Weapon evidence not needed says Hoon

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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)

The super duper proof is that they sold them to them. The smoking gun will be the copy of the invoice they sent them.

[DuncanK]

Do any of you honestly believe that he doesn't have WoMD, or that he is not trying to get them? Please answer with a 'yes ' if you do?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Edan


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

Was he now?

[KrazyHorse]

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

Oh, the irony....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Do any of you honestly believe that he doesn't have WoMD, or that he is not trying to get them? Please answer with a 'yes ' if you do?

I don't hold a firm belief one way or the other. The more pertinent question is whether or not we believe that he is, and what the basis of that belief is.

[Spiffor]

DuncanK : NO
It is obvious Saddam would love to have a full arsenal of WMD, if only to have a dominant bargaining position, and being the #1 regional power. Well, it's almost sure Iran, Syria, Egypt and Turkey would love it as well, since all really would like to become a significant power, and WMD bring power (notice how much less gung-ho we are against North Korea now ? )
However, I highly doubt there is a working and threatening WMD arsenal in Iraq. I also don't think there is any serious industry to produce them in the near future.

Bush et al. wanted to scare the American and other western people with the threeat of "Evil saddam and his nukes", but the UN inspections make it more and more of a joke every day. The Iraqi threat is nothing but a laughable excuse to go to war for the administrations' own interests.

Plenty of nations have WMD or are researching them. Most WMD-equipped nations have done many bad things in the past (like Pakistan for example). However, we clearly will never attack them, for they could fight back, now or in the future.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The lamest casus belli in the history of mankind?

I wouldn't quite say that. The pig war takes the cake, in my opinion.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel
Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam!

*cheers*

Put more thought into your responses. It's not clear who this is directed towards or what the basis for the sarcasm is. It should cut like a knife, not attempt to batter the recipient into submission.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Edan


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.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how they'd managed to acquire 10 kgs of Pu or U235? And what your source for your belief that they'd done so is?

If the Iraqis had been 6 months from building a nuke then they could easily have bluffed the US into thinking they already had one. And that would have stopped Bush senior dead in his tracks.

[Edan]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how they'd managed to acquire 10 kgs of Pu or U235? And what your source for your belief that they'd done so is?

I said once they obtain those materials it would be (relatively) easy for Iraq to build the bomb. I have not said that they have obtained them.

If the Iraqis had been 6 months from building a nuke then they could easily have bluffed the US into thinking they already had one. And that would have stopped Bush senior dead in his tracks.

Only if they knew they were only 6 months away. And they didn't at the time. (Also, how do you bluff it (especially when the CIA thought he was 3-5 years away?)? the only way I can see of showing another country you have nuclear weapons is testing one, and you can't do that unless you have one.)

ABCnews article

Before the Gulf war in 1991, the CIA estimated Iraq was three to five years away from being able to build a nuclear bomb. After the war, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered — much to their horror — that Iraq was just six months away from the goal.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd like to see the background for that claim. Iraq, to my knowledge, did not have a functioning nuclear reactor outside a period of a few weeks (months?) in 1981 between its completion and its destruction by Israeli jets. So if they were 6 months from building a bomb, where were their materials?

Anybody can build a damn bomb if you give them enough weapons-grade material. I probably could. So could half a dozen others at this site given a couple of textbooks, a computer and a stocked-out machine shop. What I couldn't do, without a goddamn great deal of effort by hundreds of technicians and years in which I was left alone to do it is produce, either by isotopic separation or by transmutation through neutron bombardment enough weapons-grade fissile material to build a bomb. It's not child's play to do it, and it's exceedingly difficult to do it when people are intently watching everything you do and buy.

There's a qualitative difference in the technical capabilities of a nation like NK and a nation like Iraq. That translates into one being able to build a bomb and the other probably not.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Frogger
I'd like to see the background for that claim. Iraq, to my knowledge, did not have a functioning nuclear reactor outside a period of a few weeks (months?) in 1981 between its completion and its destruction by Israeli jets. So if they were 6 months from building a bomb, where were their materials?

....

What I couldn't do, without a goddamn great deal of effort by hundreds of technicians and years in which I was left alone to do it is produce

They had 10 years and lots of scientists and technicians.

From what I remember hearing, when inspectors first started their work after the gulf war, they were expecting a handful of facilities for the nuclear program - they ended up uncovering on the scale of 50 or 60 such facilities, IIRC.

[KrazyHorse]

Where were their nuclear facilities, sweetheart? What sort of facilities were they? Research or production? Isotopic separation or breeder reactors? Why haven't I heard of the inspectors ever uncovering mass quantities of weapons-grade fissile material?

That 6 months figure is full of crap, unless there was a full-fledged production facility (or many) already in operation and chugging out finished product by the kilogram.

What it might refer to is the time it would take Iraq to assemble a bomb if given the materials. Which is a meaningless figure, since most countries could do it in 6 months without hassle. The Iraqis got as close as they ever have in 1981.

[Edan]

That 6 months figure is full of crap, unless there was a full-fledged production facility (or many) already in operation and chugging out finished product by the kilogram.

Frankly, I'll take the UN inspectors word over yours.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Spiffor
DuncanK : NO
It is obvious Saddam would love to have a full arsenal of WMD, if only to have a dominant bargaining position, and being the #1 regional power.

Spiffor,

Saddam has already used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers. He has also invaded Kuwait. He doesn't behave rationally. That is why he's in the trouble that he's in. If he were a rational leader I would assume, along with you, that he would only use WoMD as a bargaining chip. Unfortunately, he has already shown otherwise.