On the other hand, it might be suggested that countries which have a chemical warfare capability possess a militarily significant quantity of lethal or non-lethal supertoxic chemicals. It does not follow, however, that stocks of lethal agents are not also simultaneously kept in their arsenals. The proportion between the two categories (lethal or non-lethal supertoxic and lethal toxic chemicals) within a given arsenal may therefore vary and even change over a given period. Consequently, there may be very substantial asymmetries when it comes to the comparison of stocks and, it seems, only stocks of lethal supertoxic chemicals can be compared with any chance of success. As regards the order of destruction or conversion, there are actually three possible options: 1. Priority to destruction of lethal supertoxic substances; 2. Priority to destruction or conversion of lethal substances; 3. Simultaneous destruction of some stocks of lethal substances and some stocks of supertoxic substances. The third option seems technically and economically impractical (specialization of the destruction process and very limited number of destruction plants). A solution wbioh would give priority to the destruction of stocks whose manufacture is the most specific and consequently the most easily detectable and verifiable (neurotoxic substances) is a less attractive option than that of priority elimination of stocks of lethal toxic chemicals and their filling shops. cd/630 page 6 This is hecau.se the priority destruction of neurotoxic chemicals would, serve to enhance the value of stocks of lethal toxic chemicals (phosgene, hydrocyanic acid, cyanogen chloride, etc.) and would greatly risk upsetting the security balance between countries. Moreover, phosgene, hydrocyanic acid and cyanogen chloride are products which are annually produced in large quantities for industrial uses. It follows that the diversion of some of this production for military purposes is more difficult to detect and to verify if, at the same time, 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing military and chemical weapons, specifically the destruction and conversion of lethal and non-lethal supertoxic chemicals. It seems to be focused on the technical and economic aspects of such a process, highlighting the complexities and potential risks involved. Given this context, it is likely that the text is related to a specific field of study or practice.

**Category**
Science and technology, International relations