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

News Weapons of Mass Destruction & Proliferation

  1. Apr 3, 2003 #1
    Bush and the Chickenhawk Brigade like to cite Saddam's alleged possession of WMDs, combined with the possibility that he might give them to terrorists, or use them against the USA himself, as a justification for military action. The standard response to this is to point out that 1) Saddam is no friend to Islamist terrorists, and 2) he isn't stupid enough to use WMD against a country capable of massive retaliation, and refrained from doing so in Gulf War I.

    But I was thinking about this today, and there's a far more serious problem: waaay too many "rogue" states already possess WMDs... and many of them, unlike Iraq, have governments that are very sympathetic to Islamist terrorists. This is not good.

    So, here is a good list of countries with bio/chem weapons. It's pretty damn frightening. Among the places listed are Algeria, Ethiopia, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, the Yugoslavic republics. Needless to say Iran, Libya, and Syria are significant state sponsors of terrorism. It would be easy for them to 'lose' a few vials of VX.... and the USA can't fight them all. :frown:

    resources: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd.htm
    http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/index.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2003 #2
    Says who?

    Lots of fighting goes on off the battlefield.
  4. Apr 4, 2003 #3
    I think they're safe. They don't have oil.
  5. Apr 4, 2003 #4
    Some people don't seem to realise that it's a good thing that he hasn't used them (yet). I think he could still do in a desperate last stand. And he definitely has them.
  6. Apr 4, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'll just let that one go....
    I think those are wrong, but that doesn't seem to be the point of the thread so I'll let them go too.
    It is certainly a major concern, but I tend to subscribe to the "shoot the leader" theory of dealing with those groups/countries: Knock off the leader and the rest will fold. And I'm hoping with all the terrorists currently pouring into Iraq, all the people in the middle east who WANT to die will get their wish, leaving the peaceful (moral) people to reform their governments.

    Yeah, I know I'm pretty idealistic.
  7. Apr 4, 2003 #6
    I don't know if anyone has posted this I was just skimming...so sorry if you did!

    They found thousands of boxes of white powedery stuff (anthrax!), Directions for chemical warfare, nerve gas, and a chemical dumped in the river (sianide or cianide sorry I don't know how to spell it I saw it on the news)

    Along with 56 surface to surface missles that are stronger and can go farther than they were suposed to have.
  8. Apr 4, 2003 #7
    I believe that the white powder turned out to be material for making explosives.

    I don't know about the other stuff.
  9. Apr 4, 2003 #8
    You get to take cheap shots at Clinton, so I get to take them at Rumsfeld et al. :smile:

    On the main point, if we shoot the leaders, probably some other schmuck from his adminstration will take the place. And if the government collapses, all those chemical weapons stores don't just disappear. Also note, despite two years of concerted effort, we still haven't managed to catch Mullah Omar or OBL. [!]

    My biggest nightmare these days is war/revolution in Pakistan, and al Qaeda or something slipping off with God knows what from there.

    Nicool, all those reports are unconfirmed... after the debacle of the first supposed "chemical weapons plant" they found, I am treating all such stories as if they're coming from the Iraqi Information Minister, until they're confirmed. <sigh> Bloody propaganda war.
  10. Apr 4, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I stated facts and opinions about Clinton but didn't call him names. But you are welcom to take cheap shots if you wish :wink:
  11. Apr 4, 2003 #10
    Yes I think that was the initial impression of an 'expert'. Not sure if it has been confirmed either way.

    The Coalition has thus far searched only 1% of the sites it intended to before the War, so I still believe there's a strong chance chemical weapons will be found somewhere.
  12. Apr 4, 2003 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    That's right, boys and girls!

    Ricin and botulinum have been found in a lab in Iraq.

    That's right.

    The substances they said they didn't have.

    That regime is a disgusting bunch of pathetic lying excuses for human beings.

    Ricin is the same substance which was found in that Paris train station a few weeks back, for what it's worth.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  13. Apr 4, 2003 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh boy!

    Cyanide and Mustard agents have been found in the Euphrates river.

    And the Iraqi military is promising an "unconventional attack".

    "We do not have chemical weapons" my ass.

  14. Apr 4, 2003 #13
    The terror toxins were in Islamist bases in Kurdish territory... Saddam hasn't had any connection or control over the region since '91. Russ and I talked about this in another thread that I can't find....

    The "unconventional attacks" are probably guerrilla warfare or suicide attacks. The military sources I read seem to think the risk of a chem attack is minimal now that troops are investing Baghdad:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s824160.htm [Broken]

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the stuff in the river was Iraq trying to quickly get rid of its remaining chems, before the US finds them.... but I'm gonna wait till it's confirmed.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  15. Apr 5, 2003 #14


    User Avatar

    I just want to quote powell's statements concerning this at the U.N. conference:

  16. Apr 6, 2003 #15
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  17. May 28, 2003 #16


    User Avatar

    Hmm, has this conclusive evdience sunk without trace.... What did happen to these confirmed reports, anyways?

  18. May 28, 2003 #17
    If a Democrat has changed positions this many times, the media would have demolished him. But, since it is Bush, they gloss over the mistakes, misdirections, and outright lies about this 'war'...especially since this administration seems determined to give the media full ownership of the public's air.
  19. May 28, 2003 #18
    They were all de-confirmed -- didn't you see the retractions on Page 17?
  20. May 28, 2003 #19

    Yeah, isn't it wonderful to see how this administration has brought honor and honesty back to the White house, with a little help form the 'liberal'(HA!) media?
  21. May 28, 2003 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sorry, too good to pass up: You can't change positions if you never take one.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook