Toledo Blade 11/28/06

AT ONE time, chemical weapons were part of a doomsday scenario, clouds of gas spreading across cities and rural areas alike, a haze of death blown by the wind. They have names that invoke memories of the Cold War, when the threat of their use seemed very real. They recall the horrors of World War I: Mustard Gas, Nerve Gas.

The Chemical Weapons Convention, an international pact, had a deadline of next year for the destruction of the United States' chemical weapons stockpiles, and subsequently an extension until 2012. But that deadline won't be met either, according to reports this week.

The new date: 2023 - four years before the General Accountability Office expects Russia to meet its obligations to destroy 100 percent of its stockpiles.

Among the reasons for the delay cited by the Pentagon are technological issues in building plants to dispose of the weapons, plus safety and security questions. Five plants already are at work destroying the stockpiles, and two more are being developed.

The irony is that these weapons, created as part of an arsenal to keep America safe, and serve as a deterrent, now pose risks to people in this country, some lawmakers and citizens groups are suggesting.

In fact, Congress has said elimination of the country's chemical weapons stockpiles - at a cost of $32 billion - is a homeland security issue, and has urged the Pentagon to get on with the job.

A Pentagon spokesman says destroying these weapons is not something that can be done quickly or easily. Fair enough. But the delays are raising questions about the Pentagon's commitment to the program. Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, where a disposal facility is being delayed, says the Pentagon is backsliding.

The military doesn't agree, but the concerns of lawmakers and people living near the stockpiles are understandable.

Those stockpiles should be destroyed as quickly as possible to meet our international obligations and to remove the potential risks to Americans.