Not to mention the Scuds, some of which I understand to be unaccounted for.
Put enough VX, ricin, botulinium toxin, whatever, into a Skud and start launching those things - I would call that a weapon of mass destruction.
I’m surprised that I have not heard of these tests before.
The full list is here, Beagle, scroll down just a little:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2677315.stm
The 150km limit has been exceeded by 23km
I’m reading conflicting info on the lifespan of VX – anyone have any info on that ?
Well, it seems we now have conflicting information about the use of those tubes. The claim is now that they weren’t being used to build a gas centrifuge - a violation of the cease-fire agreement - but rather, that they are being used to make 5,000-10,000 122mm rockets - also a violation of the cease-fire.
Since these tubes would be a violation either way, I’m curious - does anyone know if they were part of their recent declaration?
And of course the U.N. is representing the interests of its members states. So what? Are you implying that their interests are necessarily the same as the U.S.'s? We know what France, Germany, and Russia have to lose through an invasion - all three are currently trading heavily with Iraq, and at least France and Russia are owed billions of dollars which they might not see if the government falls.
Then we have all those members of the U.N. that are tacitly if not overtly hostile to the U.S. - Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Then there are those states that simply aren’t threatened by Saddam because they are flying under the radar, and would rather not see the U.S.'s power and stature grow. Some of the smaller European states would be included here.
Then there are countries like China, which see themselves as natural competitors of the United States, and would therefore not like to see the U.S. develop a major friendly state in the Gulf and have more influence over world oil production and distribution.
Sure, there are plenty of reasons why the U.N. might waffle on this war. None of which have anything to do with the security of the United States and major allies like Britain and Australia.
The MSDS for VX says it’ll degrade at a pretty good clip:
But there are ways to stabilize it:
Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies
The Iraqis claim that their VX degraded or was destroyed back in the early to mid 90’s. Of course, the UN is not convinced of that.
Actually, before my absence I seem to recall Sam being particularly interested in Saddam’s (then unexplored) Palaces – seems they’re clear after all. Anyway…
Sam if you click on my link above and read under ‘Proving a negative’, it seems to address the aluminum tubing issue.
Thanks for that, Squink. Inevitably, Ritter and his erstwhile boss at UNSCOM Richard Butler are not of one mind on the current threat from VX. Here’s Ritter (from here) to counter the link to Butler you supplied:
"That is pretty darned good. Even if Iraq had held on to stabilised VX agent, it is likely it would have degraded by today. Real questions exist as to whether Iraq perfected the stabilisation process. Even a minor deviation in the formula creates proteins that destroy the VX within months. The real question is: is there a VX nerve agent factory in Iraq today? Not on your life. "
It really isn’t helpful when people on the same damn UN mission can’t agree – one can only hope Kofi Annan and Blix are strong enough to prevent political interference this time, from all of the vested interests.
[nitpick]
That must be a transcript error. It should read protons: Even a minor deviation in the formula creates protons that destroy the VX within months.
-There shouldn’t be any amino acids present for a carbodiimide to react with in the first place, but organophosphrous compounds (ie VX) will be sensitive to any carbodiimide reaction that releases H[sup]+[/sup]
[/nitpick]
I don’t find it hard to believe that the Iraqi’s could have failed in their attempts to stabilize VX. Then again, plausibility is not the same as proof, is it ?
‘‘You don’t believe everything you read in the newspaper, do you?’’- Donald Rumsfeld 7/29/02
Anyone who believes that sentiment is an absolute imbecile, eh?
Sorry for the hijack.
Are used by Hezbollah to strike Israel. They can be shot down with the THEL, a U.S. - Israeli project.
You can thrash anyone with a Katyusha! Given their relative simplicity, yet reasonably long range, capacity to carry nerve or biological agents, and the proven connection to terrorism - I think Katyushas are a serious threat. Although, not much of one to the United States.
The troops in Kuwait had better stay frosty.
Why obsess over the VX when Saddam has more at his disposal?
Okay, but if you were Iraq, and you had a bunch of destabilized, worthless VX, wouldn’t you document the destruction of it?
As I understand it, Iraq isn’t claiming that their VX is bad - they’re claiming that they don’t have any, never had any, and furthermore that they claim they never even had the precursor materials.
It should be relatively simple for Iraq to stop speculation on this: They should be able to show documentation that shows what the precursor materials were actually used for, and what happened to the stuff they were used to make. They’ve done neither.
London_Calling: Actually, your link supports what I said - there is no disputing that Iraq attempted to import the aluminum tubes. And whether they are used for a gas centrifuge or making rockets is irrelevant, since both uses are illegal.
Something else mentioned I didn’t know about - Blix said that they have found a ‘large number’ of missile engines, some imported as late as 2002 (when Iraq was already on notice for violations, btw). And Blix agrees that these are illegal for Iraq to possess.
See, Iraq is supposed to be volutarily disarming. Then the inspectors are supposed to go in and verify that Iraq has disarmed. Instead, it seems that Iraq is saying, “Okay, come in and try to find what we’ve got, but don’t expect a lot of help from us.” That’s unworkable, and not what is supposed to be going on.
It seems that the whole purpose of the inspections have been twisted by those opposed to military action. How did we get to the point where the inspectors are supposed to be sleuths looking for a ‘smoking gun’? It’s ridiculous. Iraq has had four years to hide its most dangerous weapons, which are not that large to begin with. Iraq is twice the size of Idaho.
Let’s repeat the process that is supposed to be going on:
[ul]
[li]Iraq makes a full, complete declaration of its weapons program.[/li][li]Iraq destroys any illegal weapons it has, and documents the process.[/li][li]Iraq provides full, unimpeded access to the country for the inspectors to verify what Iraq has documented.[/li][li]Iraq allows unfettered access to Iraqi scientists, and allows them to be temporarily removed from the country, along with their families, so they are free from Saddam’s coercion and can speak freely about weapons programs.[/li][/ul]
So that’s the process we’re supposed to be going through. Now let’s look at what’s actually happening:
[ul]
[li]Iraq provides a joke of a declaration, full of obfuscatory crap like old photocopies of declarations already proven to be false by previous inspections, plus irrelevant factory inventories and other misdirection making it impossible to piece together exactly what they have.[/li][li]The declaration fails to mention numerous materials that the U.N. knows Iraq has, which casts suspicion on the accuracy of the entire declaration. These include SCUD missiles, Vx and Anthrax materials, and biological growth media. There’s no disputing that Iraq imported the materials required to make WMD. Now they claim they don’t have any of it at all.[/li][li]Iraq does not destroy any weapons, because it claims it never had them in the first place.[/li][li]Iraq forbids overflights by U2 planes to look for weapons movements and hiding spots.[/li][li]Saddam refuses to provide complete lists of scientists working in Iraq’s weapon programs.[/li][li]Saddam threatens to kill the families of any scientist that cooperates with the U.S.[/li][li]The inspections wind up as nothing more than a bunch of people in jeeps (53 vehicles in total) roaming around a country twice the size of Idaho, hoping to find a ‘smoking gun’. Along the way, they find prohibited and undeclared rocket engines, chemical warheads, and documentation of Iraq’s nuclear program.[/li][/ul]
Inspectors cannot disarm Iraq. Only Saddam or a military invasion can do that. Inspectors can only verify that Iraq has disarmed if it becomes an active, full participant in the process. Iraq refuses to do that.
This whole thing is a farce anyway. The anti-war people revolve between claiming Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, and raising the specter of chemical and biological attacks if Iraq is invaded. Iraq says it has no such weapons, but Uday Hussein says that if Iraq is attacked there will be a massive loss of life of American civilians. You can’t make both claims at the same time.
In any event, we’ve crossed the rubicon on this. If the U.S. backs down now, it will make the situation far worse than if Saddam had never been put on notice in the first place. Saddam will have faced down the tiger and come out smelling like a rose. This will embolden the radicals that are attacking the United States, and inflame the Middle East even more. In the meantime, France and Germany will get away with essentially double-crossing the United States. It would be a bad thing all around.
> You look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe
As a bona fida, certified European I have something to say on this.
“Vast numbers” is of course a rather stupid comment. However I do think the majority of European counties are supportive of the US in this. And I’m fairly fed up about Germany and France all dressed up and acting like they’re the voice of Europe, when clearly they’re not. Offhand, without any research what so ever, I think Europe is divided thus at the moment:
Opposing war:
Germany, France, Sweden
Leaning towards the German / French point of view:
Norway, Finland, Greece
Backing a, UN sanctioned, US led war
Britain, Poland, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Romania, Czech Republic, Bulgaria
As for the Baltic and the rest of eastern European; generally they’re more pro-US than Western Europe, and I think that goes in this particular case as well. To write them off as simply paying their dues to the US for helping them into NATO is a pretty condescending; do you actually believe you bought them. If so, let me assure you the feeling is not mutually held. All in all I think both a majority of European countries as well as a majority of the European population will stand behind the US in this war; if not materially then at least morally.
And if there’s anybody from Britain here, I’ll like to thank you for being part of the only country in Europe still in possession of any balls what so ever.
Sam, you’re all over the map with this stuff.
Jaywalking is a crime, so is serial murder. The Bushistas have pumped up considerable hysteria with thier insistence that Saddam either has or will have nuclear weaponry very soon. Hence the importance of the Dire Alumunium Tubes.
Apparently, they were lying. Through thier collective teeth.
If someone is accused of murder, but his alibi was he was jaywalking, you gonna say “Well, he’s still a criminal! Jaywalking is illegal too!”
The purpose of the inspections is to inspect. Period. And then to report to the UN. Not to the US. The inspection regime is under UN auspices and UN authority, pursuant to an agreement between the UN and Iraq, not, repeat, not between Iraq and the US. Bush contempt for the UN, both implicit and explicit, is a matter or record. It is the height of hypocrisy to simultaneously dismiss the UN’s authority and, at the same instant, seek to drape its legitimacy over our own actions.
Swallowed hook, line, and sinker by yourself. Might be true. Might not. Once again, you offer as irrefutable proof conjectures from the mouths of proven liars. Mssr.s Wolfowitx and Perle, as a matter of public record, have been vehemently pursuing a war with Iraq for years, with an intensity and dedication that would make Inspector Javert seem like a lacadaisical layabout. Yet you offer thier testimony flatly, with a straight face, as though it were gospel. Please.
The anti-war movement is not a person, it has no distinct identity. Thier is no Central Committee distributing talking points. I, for one, make no claims at all about whether or not Iraq has such weapons. I suspect they very well may. But I assert without hesitation that the decision of whether or not to enforce UN resolutions, and by what means, is not the privilege of any member nation, not even the United States and Bush Augustus. Tennessee cannot declare war on Canada on behalf of the United States, nor can it claim justification for such based on Canada’s abrogation of a fishing rights treaty.
As to your final points: saving face is not an acceptable priority above saving lives. The Rubicon has not been crossed until the war actually begins, though I have scant hope that it can be avoided in the face of such stubborn insistence on the part of the Administration. But our dignity has no value that can be placed above the lives of innocent people.
Beagle - Well, according to Ritter – I guess it can be readily verified independently – all that stuff is now sludge, having a shelf life of 3-5 years max.
FWIW, I got a little side-tracked by VX because of the different views of it held by Ritter (in his interview) and Butler (in his UN address).
**Sam Stome ** - I agree with you that there is a defined ‘process’ and that it has become twisted but given the declaration by the Bush administration that it doesn’t consider itself necessarily bound by the UN (or its Resolutions), one can hardly claim exasperation at Iraq not adhering to the letter of the process – the UN is supposed to represent ‘International Law’ in these matters; Bush has effectively said he’s not being tied down by the ‘Rule of Law’ so what hope have we that Saddam will play ball ?
How’s your geography ? Thanks but I don’t want your thanks for something I have had nothing to do with.
Sam Stone (sorry 'bout the keyboard slip last post) - I’d guess another thing I’d add is that I also agree that the whole game is a farce – not only has Saddam had years to hide what he allegedly has but the US has had years to pump dissidents, defectors, use satellites, informers, whatever it could to find and track the goodies…this is no spur of the moment ploy, everyone expected it would come to this.
Final point; the view from ‘inside’ is that the way to go about this business is not to search the country (you talk of Idaho x 2). The thing they / our chaps do is identify key personnel / scientists and track them, week after week, month after month – these people, apparently quite few in number (the seriously able scientists), were flagged in the UNSCOM period and there whereabouts is monitored by various means. Anything fishy and the Inspectors go look; It’s about those relatively few experts, not running around the country.
Yes, but reports are that Saddam has threatened the lives of any scientists who talk, along with their families. That’s a pretty big disincentive.
What do you make of what happened today? A man jumped into a U.N. truck holding a thick notebook, yelling that he needed safe harbor. The U.N. inspectors allowed the Iraqis to drag the man out and cart him away. They didn’t even LOOK at the notebook. That doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the whole inspection process, y’know? For all we know, that notebook could have been full of documentation of Iraq’s weapons programs. I am stunned that the inspectors wouldn’t have demanded to look at the notebook before releasing the man. That may have been the ‘smoking gun’ everyone was looking for.
But we’ll never know now, because if that man and his family aren’t already dead, they soon will be.
NO ! If I were the poor, overworked, underpaid chemical engineer that had discovered Saddam’s precious VX was no good, I’d run it down the drain at midnight, and claim that the storage vessels had been eaten by starving kurdish goats. When your boss is a tyrant, the very last thing you want to do is create documentation that points to your own incompetence. Covering ones ass is a common enough pastime even in democratic countries like the U.S. Witness the recent Osprey cover-up as an example. How much more common would you expect such behavior to be in a country run by someone who “gases his own people” ?
It’s not surprising that the Iraqi’s haven’t turned over a perfect set of records of their VX program. The surprising thing is that they had any records at all. That being the case, it’d be tragic if we went to war simply because American intelligence is incapable of telling the difference between ass-covering by mid-level employees and the calculated intransigence of an evil regime.
I didn’t really look to close; I had taken you for a Clash fan. Is that the balls thing you’ve had nothing to do with? 
Britain’s heroic fight against Germany in WWII, and in particular liberating Denmark, has not been forgotten by the Danes (neither has some other countries (read French) less heroic role for that matter) - and many Danes have a deep sense of gratitude for that. Perhaps in some years time, the Iraqis will feel the same gratitude to whomever liberates them. And disdain for those who didn’t think their freedom were worth fighting over.
Indeed they might, Winston. But then again, they might not.
Human nature is very unpredictable when it comes to war, heroism, and the like. For instance, the Volksturmm, the German old men and boys who put up an utterly futile resistance in the closing days of WWII. Surely, by then they realized that Hitler had dragged them to destruction, surely they knew they had no chance - untrained, unequipped - offering resistance to battle hardened veterans supported by armor. Yet they did.
We do not accord them the respect we accord to heroes, of course, and for good reason. But why is it you are so certain that the Iraqi’s will look upon our soldiers as liberators, and not aggressors?
I am not suggesting that I know, I’m suggesting that no one does. It is possible that the Iraqi’s will shower the streets of Baghdad with rose petals to greet thier liberators. It is possible that they will resist hopelessly, in house to house combat.
No one knows, least of all, Our Leader. But once it begins, there really can’t be any stopping. There will be no deals this time.
I have little doubt that American might will prevail, that’s a forgone conclusion. If Baghdad must be taken, it will.
But when Al-Jazeera broadcasts to the world pictures of Iraqi women and children dead in the streets of Baghdad, can anyone doubt the result? Saddam Hussein cannot fuse the Moslem world about a single purpose, nor can Osama bin Laden. But we very well might. What goal could possibly be worth such a risk?
As to the fervent support of “New Europe”: Oh? Have they rushed to enlist thier soldiers and thier treasure to America’s noble crusa…endeavor? The support of Turkey alone, albeit lukewarm, has cost us some $10 billion. Perhaps it is my inherent pessimism, but I sincerely doubt that the average citizen of Bucharest is passionately committed to the US cause. Of course, they’re on our side, it costs them nothing and endears them to the Big Dog. If I were King of Rumania, you can damn sure bet I would fervently declaim my loyalty to the USA. When crunch time came, I would regratably conclude the logistical problems preclude any direct military involvement. Unless, of course, we had a nice new air field. Some M-16’s. Uniforms. That sort of thing.
Looking at actual past results is a useful basis for predicting the future. It was only a year ago that opponents of war in Afghanistan were expressing similar concerns. What happened? The Afghanis do appreciate America for liberating them from the Taliban. The Islamofacists don’t hate us any more than they did before that war. In fact, Iran has seen a stirring of resistance to the Mullahs.
BTW, Bush, whose knowledge you disparage, was right about Afghanistan while a lot of his “smarter” critics were dead wrong. As Forrest Gump pointed out, stupid is as stupid does.
Elucidator: The citizens of the Middle East and regions closeby are fully aware of what a monster Hussein is, how he has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, how he has sent his own people to their deaths fighting unjust wars. There is no question in my mind that the day he’s gone will be celebrated by not just Iraqis but others in the region. You can cynically try and paint this as merely a political ploy on the administration’s part, but that’s irrelevant. If you know anyone from that region, talk with them. Ask them what they think about Hussein and his eventual fall. War is in part about death, we all know that. There may sadly be civilians killed in a military confrontation. What is equally certain is that there will be more lives lost if Hussein continues in his current role, no question.
That is by no means certain. If for example, the US screws up and firebombs a few too many mosques, hospitals, and orphanages, the whole Arab world will rise in arms against us for the next thousand years. The pro-war faction’s glib denial of such possibilities reveals their fundamental disconnect with the realities of armed conflict. Shit happens. It does no good to pretend that it doesn’t, won’t, can’t, or that things will somehow all work out for the best in this future best of all possible worlds.
Many in the middle east may indeed cheer when they see Saddam’s head on a stick, but the US involvement in the region is more likely to be judged by all the bad things that happen during the war and the subsequent occupation. Saddam’s ouster is a three day wonder. The inhabitants of Iraq will still have to live out the rest of their lives, and they’ll decide what’s good or bad based on how that life compares to life under Saddam. Recent reports from Afghanistan suggest that the Afghani’s aren’t too thrilled with our new world order. Maybe that’s just a temporary glitch, or maybe the US isn’t handling reconstruction as well as it did the war.