Safety is always first...
A cup of sarin isn't a weapon until it is used as such... as is Water Hemlock, Lantana, Rhubarb leaves. Not much of a danger until you eat them...
The canisters were not attached to warheads. and NO, I would be as so stupid as to have one on a mantle.
But, the pentagon has released a report that the canisters could not be used for thier intended purpose, meaning as a weapon of mass destruction.
"First... I am not stupid..."
To be fair, perhaps gullible and unconscious might be more specific words.
"Safety is always first..."
If it was then you wouldn't automatically discount the fact that these weapons are still dangerous, even in a 'degraded' state.
"A cup of sarin isn't a weapon until it is used as such... as is Water Hemlock, Lantana, Rhubarb leaves. Not much of a danger until you eat them..."
Perhpas not, but accidents do happen, you know. And I wouldn't count upon the good intent of an Islamic terrorist. So long as they exist the TEMPTATION to use them will similarly exist. Your argument is bass-ackwards; you seem to believe that the things were created without the intention of using them, or at least keeping the possibility of using them open, at some point. That kind of thinking is the same as some guy who wants to buy himself a flamethrower, not to use it, but just so he can say he has one.
You've just applied the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument to a WMD. You must think yourself very clever. If you believe ther eis no difference between a handgun and a chemical weapon, and they can be treated in the same way, you have serious issues.
"The canisters were not attached to warheads. and NO, I would be as so stupid as to have one on a mantle."
You don't know this for a fact, and neither do I. It doesn't even address the possibility that some may still be laying around, unfound, and they ARE attached to warheads. In fact, the cannister itself (if it's a binary weapon) IS the warhead, all that needs to be 'attached' is the propellent, or other contrivance for delivering it.
I'm happy you wouldn't want one in your house, inert or not.
"But, the pentagon has released a report that the canisters could not be used for thier intended purpose, meaning as a weapon of mass destruction"
The Pentagon also routinely pays $400 for toilet seats asnd socket wrenches; so what? The Pentagon can't be wrong, even with the best experts money can buy? Show me where it says in that "Pentagon report" that they investigated and discounted the possibility that while the weapons might be useless, their component parts aren't? You know, the point of this is NOT that a 'degraded cannister' might be used for it's original opurpose (wiping out thousands in a small are), but that smaller amounts might be used to kill hundreds in an enclosed area (like on a subway train or an auditorium).
'Degraded' sarin is still sarin, just not as potent. Buit I can see that you make no distinction; a WMD MUST kill thousands, if not millions, to be considered so. A few hundred (even a few score) deaths or injuries apparently don't constitute a WMD-level threat to you. Please seek help.