Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Iraq WMDs

  1. Jun 17, 2013 #1
    One of my basic issues is: What happens to WMDs that are in Syria and will show up there on a larger scale? Will getting involved decrease or increase the likelihood of WMDs finding their way to the U.S. in the hands of radical Islamists? For example, our success in Iraq certainly decreased the likelihood of WMDs in the hands of terrorists getting into the U.S. with WMDs.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 17, 2013 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think this is certain at all? Considering the probability of those non-existent WMDs getting into terrorist hands was 0 whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.

    [Syria content split]
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2013
  4. Jun 17, 2013 #3
    WMDs in Iraq

    WMDs were definitely there, and Saddam had his organization for pursuing weapons programs in tact. Further, it became clear that terrorists could have had access to the weapons for transport to the U.S. at some point down the road.

    That's another situation with a quite complex analysis.
  5. Jun 17, 2013 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can you supply any evidence for this claim? Earlier, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, which he used against the Kurds, but what else was there? There was a steady drumbeat among some US politicians about WMDs, yet none were ever found or documented. Where is the evidence?
  6. Jun 17, 2013 #5
    Iraq WMD Evidence

    I remember quite clearly news reports of discovered chemical WMDs after the troops went in. However, the size of the stashes apparently did not rise to the level considered by the main stream media to qualify as significant (any one of those deposited in the U.S. would have been significant). Our troops discovered some of them and other discoveries were documented later as well as the transfer of some weapons to Syria. However, I'll have to undertake quite a search to get back to the reports presented in that time period.

    I still think there was an unacceptable risk of WMDs at some time in the future had Saddam not been taken down. The fact that he had a WMD program was quite well established.
  7. Jun 17, 2013 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think that Iraq WMDs would be better suited as a topic for a new thread instead of continuing the discussion in this one
  8. Jun 17, 2013 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can you supply some reputable links? Including the "fact" that he had a WMD program? Such arguments quickly fell apart after the invasion.
  9. Jun 17, 2013 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Some of the best evidence of WMD is from the Iran/Iraq war.
  10. Jun 17, 2013 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Holy dead horse, Batman! But oy, the misinformation:

    Can you supply any evidence for that claim?

    A simple google/wiki on the issue says that we (and lots of other countries) supplied dual use technologies, some of which were used to produce WMDs. We did not supply Saddam with chemical weapons.
    Clearly, Iraq had WMDs during the Iran/Iraq war. In addition, we destroyed a lot of chemical and biological weapons during and soon after the 1991 war.

    How much, how fast and what happened to the WMDs as Iraq was disarmed is a matter of some debate and speculation. It seems clear though that up until about 1998 he retained at least some chemical weapons:
    In any case, I've split this from the Syria thread because it doesn't seem likely - and certainly is not proven - that there were any WMDs in Iraq during or just prior to the 2003 invasion and as such it isn't relevant to use it as an analogue for whether interfering in Syria might cause WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists.
  11. Jun 18, 2013 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ritter seems a little inconsistent in his views about Iraq's weapons if you take his comments out of context. For example, six months later he said:

    Usually, only the second paragraph is provided, making seem like he had done a complete 180 from his views at the time of Russ's quote. The two paragraphs together probably provide a better picture of his views: No current program, but trying to retain the capability to rebuild it after inspectors left.

    In any event, Iraq was very uncooperative with the inspections in 1998. And there was no way they would want international witnesses to the elimination of whatever capability they still had in 1998. Iran was a serious potential enemy and would Iraq really want to depend on the enemy that had just beaten them to come their aid if Iran invaded?

    In the end, the strategy was to eliminate the evidence of weapons the only way possible - by destroying the weapons - without acknowledging to the world that they were now defenseless and then hoping the absence of evidence would be enough to end the sanctions. And, if possible, rebuild their weapons program after the international community quit hounding them with inspectors so as to reduce the amount of time that they were defenseless as much as possible.
  12. Jun 18, 2013 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Letter from the DNI to the House Intelligence Committee

  13. Jun 18, 2013 #12
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Iraq WMDs
  1. Iraqi WMDs now in Syria? (Replies: 20)

  2. Invasion of Iraq (Replies: 4)