storage should be evacuated.

It may also be realistic to assume that an attack on Syria will lead to several kinds of counter attacks, which may involve other countries in the Middle East.

So what is actually possible to achieve, and what may it lead to?

Neither is there any existing opposition in Syria to replace President Assad.

The opposition is numerous groups of who many are what we call Islamic extremists and terrorists, who might be, if possible, even worse than what is in power today.

No one can out rule that this can be start of WW3.

And no mainstream media in any country are talking about it.

Sources: 
* USA Today: "Exotic weapons aim to destroy chemical weapons", Aug 29,2013.
   Popular Mecanics: "How the U.S. Could Take Out Syria’s Chemical Weapons",
   Dec 11, 2012. + 
   "Bombs vs Bunkers in a Potential Iran Attack", March 14,2012.
   The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
   Wikipedia