Al Qaqaa: where the roadside bombs come from

[RTFirefly]

This morning’s NYT reports:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq’s most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man’s land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

The explosives in question are HMX and RDX, which mean nothing to me, but apparently are about the most kick-ass conventional explosives around - much more powerful than TNT. A little bit of it does a lot:

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material

And:

A special property of HMX and RDX lends them to smuggling and terrorism, experts said. While violently energetic when detonated, they are insensitive to shock and physical abuse during handling and transport because of their chemical stability. A hammer blow does nothing. It takes a detonator, like a blasting cap, to release the stored energy.

Experts said the insensitivity made them safer to transport than the millions of unexploded shells, mines and pieces of live ammunition that litter Iraq. And its benign appearance makes it easy to disguise as harmless goods, easily slipped across borders.

“The immediate danger” of the lost stockpile, said an expert who recently led a team that searched Iraq for deadly arms, “is its potential use with insurgents in very small and powerful explosive devices. The other danger is that it can easily move into the terrorist web across the Middle East.”

This stockpile was under IAEA seal before the war, because:

HMX and RDX are used in standard nuclear weapons design. In a nuclear implosion weapon, the explosives crush a hollow sphere of uranium or plutonium into a critical mass, initiating the nuclear explosion.

A crude implosion device - like the one that the United States tested in 1945 in the New Mexican desert and then dropped on Nagasaki, Japan - needs about a ton of high explosive to crush the core and start the chain reaction.

So we knew about this stockpile before the war, courtesy of the IAEA, even though it really doesn’t, by itself, represent a proliferation threat. And since it’s easy to work with, and a little bit goes a long way, it’s ideal for roadside bombs and the like.

“HMX and RDX have a lot of shattering power,” said Dr. Van Romero, vice president for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, or New Mexico Tech, which specializes in explosives.

“Getting a large amount is difficult,” he added, because most nations carefully regulate who can buy such explosives, though civilian experts can sometimes get licenses to use them for demolition and mining.

According to Josh Marshall, the Nelson Report, which has interviewed people in the Administration about this story, has the following:

A highly informed official offered the assessment that, “this is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops, so you can’t ignore the political implications of this, and you would be correct to suspect that politics, or the fear of politics, played a major role in delaying the release of this information.”

And that’s the part that makes it a big deal. We knew the stuff was there before the war, we didn’t secure the site after the war, it’s not stuff that it’s easy to get in bulk, but 380 tons of it is loose in Iraq, and it’s apparently the stuff that’s been used to blow up American troops.
The Nelson Report adds:

experts were reluctant to say exactly how much of this stuff it takes for a successful road side bomb, for example, but the guesstimates were “a few pounds, at most.” In other words, “with 350 tons out there, the bombing can go on for years…”

And:

“What the hell WE were doing in the year and a half from the time we knew the stuff was gone, is obviously a huge question, and you can imagine why no one [in the Administration] wants to face up to it, certainly not before the election,” an Administration source says.

Al Qaqaa is 30 miles south of Baghdad, so presumably it fell into our hands at least a few days before out troops got to Baghdad.

Back to the NY Times:

the Bush administration would not allow the [IAEA] back into the country [after the war] to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful.

But the Nelson Report says:

Since the explosives went missing last year, sources say DOD and other elements in the Administration sought to block the IAEA from officially reporting the problem, and also tried to stop the new Iraqi Interim Government from cooperating with the IAEA. But finally, on Oct. 10, the Iraqi’s formally notified the IAEA, and on Oct. 15, the IAEA formally notified the Bush Administration.

And Josh Marshall, quoting the Nelson Report again:

One US government official told Nelson, “this is the most likely primary source of the explosives which have been used to blow up Humvees and in all the deadly car bomb attacks since the Occupation began.” Another official told him, “this is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops.”

And:

refer[ring] to efforts by DOD to create the impression that the road side bombs are made from captured artillery shells; our sources say, “this is very unlikely. Taking a shell apart is incredibly dangerous and difficult, it has to be done by real experts, and we’d have seen more ‘accidental explosions’ if they were doing this on any scale. No…it’s the RDX and HMX doing most of the damage, you can bet on it.”

But here’s what the NYT was told about whether Bremer let the Administration know about the problem, once he was notified:

by the spring of 2004, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. “It’s not an excuse,” said one senior administration official. “But a lot of things went by the boards.”

No big deal, just our troops getting blown to bits because this wasn’t important.

[Equipoise]

Your Subject Line stinks. It’s way too mild and bland for such a horrific outrage.

WE, in essence, provided the explosives that insurgents are using to kill our troops.

My god.

[gobear]

Y’know, as appalling as this is, it will not make any dent in the support for Bush.

[RTFirefly]

Sorry about the subject line. Too-cutesy stuff was all that was coming to mind (I’ll spare you the examples), and that was totally wrong for a thread about how we left 40 truckloads of the most deadly conventional explosives unguarded, so that hundreds of our soldiers in Iraq could lose life and limb in horrific ways.

Joe Lockhart’s response, on behalf of the Kerry campaign:

Washington, DC – Kerry-Edwards Senior Advisor Joe Lockhart issued the following statement on reports of missing explosives in Iraq:

“Today, the Bush administration must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq. How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so? And why was this information unearthed by reporters – and was it covered up by our national security officials?

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons. The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site. They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening.

“This material was monitored and controlled by UN inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thanks to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration, we now have no idea where it is.

“We need to know what the administration knew about this and when. We need to know why they failed to safeguard these explosives and keep them out of the hands of our enemies. The National Security Advisor should be at her desk in Washington tomorrow to work this problem and answer these questions, instead of giving speeches in battleground states.”

[tagos]

@gobear

Y’know, as appalling as this is, it will not make any dent in the support for Bush.

True. I’m waiting for the usual apologists to drift by to explain that this stuff is no more dangerous than marzipan, that Saddam ‘might’ have given it to the terrorists, ‘we won too quick, can’t blame us’ and of course the old favourite - ‘but Clinton got a blow-job’!

This is outrageous incompetence, combined with sickening attempts to cover up. Heads should roll.

[Squink]

In case anyone else is wondering what sort of trucking operation was needed to haul the stuff of, 350 tons of RDX (d 1.82) has a volume of 6161 cubic feet. That’s a cube 18.3 feet (5.6 meters) on a side.

[RTFirefly]

@gobear

Y’know, as appalling as this is, it will not make any dent in the support for Bush.

Probably not. Right now, quite honestly, I’m too sickened by the thought that we could have kept so many of our soldiers from being blown up or maimed for life, simply by the most basic plans and actions.

But we got to test out Don Rumsfeld’s theory…:mad:

[yojimbo]

@tagos

True. I’m waiting for the usual apologists to drift by to explain that this stuff is no more dangerous than marzipan, that Saddam ‘might’ have given it to the terrorists, ‘we won too quick, can’t blame us’ and of course the old favourite - ‘but Clinton got a blow-job’!

Nah they generally stay out of threads like this of late.

Nothing to say I suppose other than they still are going to vote for Bush because … well I don’t know really.

It just blows me away that the leadership of such a great country with a free press can be this bad and yet have such strong support. Beggars belief it really does.

[Cluricaun]

Why did we leave it at all? Did we have a use for it for our troops? Why not just blow it in place, make one big crater? If a blasting cap sets it off, a direct hit from a tomahawk missile should accomplished the same, before our troops were within 100 miles of the place.

[E72521]

@tagos

Heads should roll.

My niece’s husband, a 21 year old Marine doing his second tour in Iraq escorting convoys west of Baghdad, probably shares your sentiments. He just hopes its not his head doing the rolling. :smack:

[Neurotik]

@Squink

In case anyone else is wondering what sort of trucking operation was needed to haul the stuff of, 350 tons of RDX (d 1.82) has a volume of 6161 cubic feet. That’s a cube 18.3 feet (5.6 meters) on a side.

Or about 4 of the 26’ U-Haul trucks needed to haul the stuff away.

[PatriotX]

I found this interesting as well:

“On Oct. 10, the IAEA received a declaration from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology informing us that approximately 350 (metric) tons of high explosive material had gone missing” “Upon receiving the declaration on Oct. 10, we first took measures to authenticate it.” “Then on Oct. 15, we informed the multinational forces through the U.S. government with the request for it to take any appropriate action in cooperation with Iraq’s interim government.” “Mr. ElBaradei wanted to give them some time to recover the explosives before reporting this loss to the Security Council, but since it’s now out, ElBaradei plans to inform the Security Council today.”
–International Atomic Energy Agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming
That this kind of stuff was going to happen has been in evidence since the height of the invasion. There were feild ciommanders reporting that they could not both secure the suspect sites and get to Baghdad. SOmeof these suspoect sites have literally been looted to the foundations. There’re just concrete slabs where suspected weapons sites were. :smack: :wally

[Early_Out]

@Neurotik

Or about 4 of the 26’ U-Haul trucks needed to haul the stuff away.

Not at 350 tons. If those 26-footers can take 9 tons (is that about right?), we’re talking more like 40 trucks.

[Equipoise]

@RTFirefly

Sorry about the subject line.

I’d say “that’s ok” except that it’s not. This is WAY too important to be buried.

@RTFirefly

…we left 40 truckloads of the most deadly conventional explosives unguarded, so that hundreds of our soldiers in Iraq could lose life and limb in horrific ways.

That’d be a good one, though unfortunately too long.

Hows about think of something more gut-wrenching and reposting your OP? Seriously.

[tagos]

@E72521

My niece’s husband, a 21 year old Marine doing his second tour in Iraq escorting convoys west of Baghdad, probably shares your sentiments. He just hopes its not his head doing the rolling. :smack:

I wish him well. The people sending him in harms way just don’t give a shit what happens to individual soldiers to judge by their utter failure to secure the sites they were claiming were WMD repositories and sites like these.

And for all their breast-beating - the usual suspects don’t either. Else they would be excoriating Bush for this news. Imagine if Clinton had done it?

The Bush Administration has basically armed the people blowing up Coalition and provisional govt troops.

I hope the ‘liberal media’ (hah!) makes precisely this point every time there is a bomb attack.

[RTFirefly]

@Equipoise

Hows about think of something more gut-wrenching and reposting your OP? Seriously.

Want to make some suggestions? If you come up with something better (shouldn’t be hard, but my creative juices aren’t flowing this morning, and I have work to do too), I’d be willing to ask the mods to change the thread title.

[Gorsnak]

@Early Out

Not at 350 tons. If those 26-footers can take 9 tons (is that about right?), we’re talking more like 40 trucks.

UHaul lists the maximum load of their 26’ truck at 6430lbs, or 3.2 tons. The explosives totaled 380 tons (the 350 figure is metric tonnes), so we’re now up to 120 trucks. Except that I’d guess that you could actually put about 5 tons onto a truck like that and it would still move (assuming halfway decent roads), which brings us back down to 75 or so. The 6430lb limit is calculated to meet weight regulations, not the physical limits of the vehicle.

[Neurotik]

@Early Out

Not at 350 tons. If those 26-footers can take 9 tons (is that about right?), we’re talking more like 40 trucks.

Hmm…didn’t think of weight. Actually, those trucks can only handle about
3 tons.

[tagos]

@Neurotik

Hmm…didn’t think of weight. Actually, those trucks can only handle about
3 tons.

<Usual Suspect>Three tons, nine tons, 40 trucks, 120 trucks? Get your story straight leftist traitors. As Iraq is 17 times the size of China and the Earth weighs nine hundred and nineteen million gigatons I think we can all agree that 350 tons is totally inconsequential and this unceasingly hard left wank-fest is just another manifestation of your irrational hatred of the Glorious Leader. And Clinton got a blow-job.<\Usual Suspect>

[Early_Out]

@Neurotik

Hmm…didn’t think of weight. Actually, those trucks can only handle about
3 tons.

Sounds like all we need to do to track down the missing explosives is pull the rental records from the Baghdad Ryder outlet! Can you get your deposit back if you use the truck itself in a bombing? (Isn’t that how they caught the WTC bombers? I seem to recall one of them repeatedly trying to get his deposit back from the truck rental place. Vicious and moronic - quite a combo.)