# What did happen to any chemical weapons in Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 21, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492 "2010-09-21T01:57:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/1 "2010-09-21T01:57:31Z")
Tony Blair made these comments during the run up to the Iraq War. Are these comments accurate? Was anything of this nature (on a sizeable scale) found in Iraq after the invasion (or known to have been destroyed during it)? “When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, and possibly more than 10 times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; and an entire Scud missile programme.” > **[Iraq](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2003-03-18.760.0)** > > – in the House of Commons at 12:31 pm 18 March 2003 ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/2 "2010-09-21T02:23:17Z")
From Wikipedia: ‘In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he “fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else” when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.’ > **[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction | Coalition expanded intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_in_Iraq#Coalition_expanded_intelligence)** > > On 30 May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was the point of greatest agreement among Bush's team among the reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but, there have always been three fundamental conc... > **[WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War)** > > WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq concerns the immediate reactions and consequences to the failure by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group (ISG) to find the alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during and after the invasion in 2003. The United States effectively terminated the search effort for unconventional weaponry in 2005, and the Iraq Intelligence Commission conclu ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/3 "2010-09-21T02:28:42Z")
> [@](#): > > [The United States effectively terminated the search effort for unconventional weaponry in January 2005](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War), and the Iraq Intelligence Commission concluded that the judgements of the U.S. intelligence community about the continued existence of weapons of mass destruction and an associated military program were wrong. More to the point: [Iraq WMD Lies: The Words of Mass Deception](http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/WMDlies.html?q=WMDlies.html) Some will say that “everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s” before the invasion. That statement just isn’t true, and some of those who make that claim know it full well. They just want to obscure the wrong that was done. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/4 "2010-09-21T02:49:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > From Wikipedia: > > ‘In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he “fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else” when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.’ > > [Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_in_Iraq#Coalition_expanded_intelligence) > [WMD conjecture after the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War) I think the quote by Blair is refering to weapons Saddam developed before the first Gulf War. There doesn’t seem to be much question that these existed at one point(and were used during the Iran Iraq war). IIRC, the consensus was that Iraq had either used or lost track of them during the Iran-Iraq war (a few were found mixed in with 80’s era conventional artillery shells) or destroyed them after the first Gulf War, but hadn’t bothered to keep careful records of how much was destroyed where. Blair actually mentions this in the link, but says he doesn’t believe Saddam’s claim. Also, a lot of this stuff has a pretty limited shelf-life. So absent an active program to stockpile and replenish them, the impetus to keep or even keep track of them is pretty small. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/5 "2010-09-21T05:08:59Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Also, a lot of this stuff has a pretty limited shelf-life. So absent an active program to stockpile and replenish them, the impetus to keep or even keep track of them is pretty small. This is rarely mentioned in most Iraq discussions. The anthrax was made pre-1991 and Iraq’s best efforts at producing anthrax gave them a chemical that was only dangerous for a few weeks or possibly months. So, even if they had 10,000 liters left, they sure weren’t going to put it on a [drone](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1117318.ece) and fly it over [New York](http://defensetech.org/2003/12/16/senator-white-house-warned-of-iraq-uav-attack/) like the Bush administration claimed, especially since their drones were balsa wood and duct taped [pieces of junk](http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/08/24/image569832g.jpg) that we knew about long before they started claiming they were a threat. So, you asked if those comments were accurate. Technically, I suppose they were, as far as anthrax goes anyway, I don’t remember any details of the rest. Iraq did have unaccounted for anthrax but it was a stretch to call it a threat. I think things like this is where people split on whether it was a mistake or a lie. It could be a mistake to think Iraq had chemical weapons or an ongoing program, but no honest person could present it the way it was done. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/6 "2010-09-21T19:44:00Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > > [@Simplicio](#): > > > > Also, a lot of this stuff has a pretty limited shelf-life. So absent an active program to stockpile and replenish them, the impetus to keep or even keep track of them is pretty small. > > This is rarely mentioned in most Iraq discussions. Also rarely mentioned is that this is true of nuclear weapons, too. Many of them are only functional for a limited period, after which they need to be serviced and re-armed again. I’m not sure if this is still true for modern weapons, but I suspect so – the physical properties of uranium/plutonium haven’t changed. It was certainly true during the Cold War era. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/7 "2010-09-21T20:28:59Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Some will say that “everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s” before the invasion. > That statement just isn’t true, and some of those who make that claim know it full well. They just want to obscure the wrong that was done. _In the context of the OP_ (this is important), yes there were WMDs. There’s no question that Saddam’s cousin, “Chemical Ali” was convicted of using chemical weapons (among others) in over 180,000 killings he that he ordered and/or supervised. Your comments have nothing to do with the question in the OP of what happened to any chemical and biological weapons that may or may not have existed when Blair made his comments. **Fubaya** ’s response is relevant and on-point. Yours isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Saffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saffer/32/6440_2.png) [@Saffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saffer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/8 "2010-09-21T20:40:21Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > Iraq’s best efforts at producing anthrax gave them a chemical that was only dangerous for a few weeks or possibly months. I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure anthrax is not a chemical. It is a bacteria, and when in spore form can last a very long time. However I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/9 "2010-09-21T20:53:22Z")
> [@Saffer](#): > > I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure anthrax is not a chemical. It is a bacteria, and when in spore form can last a very long time. In spore form, it’s not very dangerous. The spores are all around in places where animals like sheep & cattle have been. But it’s still fairly rare for an anthrax spore to get into a human body and actually cause the disease. To be ‘weaponized’, anthrax spores have to be converted (hatched?) into a form that is more readily infectious to humans (an aerosol version is what I have heard of). Those versions are the ones that do not live very long, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/10 "2010-09-21T20:57:20Z")
what was to stop the Iraqi military from destroying or moving this stuff to Syria when the things started hitting the fan? In fact, what was to stop them from having a nicely crafted plan all along about how to quickly dispose of it all on short notice? The soldiers involved could move to Syria as well rather than waiting to be taken prisoner and spill the beans. This is all hypothetical (although I think there are unsubstantiated claims about this floating around) but I don’t see why this should be considered something incredible and unbelievable. E.g. both Egypt and Syria have claimed having WMD type stuff (probably chemical) to counter Israeli nuclear threat. What would be so special about Iraq similarly having it and cooperating with Syria to cover things up? ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/11 "2010-09-21T21:17:44Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:7, topic:554492”] > [@Squink](#): > > Some will say that “everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s” before the invasion. > That statement just isn’t true, and some of those who make that claim know it full well. They just want to obscure the wrong that was done. _In the context of the OP_ (this is important), yes there were WMDs. There’s no question that Saddam’s cousin, “Chemical Ali” was convicted of using chemical weapons (among others) in over 180,000 killings he that he ordered and/or supervised. Your comments have nothing to do with the question in the OP of what happened to any chemical and biological weapons that may or may not have existed when Blair made his comments. **Fubaya** ’s response is relevant and on-point. Yours isn’t. [/QUOTE] I think you are going a bit overboard here, Wombat Robson. He’s stating that the analysis after the fact, and some before, knew that Blair’s claim was over the top regarding the existence of sufficient weapons right before the war to be a threat. Regarding Chemical Ali’s convinction, was that for uses of WMDs before or after the first Iraq War, or both? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/12 "2010-09-21T21:29:32Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Some will say that “everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s” before the invasion. > That statement just isn’t true, and some of those who make that claim know it full well. They just want to obscure the wrong that was done. Yeah, those [Snopes Guys](http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) make shit up all the time. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/13 "2010-09-21T21:37:29Z")
> [@drhess](#): > > I think you are going a bit overboard here, Wombat Robson. He’s stating that the analysis after the fact, and some before, knew that Blair’s claim was over the top regarding the existence of sufficient weapons right before the war to be a threat. Unfortunately, people get silly on this issue. When it was essentially confirmed that there were no usable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as of the invasion, many people extrapolated that to mean there were _never_ chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. I was (perhaps less than tactfully) pointing out the difference between those statements. Iraq unquestionably had such weapons at some point. Later, they didn’t. I don’t know if it’s been resolved whether those weapons were destroyed, moved to Syria, passed their expiration dates, hidden in secret caches, lost, or traded in for boxtops. > [@drhess](#): > > Regarding Chemical Ali’s convinction, was that for uses of WMDs before or after the first Iraq War, or both? If I recall correctly, the majority of his offenses were during the Kurdish genocide attempt in the late 80’s when something like 180,000 Kurds were killed. But there were also Shi’ites killed by him (or at his command, anyway) in the 90s. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-did-happen-to-any-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/554492/14 "2010-09-21T23:49:07Z")
> [@code\_grey](#): > > what was to stop the Iraqi military from destroying or moving this stuff to Syria when the things started hitting the fan? In fact, what was to stop them from having a nicely crafted plan all along about how to quickly dispose of it all on short notice? The soldiers involved could move to Syria as well rather than waiting to be taken prisoner and spill the beans. 1. Syria may not have wanted to allow a bunch of foreign troops carrying WMD’s into Syria. 2. There aren’t that many highways leading from Iraq into Syria. 3. The US forces had near complete air superiority early on, and would have seen and stopped any large movement of Iraqi troops into Syria. Even before the war, they had surveillance via satellite & drones over the area. So I think this is quite unlikely.