# OMG what if we don't find any WMD? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060 "2003-03-25T16:57:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [March 26, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/41 "2003-03-26T04:16:49Z")
The hospital the coalition [captured today](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.nasiriya.hospital/) had 3,000 chemical/biological suits in it. Iraqi officers who surrendered have been found with Cipro pills (for Anthrax) and Atropine (for nerve gas). Somehow, I think there are chemical and biological weapons around. Something interesting I read today - If the coalition has found WMD, it may be in their interest to NOT tell the world. The reason being that the only thing holding Saddam back from using WMD now is that he hopes to win a war of world opinion, and he’d lose that instantly if he uses those weapons. But if the U.S. displays those weapons and proves he has them, then a big impediment to his using them will be gone. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/42 "2003-03-26T04:21:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **Iraqi officers who surrendered have been found with Cipro pills (for Anthrax) and Atropine (for nerve gas).** Perhaps that’s because, since Iraq received its anthrax and VX from the U.S., they were worried that the U.S. would use those weapons and then blame the Iraqis. It proves nothing. U.S. soldiers have Atropine (and probably Cipro) as well. Or does the fact that U.S. troops went in with MOP suits prove that the U.S. will use chemical weapons? ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/43 "2003-03-26T04:28:25Z")
Man, the hamsters are working half-time today. Sam’s evidence is very convincing to me. I hadn’t heard about the Cipro and Atropine, and if that’s true there are few other explanations for them. Unless Saddam expects bio/chem attacks from the US or Iran, which seems unlikely. Or, and this is rather far fetched, if they weren’t high ranking officers perhaps they didn’t know Saddam’s plans and acquired the drugs for their personal protection just in case. That’s a stretch though. Occam definitely favors the existence of wmd in Iraq. I wonder if and when we’ll find them. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/44 "2003-03-26T04:33:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cainxinth \* > **I hadn’t heard about the Cipro and Atropine, and if that’s true there are few other explanations for them.** When I was in the Canadian army, Atropine was standard kit, along with a gas mask. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/45 "2003-03-26T04:35:02Z")
CNN is reporting that there was also a large cache of atropine stored with the chem/bio suits. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/46 "2003-03-26T04:39:59Z")
Any reasonably modern army, which includes Iraq, stockpiles NBC defensive gear, trains it soldiers to use it, and issues it as standard equipment as it’s able to. That Iraqis have atropine and cipro and chem/bio suits **says absolutely nothing** about their possession of such weapons or their intentions to use them. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/47 "2003-03-26T05:18:05Z")
Perhaps the threat posed to Saddam’s regime by the **Iranians** has something to do with the Iraqi army having chem suits and atropine? Given the history between the two countries, it’d be negligent of Saddam _not_ to be prepared to defend against chemical warfare. The coalition is certainly taking the possibility of Iranian friskiness seriously: [Marines line up on Iranian border](http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/26/wiran26.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/26/ixnewstop.html) Why wouldn’t Saddam ? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/48 "2003-03-26T05:23:11Z")
Perhaps the threat posed to Saddam’s regime by the **Iranians** has something to do with the Iraqi army having chem suits and atropine? Given the history between the two countries, it’d be negligent of Saddam _not_ to be prepared to defend against chemical warfare. The coalition is certainly taking the possibility of Iranian friskiness seriously: [Marines line up on Iranian border](http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/26/wiran26.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/26/ixnewstop.html) Why wouldn’t Saddam ? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/49 "2003-03-26T05:42:42Z")
It’s not got much press recently, but apparently, [Saddam was still trying](http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021010-48589039.htm) to get parts for his [Super Gun](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm). Judging by [this](http://www.debkafile.org/article.php?size=big&aid=123) it’s a pretty powerful piece. > [@](#): > > The largest has a 1,000 mm diameter barrel, 260 meters (248 yards) long and a maximum range of 2,000 miles. The barrel of the smaller version is 350 mm in diameter and 30 meters (32 yard) long. Its range is up to 250 miles. They were dismantled and concealed in segments – the barrel of the biggest super gun is made up of 35 separate pipes – and only spotted by US and Israeli satellites after they were assembled. If one of those is found, will people claim that it’s _really_ parts for an oil pipeline? ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/50 "2003-03-26T06:05:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*Perhaps the threat posed to Saddam’s regime by the **Iranians** has something to do with the Iraqi army having chem suits and atropine? Given the history between the two countries, it’d be negligent of Saddam _not_ to be prepared to defend against chemical warfare. > The coalition is certainly taking the possibility of Iranian friskiness seriously: [Marines line up on Iranian border](http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/26/wiran26.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/26/ixnewstop.html) Why wouldn’t Saddam ? \*\* The Iranians hate Saddam, but according to this [think tank](http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA12803) they may be choosing a position of passive opposition to avoid a confrontation with the US. > [@](#): > > Iran’s attitude towards the war in Iraq is complex. Iran repudiates Saddam Hussein, holding him responsible for the eight-year Iran-Iraq war (1) and for gassing Iranian citizens with chemical weapons. Nonetheless, Iran regards the U.S. presence on its borders as an even greater threat to the security of its regime and its national interests. As one of the three “axis of evil” countries, Iran monitors the United States’ moves with regard to Iraq and North Korea, fearing that it might be next in line. As a result of this fear, Iran opposes the use of military intervention to bring down the Iraqi regime, whether on the grounds that it terrorizes its citizens, or on the grounds that it possesses a variety of weapons of mass destruction. If there is widespread allotment of safety equipment for chemical and biological weapons it can only mean Saddam expects an attack of that nature either against him, or more likely in my opinion, by him. Iran doesn’t look like it has the motivation to risk it. And the US would never survive the public outcry if it used gas or germs. Maybe Saddam’s craftier than I give him credit for, and he really has hidden, sold, or destroyed everything, but I don’t think so. It doesn’t change the fact that this is by far the biggest piece of crap in the history of war. If by some miracle some good comes of it, I’ll be the first to give credit where its due, but if I we’re a gambling man you’d have to give me a hefty spread to take that bet. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/51 "2003-03-26T06:27:27Z")
Even the [Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922158,00.html) thinks this is fishy, but cautions… > [@](#): > > “Saddam always expected the battle would be fought and won in Baghdad. And he always expected that it would be won politically,” he said. “If he starts using chemicals he risks losing what is most important to him - international public opinion.” God only knows (that’s nobody knows for you atheists), what Saddam has planned. I have to wonder if anyone in the US government regrets or even acknowledges America’s role in Saddam’s rise to power and the durability of his regime? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/52 "2003-03-26T15:01:23Z")
[/quote] The Iranians hate Saddam, but according to this think tank they may be choosing a position of passive opposition to avoid a confrontation with the US. [/quote] It sure looks that way now, but it’s doubtful that Iran-Iraq relations have been peaceful long enough for either side to dispose of their chem suits. The outfits don’t exactly fall off trees when needed. > [@](#): > > If there is widespread allotment of safety equipment for chemical and biological weapons… Agreed. However, atropine kits are small cheap, and easier to put in a soldier’s backpack during peactime than war. On the other hand, despite attempts by some to conflate the two issues and manufacture a “smoking gun”, it appears that the chemical warfare outfits have not been widely distributed. So where does Saddam store the chemical suits when he’s NOT planning a chemical attack ? Widespread allotment of atropine is a less ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/53 "2003-03-26T15:05:39Z")
Preview, preview, preview :smack: > [@](#): > > The Iranians hate Saddam, but according to this think tank they may be choosing a position of passive opposition to avoid a confrontation with the US. It sure looks that way now, but it’s doubtful that Iran-Iraq relations have been peaceful long enough for either side to dispose of their chem suits. The outfits don’t exactly fall off trees when needed. > [@](#): > > If there is widespread allotment of safety equipment for chemical and biological weapons… Agreed. However, atropine kits are small cheap, and easier to put in a soldier’s backpack during peactime than war. On the other hand, despite attempts by some to conflate the two issues and manufacture a “smoking gun”, it appears that the chemical warfare outfits have not been widely distributed. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/54 "2003-03-26T15:08:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*I disagree, **Malthus**. I think it is imperative for the Bush administration that credible and verifiable proof of WMD be found in Iraq. The absense of such proof would weaken his stance and undermine this crerdibility for starting this war. With verifiable and irrefutable proof of WMD, the naysayers can still say what they want but Bush’s credibility will be so high that it wouldnt matter what the naysayers say. \*\* I don’t think this is true - or if it is, that it _ought_ to be true. Looking from the “pro” position, who cares whether Saddam happens to have the things _right now_ or not? He obviously had them (and used them) in the past, and if left unimpeded with his oil wealth, he could have them in the future. His distruction (if he did destroy them) could be an entirely cynical PR move, designed _specifically_ to harm the legitimacy of the actions taken against him. In fact, he would be a fool _not_ to get rid of them, once war began to look inevitable. The justification for the war really boils down to this - Saddam is too nasty, wily and ambitious to be allowed to continue (witness the way he has played with the UN) - him getting rid of his WMD’s would be of piece with his usual behaviour, as would him acquiring them again when the heat was off. It would be perfectly consistent to maintain the war as justified in the face of a finding of no WMD’s. Looking from the “anti” position, finding verifiable and credible proof of WMD should not make any difference. The main argument against the war is that it was not justified by the UN, and that pursuing it without UN approval harms that institution and is “illegal” - in spite of whatever infractions Saddam may have committed of the ceasefire terms and UN SC resolutions. Lots of other countries have WMD’s, often in violation of treaties, without provoking invasions. It will be perfectly consistent to maintain the war as unjustified in the face of a finding of WMD’s. In sum, other than on the shallow level of sound-bites and news clips, I don’t see why finding the things ought to matter one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![negative\_geez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dfb087/32.png) [@negative\_geez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/negative_geez)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/55 "2003-03-26T15:12:23Z")
i tried to read all of this…i honestly did…but i gotta turtle head pokin out and can wait no longer to say this, which has probably already been said by someone else… if you notice…the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was simply a front to get our foot in the iraqi front door. ever since the bullets and bombs began to fly, it became all about liberating the iraqi people…not WMD. it became about removing saddam as a threat…not WMD. the whole war started under false pretenses. already there have been deaths to people fighting under every flag. there are dead reporters, dead civilians. families across the globe are shattered and will never be the same…not because of the weapons of mass deception, but because of the everyday run-of-the-mill weapons. the only weapons of mass destruction lay in the heads of those in charge. viva la apathy! ---
**Author:** ![athene1765](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/67e7ee/32.png) [@athene1765](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athene1765)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/56 "2003-03-26T15:34:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by negative geez \* > \*\*the only weapons of mass destruction lay in the heads of those in charge. \*\* what, like cortex bombs? neat. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/57 "2003-03-26T15:35:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob55 \* > \*\*IIRC this war isn’t about WOMD, it’s about Saddam breaking Resolution 1441 multiple times. \*\* well doh, if Iraq has no WOMD then it has not breached 1441. Try reading 1441 and tell me what part it would have breached. It is all about WOMD. You could argue that Iraq has breached resolution 687, but that was what 1441 was set up to reinforce. ---
**Author:** ![jeel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71e660/32.png) [@jeel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeel)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/58 "2003-03-26T15:47:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airblairxxx \* > \*\*Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you literally claiming that if we had invaded on 9/10, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? I think we can all call “bullshit” on that one, from a realistic point of view. > > Maybe you’re saying that if we’d apprehended the 9/11 hijackers beforehand and sweated out of them whom they were working for, would that have justified an invasion? I’d like to know if you’d honestly support such an invasion in that scenario. And then we’d have to go back and look at all the other failed terrorist plots against the United States, and I’d ask you to tell me what the appropriate response would be for each of them. > > Or are you saying that we should have taken out the Taliban a long time ago, way before 9/11? And if so, would you please pursue the ramifications of that hypothetical action to their logical conclusions, as well as the justification for said action? That we should travel halfway across the world, to areas devoid of valuable resources or strategic import, to wipe out any and all hostile regimes that don’t pose any kind of military threat to our national well-being? > > And if you answer ‘yes’, on the basis that they might sponsor terroristic attacks on us, then are you willing to accept the blowback that will inevitably come down on us? In other words, again in a hypothetical scenario that we unilaterally brought down the Taliban before 9/11 ever happened, do you honestly think that the act of toppling a hostile regime before they did anything to us would not have the effect of creating even more anti-American sentiment in a hugely unstable yet vital part of the world? > > Please use a number 2 pencil, and be sure to phrase your answer in the form of a question. (Kinda like i was doing towards the end there.) \*\* I was saying that a preemptive strike on the Taliban and Al Qaeda would have gone a long way and would have had a good chance of averting the 9/11 attacks. Maybe I should not have said 9/10/2001. I was only trying to state that we should have taken out OBL back in the mid 90’s. If that meant invading another part of the country , so be it. The world was unstable long before we went into Iraq and ousting out the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan would have definitely been worth it. Are you sayig that toppling a hostile regime prior to 9/11 would have made people like OBL hate us even more??? (last part of my answer in the form of a question…;)) ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/59 "2003-03-26T16:38:22Z")
The problem is Jeel, that if you took out all the parts of the world that had a grudge against the US, you would have a mighty lonely planet ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060/60 "2003-03-26T17:04:16Z")
Not only that but these areas have some of the fastest growing populations in the world. Not only would you have to kill all the Islamic radicals, preemptively no less, but a whole generation of orphans would grow up that’d you’d have to kill also. It’s genocide. Despite what our fearless leader has told us, bombing is not going to solve anything. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omg-what-if-we-dont-find-any-wmd/164060.md?page=4)