during a large part of the ten-year period of destruction, there are stocks of weapons filled with these chemicals, whose interim retention would be entirely legal . Under the circumstances, it seems definitely desirable that the order of destruction or conversion to be considered should be the following: 1. Lethal toxic substances - phosgene, cyanogen chloride, hydrocyanic acid, etc. 2. Yperites and incapacitating chemicals 3. Neurotoxic substances and their key precursors, etc. Should munitions or chemicals in bulk be destroyed first? Technically, chemicals in bulk are easier to destroy than munitions. In terms of "security 1', however, munitions are ready for use and therefore constitute a greater potential danger. This therefore leads quite naturally to the elimination of stocks in the following order: 1. (a) Destruction of munitions (bombs, shells, rockets, mines, etc.) containing phosgene, cyanogen chloride, hydrocyanic acid, etc.; (b) Destruction or conversion of lethal toxic chemicals in bulk - phosgene, etc.; 2. (a) Destruction of munitions containing incapacitating agents - yperites ; (b) Destruction of yperites and incapacitating agents in bulk; 3. (a) Destruction of munitions containing neurotoxic chemicals and key precursors; (b) Destruction of neurotoxic chemicals in bulk. 4. Destruction time-table Everyone is in favour of a very precise time-table for destructions or conversions. The period of ten years deemed necessary for the destruction of stocks does seem to be the optimum period, which a priori everyone wishes to respect. However, it would be an illusion to consider this ten-year period as a homogeneous whole, during which the process of destruction would proceed progressively and regularly. Not only should provision be made for the unforeseeable technical and industrial incidents that might o'ccur during the process but also the notion of security balance throughout the period should be CD/630 page 7 reintroduced; hence the need to subdivide this period into subperiods, each of 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the destruction or conversion of chemical weapons and their precursors, which suggests a connection to the development of arms and the security concerns related to their use. The language used is technical and focused on the process of destruction, which implies that the text is related to a specific field or industry.

**Category**
Humanitarian aid and relief, Science and technology