Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons  No intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are [1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes might not be enough, the pentagon thinks it would require 75,000 troops to secure the arsenal in the event of Syria’s collapse. [2] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, admits that even if acting before the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government the United States would not be able to stop their use. "The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure," [3] If widespread chemical weapons use had already occurred then the intervention could hardly be to prevent their use in the first place but to punish their use. Responding to the use of chemical weapons would seem to be pointless; the deaths will have occurred already. Syria may have more chemical weapons in its arsenal still to use but an attack would simply make them more likely to use everything they have.  [1] Stares, Paul B., ‘Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria’, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012,   [2] Alexander, Kris, ‘Syria’s Collapse Could be a Chem Weapon Nightmare’, Wired Danger Room, 16 July 2012,   [3] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013,