Weapon evidence not needed says Hoon

zulu9812 · January 19, 2003, 07:39

(as in Geoff Hoon, British Defence Secretary)

quote from AOL:

UN WEAPONS inspectors do not need to find a "smoking gun" proving Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction in order to trigger war, says the Defence Secretary.

Geoff Hoon says it could be enough for the inspection teams led simply to obtain "persuasive evidence" that Saddam Hussein still has nuclear, biological or chemicals weapons to warrant military strikes by Britain and the US.

Mr Hoon's comments will further alarm Labour backbenchers already unhappy at the momentum building behind military action.

"Clearly we believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph.

"We would expect Hans Blix and his team to discover indications of them - a shell or a missile or something clearly prohibited, or documentary evidence," he said.

"They may interview someone who has been working on these programmes who may explain what has been going on.

"It's not literally a smoking gun. It is persuasive evidence that confirms what we believe to be the case - that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

The paper said Mr Hoon made clear that he would be mobilising elements of the 7th Armoured Brigade this week for operations in the Gulf.

It is expected that an announcement will be made - possibly as early as Monday - that up to 14,000 troops, with around 150 Challenger 2 battle tanks, are being placed on standby ready to move.

He acknowledged the "anxieties" in the country, and said that Britain would try to gain a fresh resolution of the United Nations Security Council before military strikes were launched.

Hah! Knew it! We'll go to war regardless of any evidence of WoMDs!

Az · January 19, 2003, 07:49

wow, you've caught them red-handed.

Dauphin · January 19, 2003, 08:51

If they attack, and after the invasion no weapons are found, then I hope the whole world kicks up a big stink over the US and UK actions. If however weapons are found, we give them a pat on the back and say "Sorry we didn't trust you".

Neither of these things will happen, but they should.

Az · January 19, 2003, 08:53

Big Crunch the uncurable romantic.

Sandman · January 19, 2003, 13:33

If there's no evidence, then that just proves he's hiding something!

Proteus_MST · January 19, 2003, 13:46

And thats also the difference to North Korea.

With North Korea we already know that it (very propably) has already some Nuclear Warheads and that it can produce up to 6 new Bombs every half year, if the Nuclear Plant is reopened.

So there is no reason to invade North Korea to check if it has Weapons of Mass Destruction, because we already know it has them.

As for Saddam we don´t know if he has WoMDs, he says no, but we can´t trust him, so it is inevitable that we have to invade the country to allow the UN-Inspectors to check evrery inch of the country without Saddam having a chance to hide anything from view.

So we don´t get away without war. If he say he doesn´t have WoMDs, we would have to invade his country to prove the contrary and if he says he has em, we also have to invade the country to punish him

Nubclear · January 19, 2003, 16:38

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
If they attack, and after the invasion no weapons are found, then I hope the whole world kicks up a big stink over the US and UK actions. If however weapons are found, we give them a pat on the back and say "Sorry we didn't trust you".

Neither of these things will happen, but they should.

Um, if they invade and weapons are found, its likely because the US planted them there ot say "I told you so".

mrmitchell · January 19, 2003, 16:56

Tass, I don't know if the Evil Powers of the US range that far, but it's not to be ruled out.

Then again, supposing that there are no weapons found, we can just say we got rid of them ourselves, not wanting such a menace on the world.

Xian · January 19, 2003, 17:14

So what if SAddam has wepaons?

Keep in mind that the Us has the biggest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world, and in fact ahs sold them and used them to/in Turkey and Isreal to name just 2 out of many.

What right do they have to stab a former us client in the back? Furhtermore, if we have the right to wage war on them, then dont Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Palestinians, East Timorians etc. all have the right to wage war on us?

Lawrence of Arabia · January 19, 2003, 17:23

If Saddam has them, he will use them. On US troops.

Hueij · January 19, 2003, 18:03

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
If Saddam has them, he will use them. On US troops.

Well, just keep the US troops at home then...

Kontiki · January 19, 2003, 18:22

UN WEAPONS inspectors do not need to find a "smoking gun" proving Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction in order to trigger war, says the Defence Secretary.

Geoff Hoon says it could be enough for the inspection teams led simply to obtain "persuasive evidence" that Saddam Hussein still has nuclear, biological or chemicals weapons to warrant military strikes by Britain and the US.

Mr Hoon's comments will further alarm Labour backbenchers already unhappy at the momentum building behind military action.

"Clearly we believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph.

"We would expect Hans Blix and his team to discover indications of them - a shell or a missile or something clearly prohibited, or documentary evidence," he said.

What's the difference? How much more of a smoking gun can you find? It's not like the inspectors are going to stumble across a massive ongoing chemical weapons attack or a nuclear test detonation.

cinch · January 19, 2003, 18:37

Here's what I don't get:

How is it possible for Saddam to have nukes? Chemical weapons, sure, but nuclear weapons, that's a stretch...

I mean, we'd have noticed and have evidence of a test if he ever tried out one of his warheads. That has never happened. You can't use a nuke without testing one first. And that's assuming that he even has the capability to attempt to construct a nuclear weapon.

There is no way Saddam has a missile that is capable of hitting the U.S. Could chemicals or a nuke be brought over covertly, in a terrorist-y way? Yes, but that's irrelevant, as the point here is whether or not the nation of Iraq is posing a threat to America. Which it isn't.

Edan · January 19, 2003, 18:42

Originally posted by Xian
Keep in mind that the Us has the biggest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world, and in fact ahs sold them and used them to/in Turkey and Isreal to name just 2 out of many.

When did Turkey or Israel use WoMD?

Edan · January 19, 2003, 18:44

Originally posted by cinch
Here's what I don't get:

How is it possible for Saddam to have nukes?

Well, he was within 6 months of having one before the Gulf War.

You can't use a nuke without testing one first.

So Israel doesn't have any nukes, then?

Most likely, Saddam will get 3 nuclear weapons before he ttests them. One to use defensively as a last resort. One to use if he needs/wants to (ie offensively or defensively) and one to test to tell the world "Watch out, we're some badass MFs"

cinch · January 19, 2003, 19:03

So Israel doesn't have any nukes, then?

It's slightly different when you have American nuclear scientists at your disposal. Iraq would basically be going into the endeavour solo, which would make creating a successful nuclear weapon much more challenging.

I still say that if the Iraqis had WMDs, we'd have seen them at one point. Not by inspectors, but by satellite. JFK used satellite imagery to convincingly show missiles in Cuba 40 years ago, why can't this administration (or the last) do the same now? Or a few years ago?

Any imagery they've shown us lately has been weak, at best.

Blah.

Spiffor · January 19, 2003, 19:10

I wonder why US/UK authorities still lie as blatantly on Iraqi WMD. We all know WMD have nothing to do in this war. Why don't they just admit it is clearly realpolitik which will cause the bloodbath ?

Edan · January 19, 2003, 19:10

Iraq would basically be going into the endeavour solo, which would make creating a successful nuclear weapon much more challenging.

How hard is it to build a nuclear weapon, once you have the radioactive material? Not very.

I still say that if the Iraqis had WMDs, we'd have seen them at one point. Not by inspectors, but by satellite. JFK used satellite imagery to convincingly show missiles in Cuba 40 years ago,

You misspelled reconnocense flights. Those images weren't taken by satellites.

why can't this administration (or the last) do the same now? Or a few years ago?

Satellites aren't very good at taking pictures underground or of people concentrating on hiding the weapons from prying eyes. Besides, what makes you think that *we* would/should have access to the intelligence reports, anyway?

Edan · January 19, 2003, 19:12

Originally posted by Spiffor
We all know WMD have nothing to do in this war.

We do?

Tripledoc · January 19, 2003, 19:18

The lamest casus belli in the history of mankind?

Spiffor · January 19, 2003, 19:26

Originally posted by Edan
We do?

Erm, at least those of us who aren't only exposed to CNN or FoxNews

I'll change my mind when the US/UK will be kind enough to give their super duper proofs to the UN (after all, it will save much time, since the UN is clearly looking for what the US and UK know for suuuuuch a long time)

cinch · January 19, 2003, 19:55

You misspelled reconnocense flights. Those images weren't taken by satellites.

I take full responsibility for being an idiot here.

How hard is it to build a nuclear weapon, once you have the radioactive material? Not very.

Oh yeah, you just slap some uranium on a slab of metal and you're set! Having the technology to build a nuke (which I believe they don't) is one thing, but building one that'll work properly in action is another.

Besides, what makes you think that *we* would/should have access to the intelligence reports, anyway?

Because the people should be the ones who decide whether a government goes to war or not?

HYPOTHETICALLY speaking: even if the Iraqis had WMDs, what gives us the right to attack them? Because they may, MAY, decide to attack us in the future (even though they would gain nothing and lose everything from doing so)? The Bush policy of pre-emptive strike would legitimize Pearl Harbor. Which is ridiculous.

Edan · January 19, 2003, 20:16

Oh yeah, you just slap some uranium on a slab of metal and you're set! Having the technology to build a nuke (which I believe they don't) is one thing, but building one that'll work properly in action is another.

No, it's not as easy as slapping a bunch of stuff together, but neither is it as hard as you make it out to be.

Because the people should be the ones who decide whether a government goes to war or not?

So you think civilians should have access to classified documents? I wonder why I get the feeling that this is a bad idea.

HYPOTHETICALLY speaking: even if the Iraqis had WMDs, what gives us the right to attack them?

The ceasefire treaty they signed. If they fail to follow there side of the conditions, that gives adequate reason for a resumption of hostilities. Thats why they are called "ceasefire" treaties.

Az · January 19, 2003, 20:16

Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam!

*cheers*

cinch · January 19, 2003, 20:31

So you think civilians should have access to classified documents? I wonder why I get the feeling that this is a bad idea.

The PROOF of why we're going to war shouldn't be classified.

The ceasefire treaty they signed. If they fail to follow there side of the conditions, that gives adequate reason for a resumption of hostilities. Thats why they are called "ceasefire" treaties.

I disagree, but I'll cede the argument to you. After all that was only a 'hypothetical' situation, was it not?

Edan · January 19, 2003, 20:35

The PROOF of why we're going to war shouldn't be classified.

Classified from whom? If either the inspection team or the UN security council decide that Iraq has violated the conditions, that would be proof enough for me - would that not be enough for you?

Dauphin · January 19, 2003, 21:28

Originally posted by Edan
You misspelled reconnocense flights.

You mean reconnaissance.

Az · January 19, 2003, 21:50

I've noticed that too, but thought that to be some kind of private joke.

cinch · January 19, 2003, 21:50

Classified from whom?

The citizenry! If the gubment has info proving that Iraq has WMDs, why not show it to the populace, and have them all convinced? Why keep that info classified? What good would that do?

If either the inspection team or the UN security council decide that Iraq has violated the conditions, that would be proof enough for me - would that not be enough for you?

I doubt that would happen, but if the inspectors or whomever come across something really meaningful, that would certainly affect my opinion. The UN would have to make their case just as much as I'm saying the Americans should have to.