Don't move these weapons

Members of Congress from Utah, Colorado and Kentucky are in accord: Chemical weapons stockpiled in Army depots in Colorado and Kentucky should be destroyed on site rather than shipped to Utah for incineration at the Deseret Chemical Depot in Tooele County. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, has signed on as a co-sponsor to a bill introduced by Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar to block funding of a study to contemplate shipping chemical munitions.

Meanwhile Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has vowed to utilize "all means" to prevent any mustard gas from moving into Utah.

With a 2012 deadline to destroy these weapons looming and the Pentagon poised to make deep budget cuts, waging this fight will require a united front. Transportation of these weapons is now illegal, but the Army may consider relocating them for destruction as a cost-cutting measure. For many reasons, the weapons need to stay put.

Earlier this year, Pentagon officials offered assurances to Allard and Salazar that mustard agent stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot would not be shipped out of state. But a day later, the Department of Defense announced a $150,000 feasibility study to consider moving the aging stockpile of agents elsewhere. The senators have requested a clarification of these divergent messages.

The issue is further complicated by the International Chemical Weapons Convention, which requires destruction of these chemical weapons by 2012. While the Tooele incinerator is up and running — more than halfway through its destruction work — design work on other plants to destroy the materials has been halted. A press release from the Pueblo Chemical Depot said work in Colorado would be stopped for nine months "while the project team conducts trade studies to examine design alternatives that could reduce project costs."

Although transporting these agents has always carried some risks because of the nature of the weapons, their corroding containers and rail or highway accidents, the specter of terrorism suggests the best course is to destroy the weapons where they currently are stored.

Unlike other communities that are eager to pass off festering hazards for destruction and disposal, Pueblo, Colo., and Richmond, Ky., have stepped up to take responsibility for their weapons. Thousands of jobs are at stake. But more important is the elimination of dangerous agents corroding these respective cities' back yards.

It is understandable with a war in Iraq and other military commitments across the globe that the Pentagon needs to tighten its belt. But moving these weapons flies in the face of the nation's homeland security needs. These weapons are so insidious that the United States never used them. This country cannot run the risk that these weapons will land in the hands of people who have different sensibilities about warfare and respect for human life.