The obvious solution is to encase the ships in millions of yards of duct tape, thereby forever sealing the WMDs in a sticky womb.
On the other hand, anybody who believes this story should have his head examined. This is a truly desperate and pathetic attempt by Bush to justify his stupid war.
Maybe the are packed with Ammonium Nitrate. Like the SS Grandecamp was when it destroyed Texas City back in 1947.
see-- http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/metropolitan/txcity/main.html
These ships could be cheaply constructed equivalents to atomic bombs, at least in scale of the blast.
Think “fireships”.
I agree that this is a convenient release of more “possible smoking gun” red herrings in an attempt to make the story more plausible simply by repeating it. What I don’t understand is the argument put forth in earlier posts that part of the failure to act in regards to these ships is our concern that we not violate international maritime law. We are ready to militarily attack their country, even without UN approval, but we don’t want to board ships out of concern for maritime law?
Ok. Yeah. I see…
Here’s one but even I’ll admit that the WWII situation is not comparable to these Iraqi ships. Those instances involved dumping the weapons not far from land so they would of course have a higher risk of infecting people. Still, the research is frightening and indicates that the DNA of waterlife in the Baltic Sea is being affected by these substances.
What most people here are saying is don’t sink them unless necessary. What I object to is the notion that sinking them would be an effective solution to the issue of WMD as was opined by a previous post.
Agreed. If there’s no alternative then there’s no alternative. I just didn’t like the message that it was okay to sink them because, hey, the ocean’s pretty big.
I don’t think they should sink them, but if they’re really full of Iraqi WMD, why haven’t commandos boarded them in the dead of night already? Then Colin Powell could have his big “Adlai Stevenson moment” at the U.N. Security Council and wave the pictures of Iraqi anthrax-tipped Scuds around and pound his shoe on the table* and all.
I realize that there would be risks involved in seizing the ships, but it’s not like there aren’t risks involved in invading an entire country in terms of environmental contamination and assorted other ways things could go wrong.
*Yes, I know, that was Nikita Khrushchev.
Aren’t there acoustic guided torpedos that seek ship propellers? No-sink…no go…no problem.
Who would you send?
Steven Seagal ?
Because if they are Iraqi ships, they are no doubt wired with scuttle charges. Land your commandos in the ‘dead of night’, and the night watch presses a button, and big explosion, lots of dead commandos, and an ecological disaster.
These ships won’t be allowed anywhere near land. So why sink them? Why not isolate them, and then when the war is over offer surrender terms?
I don’t see a shred of evidence these ships have anything to do with Iraq at all. The story provides not an iota of support for this claim. This is all much ado about nothing.
It’s like the situation with those ships going to Yemen from China.
I think you meant the freighters carrying SCUDs to Yemen from North Korea.
How do you know what kind of Biological weapons Iraq might have developed? What makes you think that by being under the ocean, a single virii or diseased bacteria can’t swim and/or find a suitable host? How can you say there aren’t vials of virii or bacteria that could eliminate the entire human race on board? Sink the ship, maybe crack some vials open. They float at sea, maybe infect whales and other fish. The fish are taken in and eaten by humans… And there it is.
“no doubt wired with scuttle charges” - based on what?
“an ecological disaster” - again, based on what?
How to handle?
I think The Blue Marlin should be commissioned to executed a semi submerged rendezvous with each ship under cover of darkness and then disgorge her ballast prior to boarding.
Urban Ranger: Well, based on the fact that the U.S. is afraid to board them. And that it makes perfect sense, if they are in fact filled with forbidden munitions.
And I’m quoting the government when they say they are worried about an ecological disaster. I’m not a chemist or a biologist, so I’m not in a position to make an informed judgement. So I will take the government’s word for it until I have reason to doubt it.
Okay, they are afraid to board these ships, but are not afraid to launch a full scale invasion against Iraq. What kind of sense does that make? Filled with forbidden munitions? Like what? Do you know? Got a cite? Oh, that’s right, they don’t really know, but they suspect and are afraid to find out.
It makes sense if you stop and actually think rather than just coming up with clever parallels.
Clearly the U.S. CAN board those ships, or try to. But no one has answered WHY. And I’m finding this rather unbelievable - the people who are against the war are suddenly in favor of blowing a couple of ships and crew out of the water because we don’t know what’s on them? It’s ridiculous.
As long as those ships continue just circling in the middle of the ocean, why would you do anything other than shadow them? It’s not like they can take a surprise run at the coat - they are days away from land. There’s probably a sub sitting near each one of them right now. So in this case, they appear to be effectively contained. Why in hell would you take all these crazy risks?
And it’s idiotic to suggest that they aren’t boarding because they are ‘afraid to find out that there’s nothing on them’. If that was their big worry, they would have just boarded them without announcement. Then if there was nothing there, they’d just be three more ships that were detained and released. No big deal.
The only plausible claim you can make is that the government knows that they have oil, or Saddam’s gold, or something else relatively innocuous, and their playing it up as Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to build a case for war. But that seems like a real stretch to me, because that doesn’t explain why these things very conspicuously left port and then went out into the ocean and began circling.
I don’t pretend to understand exactly what’s going on, but I have no reason to disbelieve what the government is saying, and the arguments against it being true have so far not been convincing.
Yeah. We’d send an actor. Because as we all know, the US does not have any special operations forces trained specifically for such water-born operations as boarding a ship…
But as long as they’re just circling out there, I don’t think there’s any real reason to act. Keep an eye on them, and intercept and investigate if they start moving toward what could be percieved as “targets,” but there isn’t any need to act out yet. And if there was any good intel that those ships were carrying NBC weapons, the first news would have been of those ships being boarded by SEALs. Kind of like what happened a year or so ago (With a ship carrying missiles for NK, IIRC?).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
It makes sense if you stop and actually think rather than just coming up with clever parallels.
It’s doesn’t make any sense, no matter how much I think about it.
You think that’s what I’m suggesting, but it isn’t. It’s idiotic to proclaim that there is this and that on the ships based on no evidence.
My theory covers this just fine. A ship loaded with ammonium nitrate could destroy a Naval vessel, if the freighter crew blew the ship. So the Fleet keeps its distance, & stalks it with subs.
At need, we sink them.