News Weapons of Mass Destruction & Proliferation

  • Thread starter damgo
  • Start date

damgo

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:

Alias

Says who?

Lots of fighting goes on off the battlefield.
 
73
0
I think they're safe. They don't have oil.
 
54
1
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,866
5,050
Originally posted by damgo
Bush and the Chickenhawk Brigade
I'll just let that one go....
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.
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 would be easy for them to 'lose' a few vials of VX.... and the USA can't fight them all.
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.
 

Nicool003

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.
 

Alias

I believe that the white powder turned out to be material for making explosives.

I don't know about the other stuff.
 

damgo

I'll just let that one go....
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,866
5,050
Originally posted by damgo
You get to take cheap shots at Clinton, so I get to take them at Rumsfeld et al. :smile:
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:
 
54
1
Originally posted by Alias
I believe that the white powder turned out to be material for making explosives.

I don't know about the other stuff.
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.
 

enigma

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,738
9
http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?vts=040420031210"

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:

enigma

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,738
9
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.

Slimebags.
 

damgo

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:
Captain Adam Mastrianni, the intelligence officer of the 101st Airborne Division's Aviation Brigade, said: "Now that we have penetrated Baghdad's outer ring, the likelihood [of a chemical or biological attack] is negligible.

"The commanding general of the 101st, General David Petraeus gave the order at 9:00pm that soldiers in the division would be able to take off their anti-chemical and biological suits as of Friday morning," he added.
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:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by damgo
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....

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

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.

Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Hmm, has this conclusive evdience sunk without trace.... What did happen to these confirmed reports, anyways?

Asked about reports that France would block a United Nations resolution authorizing force on Iraq, Bush said "The world came together, including the French, to say he must disarm. He's not disarming. As a matter of fact, it appears to be a rerun of a bad movie. He is delaying, he is deceiving, he is asking for time. He's playing hide-and-seek with inspectors."

While Mr. Rumsfeld repeated that assertion yesterday, he added, "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict." Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, now in northern Iraq, mentioned the same possibility two weeks ago.
 

Zero

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.
 

damgo

They were all de-confirmed -- didn't you see the retractions on Page 17?
 

Zero

Originally posted by damgo
They were all de-confirmed -- didn't you see the retractions on Page 17?
*grins*

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?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,866
5,050
Originally posted by Zero
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.
Sorry, too good to pass up: You can't change positions if you never take one.
 
15
0
Can someone define for me the term "rogue state"?

Comparison of nations:

- Known to have possessed bio/chem weapons: Iraq, USA.

- Known to currently possess bio/chem weapons: USA.

- Has used bio/chem weapons: Iraq, USA. (1)

- Has used bio/chem weapons against its own citizens: Iraq, USA. (2)

- Has used nuclear weapons against civilians: USA.

- Has threatened it may use nuclear weapons again: USA. (3)

- Has the death penalty: Iraq, USA.

- Has invaded other nations: Iraq, USA. (4)

- Has deliberately targeted civilians in war: Iraq, USA. (5)

- Has broken international treaties: Iraq, USA.

Notes:

1) Agent Orange, the Tuskagee Syphyillus Experiment, and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html

2) http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html

3) http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html

4) Iraq performed fewer invasions since WW2 than has the USA. http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/ [Broken]

5) Dresden: 60,000 dead. Tokyo: 83,000 dead. Hiroshima: estimated 150,000 dead in the first three months, rising to 300,000 months later. Nagasaki: 140,000 dead. Iraq 2003: 3,000+ dead.



PS: Pointing out facts does not equal stating one's opinion. In other words, if I say "Person X has committed murder", that does not mean I dislike Person X. The statement contains no opinion. It is merely a statement of fact. So please don't give me this "You're anti-American!" bollocks. However, if you wish to accuse me of being anti-Bush, anti-war, and anti-government-crap, then you'll be right on the mark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, too good to pass up: You can't change positions if you never take one.
So, taking several contradictory contradictions based on lies is better than taking the stance of getting at least some facts before acting? Oh, I forgot...there are people who think it is better to be inflexible and wrong than flexible and sometimes right.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
So, taking several contradictory contradictions
er..um...Zero, sweetie..wouldn't a contradicting contradiction make it non-contradictory? :smile:
 

Zero

Originally posted by kat
er..um...Zero, sweetie..wouldn't a contradicting contradiction make it non-contradictory? :smile:
Shut your mouth!!!


Ok, yeah...but I stood up for your sentence fragments in the Pledge of Allegiance thread, so cut me some slack, ok?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,866
5,050
Originally posted by Adam
Can someone define for me the term "rogue state"?

Comparison of nations:
If only it were really that simple.
 

Related Threads for: Weapons of Mass Destruction & Proliferation

Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
16
Views
6K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top