Binary Weapons Research Articles

Senate votes funds for binary chemical weapons

Senate votes funds for binary chemical weapons

Senate okays funds for binary weapons facility

RETURN TO ISSUEPREVNewsNEXTSenate okays funds for binary weapons facilityCite this: Chem. Eng. News 1981, 59, 22, 4Publication Date (Print):June 1, 1981Publication History Published online7 November 2010Published inissue 1 June 1981https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v059n022.p004aCopyright © 1981 American Chemical SocietyArticle Views6Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (274 KB) Get e-Alerts

Chemical weapons: build up or disarm?

In an antiphonal response to alleged Soviet use of lethal chemical weapons in Afghanistan and to other events, Congress recently voted $3.15 million to begin construction of a binary weapons production facility at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Ark. An amendment to the 1981 defense appropriations bill for $19 million to equip that facility almost survived final conference committee wrangling. Almost. But for two days the next chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mark 0. Hatfield (R.-Ore.), inveighed against setting a precedent in haste. He argued that little debate and no hearings had been held on the chemical weapons issue, that our NATO allies had not been consulted, that no budget request had been made by the Administration, and that the implications for arms control had not been considered. His arguments, which echo those of Harvard University biochemist and chemical-weapons expert Matthew Meselson, prevailed—at least for the moment. Hatfield also is bothered by other concerns. One, that ...

Rub-a-Dub-Dub Now Three in a Tub

Rub-a-Dub-Dub Now Three in a Tub

House Cuts Funds for Binary Weapons

House Cuts Funds for Binary Weapons

House Cuts Funds for Binary Weapons

House Cuts Funds for Binary Weapons

Binary weapons voted out

Binary weapons voted out

The Scope and Control of Chemical Disarmament Treaties particularly with regard to Binary Chemical Weapons

In principle, this paper gives an account of the meaning of the term 'binary chemical weapons', and of the effects their existence has on the scope of and controls covered by conventions concerning prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons, as well as prescriptions for their destruction. The conclusions drawn are particularly relevant to those responsible for the defence of a country against attack by chemical weapons.

The Scope and Control of Chemical Disarmament Treaties Particularly with Regard to Binary Chemical Weapons

In principle, this paper gives an account of the meaning of the term ‘binary chemical weapons’, and of the effects their existence has on the scope of and controls covered by conventions concerning prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons, as well as prescriptions for their destruction. The conclusions drawn are particularly relevant to those responsible for the defence of a country against attack by chemical weapons.