# Are iraq's chemical warheads a smoking gun? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254 "2003-01-17T17:08:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![censored](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/35a633/32.png) [@censored](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/censored)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/41 "2003-01-18T05:15:16Z")
Another way to approach this is: We know Saddam had WMD prior to when the UN inspectors left. We know this through government intelligence data, inspector statements, or even because we gave them to him. Whether one believes that this is true or not depends on the individual, but I’d personally say that it is a good guess that he still had some sort of WMD at that point. (For example, those instances where inspectors arrived at the front gate of a factory and were stalled while heavily-laden trucks exited the back gate.) From then until when the inspectors returned in 2002, Saddam could do what he wished without worrying about inspectors showing up at the door. None of us civilians really know what he was up to. Now, working off the (debatable, of course) assumption that Saddam had WMD at the point of the inspector’s departure, one can logically ask now what happened to those weapons. We know he had x amount of chemical warheads, y amount of chemicals, z biotoxins - now where did they go? The “report” that was turned over by the Iraqi government was a compilation of old papers and a denial that there were any WMD in Iraq at the time of the inspectors’ departure. That’s questionable - the “gaps” that are described in the Iraqi weapons report probably refer to this. This is all up to debate of course, one can choose to believe what they wish (from both sides), but the question still remains: _Where did the weapons go?_ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/42 "2003-01-18T05:23:30Z")
Screw Iraq. Screw Saddam bin Laden. Nobody gave a rat’s ass about Iraq until September 12 of this year, when Our Leader, the born-again Churchill, mounted the podium of the UN and started talking war. Do you remember the nations of the world, clamoring to be first to express total solidarity with the US? No? Hardly a surprise because most everybody else thinks we’re fucking _nuts_. Tell me, **Shodan**. Tell me that the day before the speech, you were sitting around, biting your nails and sweating about what Iraq was about to do. Tell me you were pacing the floor, fretting about those WMD’s, losing sleep worrying about whatever terrible plot Saddam bin Laden was cooking up. Lying low for ten friggin’ years! Pretending to be sane, thats it, lull us into complacency and POW! Intercontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax hit Akron! He doesnt care about massive nuclear retaliation, he’s crazy, a secular fanatic! He was just pretending to care about preserving his own ass. Until the Boy Blunder started rattling thier cage, nobody, but _nobody_ gave a shit about Iraq! Even now, the whole “inspection” shuck is just trying to buy time, hoping that they can talk some sense into the Americans, who apparently have gone off the deep end. If everybody thinks you’re nuts, **Shodan** , maybe its them. But odds are, its you. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/43 "2003-01-18T06:17:20Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by Shodan \* quote: > > ## Incomplete is in no way a synonym for innacurate. > > A distinction without a difference. The Iraqi report, in which they claimed they had no WMD, is both inaccurate, because they do, and incomplete, because they did not mention the WMD which they have. And you know that they have WMD how? Why don’t you call the inspectors and tell them where to find them because they seem to be having a hard time? Or I suppose you’re worried about them shelling Iraq with 12 empty warheads? There is huge difference between calling for positive evidence of destruction so that the inspectors could more reliably show compliance and saying that the report was innacurate. > [@](#): > > **elucidator** was claiming that the US had not delivered any information to the UN inspectors. CNN claims that there is evidence that they did. It would make sense that the US would not publicize the information they gave, because the Iraqis would then use it to hide their WMD. It would also make sense that if they’d delivered credible evidence that they’d have found something real. Somehow I don’t think the inspectors needed top secret info to have reason to visit an arms depot. > [@](#): > > So now we have evidence that he is. Nope just evidence that he did at one time which no one disputes anyway. > [@](#): > > Read the cites. There is more than evidence, there is proof. Which cites? If can’t distinguish between incomplete and innacurate I wonder what your standards of proof are. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/44 "2003-01-18T06:22:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > **Why are you all trying so hard to justify what Iraq does?** I can’t speak for all, but personally, I’m not trying to justify anything. Saddam Hussein is a disgusting dictator. No lack of those, sadly. I **do** happen to think it’s those who’re arguing in the urgency of a shooting war that have to justify their position. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/45 "2003-01-18T07:47:42Z")
I think there’s a bigger story here, which is that apparently the inspectors were sent to this location by either the U.S. or Britain based on some classified data they have. That there were in fact warheads there indicates that the U.S. or Britain actually have some pretty good intelligence about what’s been going on in Iraq. That may make Saddam even more nervous, and increase the likelihood that he’ll take an extradition deal or be overthrown in an internal coup. This is just the screws being turned in another turn or two. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/46 "2003-01-18T08:49:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Why are you all trying so hard to justify what Iraq does? > > Regards, > Shodan \*\* For the record, I don’t try to justify anything Iraq does - I try to apply a skeptical view of the Official Word Of Our State. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/47 "2003-01-18T08:51:47Z")
Powell is claiming that by the 27th (or whenever the UN meets on this again), The world will have proof of Saddams non-compliance and breech of resolution. That tells me that they have some info they are keeping up their sleeves until the right time. Wich is what I assumed from the start of Bush backing down on the unilateral talk and giving it to the UN a while back. We have not went to war yet. You bunch’a panty-waiste-hand-wringers that accuses Bush and the US of doing everything wrong under the sun so Bush can get some oil money should listen to how shrill and chicken little you sound. Bush has done nothing wrong up to this point. He may have talked rough at the start, but I would bet it was to get the UN’s ass off the couch and to let Saddam know we aint playin. And I would wager my lunch money that, although we _probably_ will go to war, the US will _not_ do it without the blessings and a certified resolution from the UNSC. If they wanted to go without it, they would not be talking down these 12 warheads like they are. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/48 "2003-01-18T08:53:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > **No, the cease fire agreement, in which they committed themselves not to have or develop any WMD, dates from 1991. It is now 2003. They are in violation of an agreement that is current _now_.** I understand that, but what I’m saying is this incident doesn’t indicate they were persuing chemical weapons after the post war agreements were signed. It’s consistent with the recording keeping fuckup I proposed above. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/49 "2003-01-18T10:13:47Z")
After re-reading my post, I want to appologize because of my condescending remarks. It wasn’t, really, anyone here who deserved my ire, and shouldn’t have used that tone. Just have to reminde myself not to post here on an issue I just was reading in Talking Points at the BBC. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/50 "2003-01-18T12:16:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **elucidator** _- > Nobody gave a rat’s ass about Iraq until September 12 of this year, when Our Leader, the born-again Churchill, mounted the podium of the UN and started talking war. You have made this claim several times. Each time, you were wrong. And if you are going to call me “nuts”, do it in the Pit, where I can respond. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **errata** _- > And you know that they have WMD how? The shells _are_ WMD. So is the [mustard gas](http://www.sunherald.com/mld/democrat/news/nation/4685861.htm) which Iraq has. Put them together, and what do you get? Iraq has WMD. This is no longer disputable. This is a violation of the cease-fire agreement. This is also not disputable. The reaction of the UN and the US is debatable. The facts of the situation are not. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/51 "2003-01-18T14:15:37Z")
Whoa, big horse. The “nuts” is about _us_, collectively. As to the rest, you _were_ fretting obsessively before the big call-out of Sept. 12th. Well, maybe. If you say so. Was anybody else? Were there editorials in major news outlets about the urgency of Iraq? Allies clamoring for action? Anything? I suggest not. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/52 "2003-01-18T15:34:11Z")
> [@](#): > > The smoking gun was when Sadam kicked the inspectors out during the Clinton regeime, [http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html](http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html) OK so they weren’t actually inspecting when they were told they weren’t allowed in Iraq’s weapon, chemical, Bio, Nuke facilities any more. It’s a difference between looking at the nukes being build and being told ‘sorry you have to leave now’ and knocking on the door the next day and being told ’ sorry you can’t come in any more to see us building the nukes anymore’. It was a nicer way to get the UN inspectors to leave the country. > [@](#): > > the the finger on the trigger is when the UN said their weapon report was inaccurate Ok I was in a rush here, and ment inadequate, but inaccurate also fits as proved by the existance of this thread (the chem. rockets were not disclosed and they gave us what was suppose to be a complete disclosure). [http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/04/98041404\_npo.html](http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/04/98041404_npo.html) > [@](#): > > That’s a value judgement depending upon your perspective. Incomplete is in no way a synonym for innacurate. Again if something is presented as complete (as in complete disclosure) and it is found not to be complete it is inaccurate. Something else I must add, the burden of proof is on Iraq to convince the UN that they don’t have WMD, not on the UN to prove he does. > [@](#): > > Full responsibility. UNSCR 687, which codified the Gulf War ceasefire, requires Iraq to demonstrate that it has dismantled its WMD programs. The burden of proof in on Iraq; it is not the inspectors’ obligation to discover whether Iraq has clandestine WMD activities. [http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch2002/654.htm](http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch2002/654.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/53 "2003-01-18T15:42:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by owlofcreamcheese \* > \*\*people that are saying “its okay because they are empty” do you imagin that they store the actual chemicals in the actual weapons? are you insaine!? \*\* Is this true? My wife heard this on the radio yesterday too, but I don’t have a specific cite, so I just don’t know. But it seems to me that if these warheads are, by design, empty until they are ready to be launched, then why would the fact that they are empty exculpate Iraq at all? That is, if they’re _supposed_ to be empty, even if you intend to use 'em. Any experts in the house regarding how these weapons are typically stored (empty or not)? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/54 "2003-01-18T16:22:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by k2dave \* > OK so they weren’t actually inspecting when they were told they weren’t allowed in Iraq’s weapon, chemical, Bio, Nuke facilities any more. It’s a difference between looking at the nukes being build and being told ‘sorry you have to leave now’ and knocking on the door the next day and being told ’ sorry you can’t come in any more to see us building the nukes anymore’. It was a nicer way to get the UN inspectors to leave the country. Well, you know, a little mistake here (“Well, they weren’t actually kicked out, they left because they felt that Iraq was being uncooperative”) and a little mistake there (“Well, Iraq’s reason for being uncooperative wasn’t just their unsubstantiated allegation that there were spies on the team but actual evidence from numerous U.S. and UN sources since reported in major U.S. media that there were in fact spies on the team”)… Pretty soon they add up to real differences of fact! ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/55 "2003-01-18T18:24:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > The shells _are_ WMD. So is the [mustard gas](http://www.sunherald.com/mld/democrat/news/nation/4685861.htm) which Iraq has. Put them together, and what do you get? > > Iraq has WMD. This is no longer disputable. The inspectors found a dozen old and obviously abandoned shells. Something they characterized as not news. The shells had not been moved or hidden since the last inspection found them. Also something they themselves have yet to claim is a “smoking gun”. While a dozen old mustard gas shells are dangerous and should be disposed of, from a military perspective they are chicken feed and hardly represent a credible threat. Neither of these finds indicates a continued plan to aquire and use WMD as yet. If Iraq’s chemical weapons consists of a dozen forgotten empty shells here a dozen old shells there, I think we hardly have the case for war. In fact it seems a good case to continue the inspections to make sure that everything is disposed of. Are you making the case that the declaration had to be without any mistakes whatsoever in order for it not to constitute a breach? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/56 "2003-01-18T18:42:30Z")
> [@](#): > > (“Well, they weren’t actually kicked out, they left because they felt that Iraq was being uncooperative”) or they left because Iraq _was_ being uncooperative. Yes I can see how a little mistake can make a big difference in fact. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/57 "2003-01-18T18:48:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by k2dave \* > Ok I was in a rush here, and ment inadequate, but inaccurate also fits as proved by the existance of this thread (the chem. rockets were not disclosed and they gave us what was suppose to be a complete disclosure). > [http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/04/98041404\_npo.html](http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/04/98041404_npo.html) I didn’t see anything about chem. rockets in your link. Perhaps you could quote the relevant part directly. > [@](#): > > Again if something is presented as complete (as in complete disclosure) and it is found not to be complete it is inaccurate. That is your take on it, and I can see the logic, but that’s not what the inspector’s said. Which is my point: you were misrepresenting the inspectors. > [@](#): > > Something else I must add, the burden of proof is on Iraq to convince the UN that they don’t have WMD, not on the UN to prove he does. You can say that till you blue in the face, but it’s meaningless to me. We send warplanes over Saddam’s airspace every day. We can and have bombed him at any time with impunity. We have a clear military advantage which we exploit fully. Portraying this pathetic, defeated, isolated dictator as a credible threat to US interests necessitating a **pre-emptive** strike is a hard sell to me. If we attack Iraq we are the agressors, therefore, I demand proof of a credible threat from the inspectors before action. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/58 "2003-01-18T19:47:46Z")
From [Newsday](http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uswar183094005jan18,0,5644228.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines): > [@](#): > > \*\*The Iraqis “don’t normally fill [the warheads] until they are ready to fire,” said a senior administration official familiar with the CIA’s reports on the discovery of the shells and artillery rockets. "And these rockets haven’t been fired, so there may be no trace of chemicals in them…The CIA believes Iraq has secretly stocked “at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons” of chemical warfare agents, according to a report it prepared in October. " \*\*The article also shows that many view this discovery as somewhat trivial. ::shrug:: I just don’t get it, I guess. Empty warheads–which are normally stored empty–are discovered, but that’s not a concern because they are empty (even though they would be even if Iraq intended to use them). Um, OK. Whatever. If the inspectors discover a stockpile of chemical warfare agents in a separate location, does _that_ demonstrate duplicity? Or is that just forgetfulness too since the chemicals aren’t _in_ the warheads? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/59 "2003-01-18T20:20:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I didn’t see anything about chem. rockets in your link. Perhaps you could quote the relevant part directly Again I ment to say inadequate, This is the 2nd time I am stating this and the link does state support it: > [@](#): > > United Nations – A group of international experts has concluded that > the biological weapons information Iraq has supplied to the U.N. > weapons inspectors is “incomplete and inadequate” - from my above link As for the ‘inaccurate’ word choice, it was unfortunate. I brought in the Chem Rockets to support my claim that the Iraq report was inaccurate as well as inadequate after you called me on my word choice. Also if the UN inspectors can’t come to the conclusion on their own that the complete disclosure report that didn’t actually disclose everything would be by default inaccurate then they shouldn’t be in this line of work. Yes they didn’t say inaccurate but as I said it was a mischoice of words on my part that I went on to defend by logic that even you can see: > [@](#): > > and I can see the logic As for: > [@](#): > > You can say that till you blue in the face, but it’s meaningless to me… > … If we attack Iraq we are the agressors, therefore, I demand proof of a credible threat from the inspectors before action - I don’t think G. W. Bush the UN or any other person gives a flying ---- as to what you demand. I would argue that Iraq not allowing UN inspectors to continue looking for nukes (not that they were kicked out mind you) broke the agreement that ended the gulf war. I would further argue that them firing at our planes is also an act of war > [@](#): > > A statement from the Central Command said the strike, which was performed at 3:15 a.m. EDT with precision-guided weapons, was in response to "hostile acts against coalition aircraft - one of among many [http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news\_id=1610](http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1610) I would further argue that the inadequate AND INACCURATE 😛 report they produced when ordered to produce a full disclusure under all these circumstances (listed above) is a reason to revert to the former state of war. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/60 "2003-01-18T20:38:05Z")
Perhaps so. If the UN so determines, perhaps. It is not, however, the perogative of Mr. Bush. You seem to keep tripping over this minor technicality, that the UN is not, at least theoreticly, under the command of the Pres. USA. Indeed, there are any number of member states who regard themselves as entirely soveriegn. A charming notion, no? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254.md?page=4)