Possible Chemical Weapon Use in Syria

The United Nations has agreed to investigate accusations about chemical weapon use in Damascus and the Aleppo province in northern Syria. The United States viewed these allegations with skepticism, but the different claims between the Syrian government and opposition forces have called for verification from United Nations officials. The central government claims that it lacks chemical weaponry and that it would not use chemical power against civilians; opposition forces insist that they also do not have such weapons and do not have the ability to make them.

However, many military analysts believe that Syria possesses one of the largest supplies of chemical weapons in the world. These stockpiles may include nerve agents such as sarin and VX gases as well as mustard gas, which is prohibited under international law.

Why would countries even use chemical weapons if they could possibly detriment their own people? Compare chemical weapons to nuclear power. Chemical weapons are relatively much less expensive and they are easier to stockpile. They can be used more frequently than the costly, few atomic bombs that countries create. In general, they can be easier for armed troops to handle and use at will. Especially in Middle Eastern countries, armed forces also view chemical power as a possible method of combating or at least deterring the nuclear weapons that Israel possesses.

Last August, President Obama stated that the Syrian government would be held accountable for use of chemical weapons within the country; use of or transport of chemical weapons would draw "a red line for us." If Syria truly is home to such deadly chemical weapons, will the United States finally become more involved in the Syrian conflict?