• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq: 'terrorists' seize ex-chemical weapons site

Red_Dave said:
Saddam used chemical weapons during the Al-Anfal campaign, chemical weapons* where never disputed by anyone paying attention. The controversial aspect is whether he had (or was attempting to obtain) nuclear weapons and whether he was capable of using them against the west.

*The chemical weapons that we sold him, just for the record
Click to expand...

Actually, I did not understand it that way. It was WMD. That the Secretary of State did that horrid presentation did indicate that nukes were a problem. But they were never the only or even main reason.
 
Crovax said:
Why is the word terrorist in quotes? There is no question about what they are just more biased reporting trying to legitimize Islamic extremists
Click to expand...

You mean armed terrorist group, noting a direct quotation. You sound sensitive.
 
WCH said:
They were reported...just not by the press.
Click to expand...

They were reported. They just were not what Bush claimed. Old, degraded weapons do not match the claim of growing and gathering. So, let's not pretend otherwise.
 
WCH said:
Really? why wasn't it reported by the MSM that there 'were' WMDs in country?
Click to expand...

These aren't WMDs because they aren't ****ing weapons. They're garbage. Toxic garbage.

Everyone knows there were chemicals weapons in Iraq because we gave them to Saddam Hussein. But "Saddam Hussein used to have WMDs" is not why we invaded Iraq.
 
Boo Radley said:
They were reported. They just were not what Bush claimed. Old, degraded weapons do not match the claim of growing and gathering. So, let's not pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you would like to explain why the AP felt concerned enough to publish is warning?

Perhaps because no one (except maybe the Iraqis) knows what is REALLY in there??

Of course Liberal will be more than willing to believe whatever BS excuse comes forward this time around. How often do you guys accept lies during an average day?
 
Deuce said:
These aren't WMDs because they aren't ****ing weapons. They're garbage. Toxic garbage.

Everyone knows there were chemicals weapons in Iraq because we gave them to Saddam Hussein. But "Saddam Hussein used to have WMDs" is not why we invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

The Kurds know from experience. And guess what... we are still giving Iraq weapons.
 
WCH said:
Then maybe you would like to explain why the AP felt concerned enough to publish is warning?

Perhaps because no one (except maybe the Iraqis) knows what is REALLY in there??

Of course Liberal will be more than willing to believe whatever BS excuse comes forward this time around. How often do you guys accept lies during an average day?
Click to expand...

No, people know. But with equipment, you have a greater chance of doing something noteworthy. It is also interesting and will sell papers. Your side was wrong, so just admit it already.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, people know. But with equipment, you have a greater chance of doing something noteworthy. It is also interesting and will sell papers. Your side was wrong, so just admit it already.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what the truth is so, how could I be wrong?
Besides, YOUR side voted overwhelmingly to go to war.
 
joG said:
Actually, I did not understand it that way. It was WMD. That the Secretary of State did that horrid presentation did indicate that nukes were a problem. But they were never the only or even main reason.
Click to expand...

Well the implication was that they had new information about an immediate threat, Saddam used chemical weapons in the 80s and Dick Cheney knew that better than most,
 
for anyone who is interested here's some info about different dirty bomb materials [hello, NSA]
...dirty bombs do not use fissile material. ... These materials...are not radioactive enough. Their radioactive emissions don't travel far and are blocked by simple barriers, including skin and clothing. A dirty bomb would use small amounts of highly radioactive materials such as cesium or cobalt, not uranium. Even specks of these elements send out deadly gamma rays that penetrate walls and bodies causing immediate injury. The Federation of American Scientists has calculated that a mere 41 grams (1.4 ounces) of cesium-137 in a dirty bomb could contaminate most of Manhattan. By contrast, it would take 1,460 tons of low-enriched uranium to get the same levels of radiation.
​



Home > Programs > Strategic Security > Nuclear Information Project > Non-Proliferation and Arms Control

Uranium and Dirty Bombs
​
Even tiny amounts of a material with a half life of days will be intensely radioactive because the material is disintegrating so fast. It will not, however, be a good dirty bomb material because too much will decay while the bomb is being built. Even if the bomb disperses the material, just waiting several days for the material to decay naturally will allow people to return to the contaminated areas. At the opposite extreme, radioactive materials with extremely long half lives just do not decay quickly enough to cause much radiation. Looked at another way, to get dangerous levels of radiation requires huge quantities of material if the material decays very slowly. Uranium is more than 99% U-238, which has a half life of almost five billion years
​
Code: 
[SIZE=2][U][B]Isotope[/B][/U][U][B]Primary Radiation[/B][/U][U][B]Weight of 1 Curie[/B][/U][U][B]Weight of 3500 Curies[/B][/U][/SIZE]
Americum-241                      alpha                      0.30 [B]grams[/B]               1.05 kilograms
Cobalt-60                            gamma                    0.91 [B][I]milli[/I]grams[/B]         3.20 [B]grams[/B]
Californium-252                     alpha                      1.88 [B][I]milli[/I]grams[/B]         6.59 [B]grams[/B]
Cesium-137                          beta/gamma           11.8 [B][I]milli[/I]grams[/B]           41.40 [B]grams[/B]
Iridium-192                        beta/gamma             0.11 [B][I]milli[/I]grams[/B]           0.39 [B]grams[/B]
Plutonium-239                       alpha                     16.8 [B]grams[/B]               58.70 kilograms
Plutonium-240                       alpha                      4.54 [B]grams[/B]              15.90 kilograms
Radium-226                          alpha                      1.04 [B]grams[/B]                3.64 kilograms
Strontium-90                        beta                       7.17 [B][I]milli[/I]grams[/B]         25.1 [B]grams[/B]
Uranium-238                         alpha                      3.06 [U]tons[/U]                  10.7 thousand tons
Depleted Uranium (0.2%)             alpha                       2.10 [U]tons[/U]                   7.35 thousand tons
Natural Uranium (0.70%)            alpha                      1.50 [U]tons[/U]                   5.24 thousand tons
[B]Commercial Uranium (5%)     [/B]        [B]alpha                          0.42 [U]tons[/U]                      1.46 [U][I]thousand[/I][/U] tons[/B]


We're talking about 900 lbs of yellow cake per a single curie.
And if it's enriched to U 238 we're talking 6700 lbs of enriched uranium per single curie.

It doesn't seem that turning this yellow cake into a dirty bomb is going to be reasonably feasible. Certainly more could be done with the same resources.
 
WCH said:
You have no idea what the truth is so, how could I be wrong?
Besides, YOUR side voted overwhelmingly to go to war.
Click to expand...

No, they voted to let Bush decide. Do we really want to cover that ground again? Just admit your error. ;)
 
WCH said:
The Kurds know from experience. And guess what... we are still giving Iraq weapons.
Click to expand...

The Kurds also know what smallpox does from experience. That doesn't mean that's something to worry about in 2014.

This is a stockpile of things that aren't weapons anymore.
 
Red_Dave said:
Well the implication was that they had new information about an immediate threat, Saddam used chemical weapons in the 80s and Dick Cheney knew that better than most,
Click to expand...

And they still had had chemical weapons, when they threw out the UN inspectors in 1995 (date from memory).
 
joG said:
And they still had had chemical weapons, when they threw out the UN inspectors in 1995 (date from memory).
Click to expand...

Left over degrading and not growing and gathering.
 
Boo Radley said:
Left over degrading and not growing and gathering.
Click to expand...

No doubt. I wondered why Saddam didn't show them to the inspectors. He would still be in power.
 
joG said:
No doubt. I wondered why Saddam didn't show them to the inspectors. He would still be in power.
Click to expand...

The inspectors explained that. He was between a rock and a hard place trying to make Iran think he had them whole assuring us he didn't. But in any case, having old degraded weapons was what everyone believed. Growing and gathering was the lie that wasn't supported.
 
Boo Radley said:
The inspectors explained that. He was between a rock and a hard place trying to make Iran think he had them whole assuring us he didn't. But in any case, having old degraded weapons was what everyone believed. Growing and gathering was the lie that wasn't supported.
Click to expand...

Nope. I do not agree. You are reinterpreting, what went on. The Security Council had demanded visits to find out what had happened to the weapons and what stage the programs were at.
You are right that Saddam wanted to appear to be dangerous towards Iran as was reported by inner circle people after the conflict.

But faced with the decision between certain destruction and lingering dictatorship, why did he choose defeat. That does not seem typical behavior for a survivor.
Or did he believe Bush would not invade?
 
joG said:
Nope. I do not agree. You are reinterpreting, what went on. The Security Council had demanded visits to find out what had happened to the weapons and what stage the programs were at.
You are right that Saddam wanted to appear to be dangerous towards Iran as was reported by inner circle people after the conflict.

But faced with the decision between certain destruction and lingering dictatorship, why did he choose defeat. That does not seem typical behavior for a survivor.
Or did he believe Bush would not invade?
Click to expand...

Remember, Bush had to step outside the security council, and that inspectors felt they only needed more time. Saddam had to hope it would buy him enough to get a different outcome. Satisfy the inspectors without too much damage to his bluff. Bush didn't care to find out the truth. Invasion was the answer before the question was asked. What Saddam did made no difference at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
Remember, Bush had to step outside the security council, and that inspectors felt they only needed more time. Saddam had to hope it would buy him enough to get a different outcome. Satisfy the inspectors without too much damage to his bluff. Bush didn't care to find out the truth. Invasion was the answer before the question was asked. What Saddam did made no difference at all.
Click to expand...

I again beg to differ slightly. Bush was very clear in his speech before the General Assembly, when he asked the UN to either enforce the resolution (was it 1441) or the US would. Did Saddam believe at that point that putin, Chirac and Schröder would save him with their vetos, do you think. I mean, from Poland to Singapur heads of government were taking sides with Bush.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they voted to let Bush decide. Do we really want to cover that ground again? Just admit your error. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh I thought it was Rumsfeld or Cheney?

How about Powell [he voted for Obama twice ya know] ?
 
joG said:
I again beg to differ slightly. Bush was very clear in his speech before the General Assembly, when he asked the UN to either enforce the resolution (was it 1441) or the US would. Did Saddam believe at that point that putin, Chirac and Schröder would save him with their vetos, do you think. I mean, from Poland to Singapur heads of government were taking sides with Bush.
Click to expand...

He had to hope. But the results also show clearly he wasn't growing and gathering, and few really believed he was. If Bush had stuck to what was believed, that there was some old degrading left over wmds, he'd have been within the truth.
 
WCH said:
Oh I thought it was Rumsfeld or Cheney?

How about Powell [he voted for Obama twice ya know] ?
Click to expand...

Check with Powell. He claims he was deceived.
 
Boo Radley said:
He had to hope. But the results also show clearly he wasn't growing and gathering, and few really believed he was. If Bush had stuck to what was believed, that there was some old degrading left over wmds, he'd have been within the truth.
Click to expand...

Actually, your assumption that everyone knew that the weapons had degraded was not widely held at the time and was not really logical.
It was not existential to Saddam that Iran believe he had chemical weapons. And since he would not show the destruction, though, Bush had said he would have to go, if he did not accept the resolution, it made sense to assume they were still functional. Of course Putin, Chirac and Schröder lead him to believe that Bush was talking big but held no stick, but the rick did remain, as the dictator found out.
 
joG said:
And they still had had chemical weapons, when they threw out the UN inspectors in 1995 (date from memory).
Click to expand...

Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom