No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons  One of the reasons why there has not been an intervention in Syria already is the difficulty of doing so. Preventing or limiting the use of chemical weapons however does represent a defined objective that is smaller, and therefore easier, than bringing peace to Syria. It however has to be accepted that if Assad’s regime is determined to use chemical weapons then some are likely to get through and how much is prevented is largely dependent on intelligence.  Interdicting chemical weapons during transport and bombing the storage facilities to make it much more difficult to move the weapons would be easiest to accomplish. [1] But if chemical weapons are about to be used then attacking the delivery vehicles would be necessary; any intervention would have overwhelming air superiority so would prevent the option of aircraft and helicopters being used to deliver the weapons.  More difficult to destroy are ballistic missiles, and particularly artillery [2] but even these are much easier to hit than infantry would be. In the conflict against Gaddafi successfully used precision guided weapons to destroy tanks and artillery. [3] Moreover an intervening force would not need to destroy every missile and artillery brigade only find those that are being issued with chemical weapons.  [1] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013,   [2] Fargo, Matthew, ‘Targeting Syria’s Chemical Weapons – A Dangerous Proposition’, Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies, 25 July 2012,   [3] Hebert, Adam J., ‘Libya: Victory Through Airpower’, Airforce-Magazine.com, December 2011,