So Assad loses his chemical bombs. Then what?

I don't know about you, but that moment when the Russians, having heard John Kerry said the only reason the US wouldn't attack Syria would be if they gave up their chemical weapons and the Russians said: "OK, we can arrange that, no problem" was one of the greatest, and even the funniest, in modern political history. You can imagine the Yanks going "Say what??", while Putin and his pals pour each other another vodka and say: The Americans; they're so stupid; they know absolutely nothing about diplomacy".

But let's look at the situation right now. Assad has agreed to hand over his chemical bombs, though he has always maintained it wasn't him who launched them in the first place. The Russians say they are looking at powerful evidence suggesting that it may indeed have been agents from Al Qaida behind the attack, in order to provoke exactly the sort of response it got from the US, France and Britain. The truth, I suspect, will be very hard to get at.

My point is this. Let's say Assad does actually hand over all his chemical weapons. The next step should be for every other country to do exactly the same thing. The "civilised world" thought it was completely unacceptable for Assad (or whoever) to use his weapons; isn't it equally unacceptable for any other country to do the same? So why are we, the Americans and doubtless a dozen other countries, jealously holding on to their own supplies, just a tiny fraction of which would be enough to kill every human being on Earth? Destroy them all. Now. And when we've done that, we can start on the biological weapons, and even, (Heaven forfend say the war-mongers) the nukes as well...