Isn't bombing chemical weapons sites a tad dangerous

With the latest bombing of Syrian chemical weapons site by the US, UK and France, in retaliation against the recent Syrian use of said weapons in its civil war, it occurred to me to wonder whether it's not a bit risky dropping bombs on places where dangerous chemical weapons are stored? Is there not a risk of spreading harmful air-borne chemical across the whole country (and beyond)?

I found it difficult to find a good answer to this, but the best one seems to be in The Guardian, which suggests that the risk is probably less than I had feared. Of course, there is always the minor risk of setting off World War Three, but the American strikes seem to have been specifically designed to avoid any Russian or Iranian troops in the area, and the action came as a surprise to no-one after careful and transparent preparations. So far at least, a Russian retaliatory response seems to be unlikely (at least in conventional military terms, although you can probably expect some covert cyber-warfare to ramp up). Another constant worry in these matters is that a small miscalculation could also lead to substantial civilian casualties, and this too seems to been avoided thus far.

But in terms of the chemical weapons themselves, it seems that these things are almost always stored in "binary form", i.e. the chemicals are kept separately and only become volatile and dangerous when combined. According to chemical weapons experts, "a small stockpile of materials for chemical weapons held in binary form probably wouldn't cause a huge hazard if bombed". The modifying words "small", "probably" and huge" still give me pause for thought, and it still seems to me that bombing the place could easily achieve that very chemical combination, or at least something similar. However, other "experts" state unequivocally that, "The best way to destroy chemical weapons is to blow them up".

Well, there you go, the experts have spoken. Feel any better?

Of course, the practical effects and usefulness of these strikes is unknown and unlikely to be significant in the scheme of things - it is more a way for the Americans to take the moral high-ground with the Russians, whatever else they may claim - but that is a whole other matter for discussion. And, as per usual, Mr. Trump's actions on the international are less about Syria than they are about, well, Mr. Trump.