# What will stop Saddam from giving WMD to terrorists in the next two days? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218 "2003-03-18T06:00:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/41 "2003-03-19T22:58:51Z")
I think the point is whether an invasion will succeed in fulfilling its objectives of “disarming Iraq”. If a desparate Saddam passes his weapons to terrorists or uses them directly or if in the post- war chaos the weapons are stolen or sold by rogue elements, then in any meaningful sense the invasion will have failed in its goals. The regime may be gone but the weapons will be in the hands of those more likely to use them. I think these possibilities are quite likely and will leave American national security worse than it was before. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/42 "2003-03-20T00:52:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wolfstu \* > \*\*What about German mustard gas attacks in WWI? Those were pretty effective, I thought. > > Chemical/biological weapons can be effective when used against an opposing army. > > In small quantities, they also make excellent weapons of terror. > (Of course, IANATerrorist, nor do I live anywhere where people use such weapons very often.) \*\* I believe that the German use of gas in WWI did not change the position of the trenches of the opposing armies by any significant distance. In the over all scheme of WWI they were a non-factor. Everyone agrees that their use was originally terrifying. However, in my opinion no more so than laying in a ditch for an hour and a half under artillery fire. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/43 "2003-03-20T06:17:55Z")
**Cyberpundit** : I think I finally worked this out, after consulting Pollack’s book in greater detail. (Better late than never? :dubious: ) Short story: We screwed up, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t get lucky. Preamble: I make the moral assumption that killing hundreds of thousands of people is much worse than killing hundreds of people. It’s, like, a thousand times worse, maybe more. I will call weapons with the potential to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths WMDs. Claim 1: In general, chemical weapons are not WMDs. They’re nasty, to be sure, but they are difficult to use and tend to disperse. Pound for pound, explosives kill more people faster. (Source, among others: Easterbrook in the Week in Review in Sunday’s NYT, within the past few months) Nukes are WMDs. Anthrax is not a WMD, except in very large quantities. Smallpox is a WMD, alas. ## Key conclusion: **It would be better to have Saddam use anthrax now, than have him use a nuke later.** Let’s hope he doesn’t pass weaponized smallpox to the terrorists. ## Saddam said on Sunday that if Iraq is attacked, it will take the war anywhere in the world, “wherever there is sky, land or water.” So, yeah, I think he means to share his stockpile. After all, this is a guy who doesn’t shirk away from weapons of revenge with no known military value (aflotoxin). **Measures in our favor** If the attack is fast enough, general wartime chaos may limit Saddam’s ability to pass weapons on to terrorists. WMDs are not easy to deliver. Of course, a smallpox suicide mission could prove nasty. Most terrorist organizations avoid WMDs for public relations purposes. They prefer other sorts of mayhem. Al-Qa’ida is an exception to the above generalization. Therefore, **the best strategy would be to focus on Al-Qa’ida first, _then_ go after Iraq.**. The weaker Al Qa’ida is, the smaller the chances that Saddam will be able to pass his WMDs to willing international psychopaths under duress. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/44 "2003-03-20T06:43:39Z")
--------- Slipping a small number of people in the middle of the night across a border is not that difficult especially because there is no co-operation AFAIK between the US and Iran/Syria in patrolling their border. True. Salon’s correspondent recently crossed the Syrian border into Kurdish Iraq. If an English-only journalist can get into Iraq with an inflatable raft purchased in Syria, I’m sure an Arab familiar with the land can figure out a way to leave the country. (The real difficulty is securing employment in a foreign country, not crossing a border.) [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/18/iraq/index.html](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/18/iraq/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/45 "2003-03-20T07:34:20Z")
Pollack makes some good points but I am not sure that the evidence about Saddam’s nuclear facilities is that good. This seems to be where the administration has had a lot of problems proving its case: the forged documents, the aluminium tubes etc. Plus nuclear facilities are the most difficult to hide so they could be dealt with through inspections and/or surgical strikes. In any event this is a more medium-to-long term (3-5 years) problem. “The weaker Al Qa’ida is, the smaller the chances that Saddam will be able to pass his WMDs to willing international psychopaths under duress” You have hit the nail on the head. And the US seems to be just begining to make real progress on the Al Qaeda front with the arrest of Mohammed. In another year perhaps it would be so weakened that the threat of Saddam passing weapons to it is much smaller. But clearly that’s not the case as of now. The other thing that the US should have done is to try to work with Syria and Iran to aggressively patrol the border to stop Iraqi agents from slipping out. Obviously the “axis of evil” speech didn’t do much to help that along. Finally of course the administration should have done a much better job of building support around the world. Among other things it should have worked harder on the Palestinian issue. With these things a war could be beneficial. However in the present circumstances I think it will damage US national security more than it helps. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/46 "2003-03-20T08:02:11Z")
Pollack frames the issue as a medium term problem (ya, 3-5 years). ----- “Plus nuclear facilities are the most difficult to hide so they could be dealt with through inspections and/or surgical strikes.” Not clear. Iraq is the size of France and the inspection team is the size of the Chico, CA police force. Furthermore, the big illicit weapons programs were discovered in the 1990s not from inspections but from defections. (Yada yada, we’ve heard all this before.) ------ “However in the present circumstances I think it will damage US national security more than it helps.” Unless we get lucky. “God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America.” -Attributed to Otto von Bismarck ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/47 "2003-03-20T08:11:50Z")
It seems to me that the real danger isn’t Saddam _deliberately_ passing chem or bio weapons on to terrorists. The danger is that Al Queda will have moved agents into Iraq over the past few weeks in hopes that they can steal weapons from him in the chaos once he looses control over them. (which may have already happened). For a patient terrorist, it isn’t all that important to get them out of the country right away. They can afford to wait for a few months until civilian movement around the country becomes easier. In the mean time, they just have to be able to hide what they acquire/buy in the chaos. Which seems like it would be a pretty easy thing to do. By invading, Bush pretty much gurantees that there will be a period of time between when Saddam looses control of his arsenal, and when the US forces have not yet even located all of them, much less secured them. If he had let inspections do the job, then Saddam would have lost control of his WMD directly into the hands of the inspectors. And if he had been **helping** the inspectors do that job, rather than heckling from the sidelines and predicting their failure, they would have had a much better chance. If Saddam’s weapons end up in the hands of terrorists **now** It will be the fault of George W. Bush as much as anyone. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/48 "2003-03-20T08:25:24Z")
This is a nice argument against Pollack btw: [http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=4379](http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=4379) And about one of your earlier points: “If the attack is fast enough, general wartime chaos may limit Saddam’s ability to pass weapons on to terrorists” The flip side of that is that war-time chaos may make it more difficult for an orderly transfer of weapons to US control. One of the things I worry about the is the gap between the fall of the regime and US troops finding the weapons bunkers. If there is no central control there are all sorts of possibilities of those weapons being stolen and sold in the black market. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/49 "2003-03-20T08:31:56Z")
Tejota, I agree 100% with your point. In general the idea that regime change=disarmament is very naive for that reason. It’s one of the issues that I don’t think has received adequate discussion at all. I just hope that US intelligence is good enough that the weapons are found very quickly. I doubt it though. I suspect Saddam has been moving some of his weapons around just before the invasion to nullify any intelligence the US may have obtained about their location ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/50 "2003-03-20T15:30:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > I think you are overestimating the risk from Saddam’s pov. It’s not as if he has to commit lots of resources by sending a few agents out of the country. . . . Enh. I think you are underestimating his level of paranoia. But whatever. Time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/51 "2003-03-20T15:54:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > Sua Sponte, > “As you have been saying for months, there are no WoMD in Iraq.” > That is a lie, pure and simple. Excuse me?! My recollection of your posts on the subject in GD is that you have consistently taken the position that there is no evidence that Iraq has WoMD. If my memory is incorrect, that makes me mistaken, not a liar. Grow up, **Cyber.** Sua ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/52 "2003-03-20T16:09:23Z")
**Sua** , do you fail to acknowledge any difference between these two statements? There are no weapons of WoMD in Iraq. There is no proof of WoMD in Iraq. Seems Blix has been quite eloquent on the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/53 "2003-03-20T16:10:42Z")
Sorry 'bout the “weapons of WoMD” phrasing… ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/54 "2003-03-20T16:57:43Z")
“If my memory is incorrect, that makes me mistaken, not a liar. Grow up, Cyber.” Not only I have repeatedly talked about the dangers of the war leading to Iraqi WMD falling in the hands of terrorists, IIRC I have done so in threads where you were particpating. If your memory is so incredibly poor that you attribute to me the opposite of what I have **repeatedly** said I suggest you stop making statements about other posters’ positions from memory. You have to live within your intellectual limitations, you know. Even on the narrower issue of evidence, I don’t think I have said that there was no evidence. I have questioned specific pieces of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/55 "2003-03-20T17:31:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Splanky \* > \*\*Let me get this straight. Either: > > a) Sadaam doesn’t have any WMDs (Which seems to be the world consensus because no one is supporting the US). > > or > > b) Sadaam does have WMDs. And that’s why we shouldn’t attack him, because he’ll use them/distribute them. > > Most people in this thread go with the latter. “Oh, we know he has WMDs but we’ll let him keep them so he doesn’t give them to terrorists”. That seems like appeasement to me. And appeasement is bad. \*\* No, no one thinks (b). Most people here couldn’t really care if Saddam has so called WMDs as so has every other government in the area, and the biggest stockpiler and developer of WMDs is probably the US. Saddam is not a supporter of terrorists in any real way. Quite frankly, most WMDS are a big waste of time. A couple of guys with a machine gun or car bomb are going to kill far more people than a drum of Anthrax. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/56 "2003-03-21T02:55:05Z")
**scm** : Which is why Anthrax is not really a WMD, absent an effective delivery system. Weaponized smallpox and nukes, OTOH, are potential WMDs. -------- **Cyberpundit** : The flip side of that is that war-time chaos may make it more difficult for an orderly transfer of weapons to US control. True. But that is the case whether we attack now or we attack later. (But see below). **Advantages of Attacking Now** -\> The Iraqi people have to spend less time under the sanctions regime. -\> The Iraqi people have to spend less time under the Saddam regime. -\> The Saddam regime will have less time to make international mischief. -\> Saddam will have less time to prepare for an invasion. **Advantages of Attacking Later (in, say, 1/4 - 3 years)** We can weaken Al Qa’ida, so that a) there will be fewer psychopathic terrorists for Saddam to give his WMDs to and b) potential WMD buyers are that much more likely to be governments rather than psychopathic terrorist organizations. A certain share of the WMDs and WMD delivery systems can be taken out of commission by arms inspectors. Spontaneous regime change: there is the remote possibility of Saddam’s (and Usay’s) untimely death, making an invasion unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/57 "2003-03-21T03:08:54Z")
Another advantage of attacking later is the likelihood of greater international support if the US is seen to be making a good-faith effort with inspections. If the US makes a sincere effort with the Palestinian issue in that period that will win addtional goodwill or at least reduce mistrust. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/58 "2003-03-21T15:29:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Spontaneous regime change: there is the remote possibility of Saddam’s (and Usay’s) untimely death, making an invasion unnecessary. Technically, Saddam’s death might no longer be “untimely”. Born in 1937, he is quickly approaching his life expectancy. Granted, the bastard could end up having a Castro-like survivability… ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/59 "2003-03-21T16:25:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrblue92 \* > \*\*… Born in 1937, he is quickly approaching his life expectancy. > \*\* HEY!!! ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218/60 "2003-03-21T16:47:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\*HEY!!! \*\* Heh. No offense intended. But we all gotta go sometime. And for Iraqi males, [it’s around age 66, on average](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-stop-saddam-from-giving-wmd-to-terrorists-in-the-next-two-days/162218.md?page=2)