Are all weapons of mass destruction really equal?

Do we count fuel air bombs and the "Daisy Cutter" as WMD?

 

I just don't see how people make this assumption. If GW was that "lustful", after 9/11, he'd have used that to start WWIII, and if he'd done it immediately following the tragedy, we'd all have signed up to fight with him.

He showed amazing restraint, and continues to do so with that punk Saddam. In fact, with the blatant snubbing of sanctions and restrictions Iraq has done over the past 10+ years, I think GB I, Clinton, AND GW have shown restraint above and beyond.

 

Originally posted by superdave
and other matters....

I read someone on Monday who stated that the Bushies are sort of eliding three things together, and wrongly. The writer posited that nukes are the real worry, because a nucyular weapon is fairly easy to deliver and detonate in an effective manner, while chemical and biological weapons take a high degree of technology to effectively use. The writer further stated that our fear of Iraq is being overstated because they're not even close to getting nukes. The Bushies are using the developmental work in Iraq on chem. and bio. weapons to justify the war, while we really ought only to be worried about nukes. (No, I don't have a link, but I don't think any of the facts underlying this writer's arguments are in any way controversial. I've seen that stuff many times before.)

And that made sense to me for a while...until I remembered that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. But then I had a third thought...if this writer is arguing that the Iraqis don't have the technical know-how to make these weapons, but we know that they've used them, does that mean the previous use was entirely imported? Something to think about.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Should we really not worry about chem and bio weapons that much, and trust the experts who say that it's beyond the Iraqis' capabilities to make use of them? Because that's a pretty strong argument in favor of continuing inspections, since, as I understand it, it's alot harder to hide develpment of nukes.

I think you've answered a large part of your own question. Iraq clearly has the technical capability to use chemical weapons. Whether that technology was imported or not really doesn't matter since he has it now.

I agree that nukes are much more serious than chemical weapons but it is more difficult to balance them against biological weapons. Chemical weapons and nukes are constrained by their blast radius/area of effect while some biological weapons are not. I would put contagious biologics on par with nukes but others such as anthrax as on par with chemical weapons in terms of effectiveness. The additional problem with biological weapons is detecting the attack which makes them a great terrorist weapon. Finally, there are good sources that claim that the infrastructure needed to create biological weapons is much easier to hide than chemical weapons and very easy to hide than nuclear weapon facilities. The fact that they make use of dual use equipment complicates the search for both biological and chemical weapon plants.

Overall, I don't worry as much about Iraq's nuke program but that doesn't make me feel at all confident in the ability of inspectors to stop his biochem program. The consequences of Iraq getting a contagious biological weapon seem to me to be even more likely and thus threatening as his limited nuke program.

And this leads me to two more conflicting thoughts. On the one hand, the Bushies would argue that we need to remove Saddam because the NK situation proves that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. On the other, given that Rumsfeld was horny for this war within hours of the 9-11 attacks, our desire to enforce the Gulf War cease-fire really smells like a pretext to create the Wolfowitz Map of the Middle East.

Why does Rumsfeld's dislike for Iraq have anything to do with your thoughts on the justification for war with Iraq? Unless you believe that the entire government would conspire to go to war with Iraq based on simple hatred for Saddam, then I think we can judge the case for war on the facts presented by all relevant parties.

Now I come back to a point I made on another thread. The cost of continuing the inspections regime is absolutely tiny compared to the cost of a war and the subsequent occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. If the inspections are gonna work, why in hell would you go to war?

And then I think, well, because we can probably get away with it now alot easier than if in June 2004, Saddam decides to start f****** with the inspectors.

If the inspectors could ever successfully disarm Iraq and could do so quickly and without the massing of our troops on Iraq's border than there would be no discussion of war. However, the last decade has made it clear that inspectors can't disarm Iraq and were only given minimal compliance from Iraq when Bush made it clear that any other response would lead to a nearly immediate invasion. Thus to continue with the inspections/containment plan would produce the following:
1)Iraq would be able to continue it WMD and missile programs, although they would probably be slower and smaller than they have been for the past 4 years.
2)Inspectors would find occassional evidence of these programs and would likely be met with increased Iraqi resistance as happened in 1998
3)We would be forced to keep a larger number of forces in the region. This would be very expensive, leave us with less ability to respond to other world problems, and just serve to increase the hostilitiy of local arab population.
4)Our increased and long-term presence would assist terrorist groups in recruitment and offer numerous targets for terror attacks such as those recently seen in Kuwait and in the Khobar Towers bombing.
5) The Iraqis will push for removal of sanctions. The arab and Islamic world will increase pressure for removal of the sanctions due to the harm to civilians. It will be difficult to keep dual use technology out of Iraq once sanctions are lifted.
6)Eventually, Iraq will develop a powerful biological weapon or a nuke. They could immediately use this weapon to blackmail us or others in the region or even launch a devastating first strike. We would face the prospect of having to either meet their demands or attack them and face the destructive power of the new weapon.

However the attack now/replace Iraq option also has significant costs:
1) We would attack Iraq with UN approval and thus limit the international backlash or we could go in with a "coalition of the willing". Either way I am confident we would defeat the Iraqi army and capture, kill, or force Saddam to leave power and hide. I expect relatively low total casualties (low thousands) but these could be much higher if Saddam uses WMDs.
2) The Allies would be forced to occupy and rebuild Iraq. There will likely be environmental devastation from the oilfield fires. Significant infrastructure would be destroyed by either our forces or Iraqi sabotage. There could be widespread damage in some communities if Saddam uses his biochem weapons on his own "people" such as the Kurds.
3) We would need to establish a new government in Iraq. Depending on how this was done we could face varying levels of international and local resistance. This government will face significant opposition at home and be viewed as a puppet of the U.S. The country could face significant sepratist movements in both the north and the south.
4) There is a chance that Iraqis would view our forces as invaders and begin a resistance campaign that could force us into a situation similar in some respects to the one the Soviets faced in Afghanistan or our experience in Vietnam.
5) Islamic terrorist groups will use our conquest of Iraq to significantly increase recruitment and attacks on U.S. interests at home and abroad. I believe that the level of recruitment would be higher under this option than the option of just massing our forces in bordering states for years to come as described above.
6)We would need to remain in Iraq for at least a few years to ensure that the new government is firmly established, restore the environment and infrastructure, and secure Iraq from its neighbors while a new/rebuilt army is established. Note that Iraqi oil will cover some of these costs and the removal of sanctions would help the economy. However, the American people will bear the brunt of the costs especially if we don't get UN backing and funding commitment from many nations.

Its definetly a no-win situation for the U.S. and it is difficult to see which option has the better long-term outcome for us and those in the region. I believe that the second option with all of its costs and risks is still better than than prospect of a WMD-armed (especially with nukes or contagious , powerful bioweapons) Iraq a few years from now. However, I think we need to get the UN on board if at all possible. I hope that the evidence we present over the next week will lead to this support both at home and abroad.

 

Re: Re: Are all weapons of mass destruction really equal?

But it doesn't take the whole government to go to war with Iraq. Essentially, it just takes Bush and Rumsfeld, with Powell to justify it to Europe.

 

Re: Re: Re: Are all weapons of mass destruction really equal?

And, after all, that's the guy who tried to kill my dad.

 

Depends if you're jungle canopy or hunkered Iraqis.

 

Time to face facts, I think.

"Disarmament" is a complete, total and utter fiction. It is a red herring of the first order. The goal is regime change. The preference is that Saddam somehow meet an untimely end, but we'll settle for permanent exile in a quiet place where he can be whacked later.

You cannot go in and disarm Saddam, and then leave him in power--it doesn't work that way. He'll rearm as soon as your back is turned. Everybody knows that.

So this is really all about getting Saddam. "Disarmament" just sounds nicer to the Security Council. Now it is true that we don't want our puppet regime to have chemical weapons either, so it's incumbent upon us to actually find the weapons. But that's so far down the list of priorities that it'll barely registers as secondary.

You can argue the whys and the wherefores of getting rid of Saddam, and whether that should be our top priority, but don't make the mistake of thinking that this isn't personal and that Bush won't stop at nothing to see Saddam dead.

 

Using gas against concentrated troops is not difficult technology. Gas artilery shells are from WWI and short range rockets are from the 1930s. Using it against a distant target is different. Correctly dispersing it from long range missiles is very difficult. Using it in terrorist acts is difficult.

These can't possibly be used in an offensive capacity. You need a good army to take over the land temporarily vacated by the enemy. It was strategically effective in neither WWI nor the Iran Iraq war. They could be used in blackmail situations, but thier destructive power is so limited (as long as you are outside artilery range and can defend yourself against low and slow aircraft) and what Iraq might demand so precious that if I were a leader of a neighboring nation, I would simply call Saddam's bluff.

 

Disarmament was a requirement of the cease fire signed at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Losing sucks, but they have to comply.

Time to face facts, indeed.

 

Actually, the technology for delivering chemical weapons isn't all that spooky, but it's not all that dangerous. Here's some WW1 stats

http://www.pro.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/glossary/glossary_p.htm

"A total of 124,000 tons of poison gas were dropped during the First World War, causing 1.3 million casualties but just 91,000 deaths."

In other words, on concentrated battlefields, every ton of chemicals delivered injured 10 people and killed less than 1. The injuries were pretty nasty, however.

Smallpox gives me more heebie-jeebies than poison gas.

Assuming that Dubya wants to go after Saddam because of petulance is just silly. My guess is, he wants to make an example of Saddam because to not do so will embolden the others. He's an easy one and will maybe make the more difficult cases, like Iran and Syria, less flagrant supporters of terrorism.

Let's just hope that it's that easy, because it's only a question now of when, not if, we go in.

 

Re: Re: Re: Are all weapons of mass destruction really equal?

We gave them what's known as "dual-use" items, which have both military and non-military uses. We didn't give them chemical weapons, per se. Almost assuredly, they could manufacture more.

Because for years the Iraqis haven't been serious about the inspections. They've thwarted them at every possible turn, and continue to do so up until this very moment. An optimist would have figured that, because it was pretty obvious that this was Saddam's last chance, he would have bent over backwards to cooperate. He hasn't. Instead, he's turning the inspections back into the farce that they had become when we withdrew outr inspectors in 1998.

Disarmament was a term they agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have lost.

They do have mobile labs. I'm sure it's difficult to develop chemical, bio and new-q-ler weapons when you are being chased around the country by inspectors, but its still possible. The mobile labs are probably a big reason why Iraq still hasn't let our U-2 fly-overs start. Which is yet another reason why Iraq isn't in compliance.

 

Yes. Understood. That's the excuse. The GOAL (which is a very different thing) is the end of Saddam Hussein. It's really very basic and simple. WHEN we go in, Saddam's days are numbered. Thinking we're going to go in, eliminate chemical stocks, and then leave Saddam in place is stunningly naive. It's also bad policy.

Look, it's really simple. Saddam is a bad human being. He needs to be shot out of the nearest cannon. HOWEVER, because of the international situation, we need something a little less flimsy than aluminum tubes that can't be used for nuclear warheads without prohibitively expensive modification as our justification for going in and whacking the bastard.

We need to be able to hold up something that everyone will agree on. Here's our proof! Then we go in and whack him, and we're back to the business of tracking down Osama bin Laden and introducing him to his maker.

 

I agree.

Then why are you defending him? Stop defending Saddam.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Are all weapons of mass destruction really equal?

[lame bono joke] Does this mean that the war will be fought "In the name of love"? [/lame bono joke]

 

We have troops in country and drones flying everywhere (proven by the fact that 2 were shot down the last year). The Iraqi's have no weapon that can reliably reach the altitude the U-2 flys at. If the vans exist and aren't parked in a city under something, we know where they are.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Are all weapons of mass destruction really equal?

I haven't found out why we just don't fly U2's over Iraq anyway.

Well, they might get shot down, of course, but then, that would also be a cause for war, if we classify it as part of inspections. And really, isn't that what spy planes are for?

And don't we have spy satellites, come to think of it?

 

Free the goats!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are all weapons of mass destruction really equal?

No. Disarmament of all WMD (including chemical and bio), and not to use, develop or acquire any WMD. And, I believe, long-range weapons.

My God, how many times has this been thrown out there? When did so many become advocates of the one-size-fits-all foreign policy? You are a Clinton fan, and even he saw the ridiculousness of that kind of approach.

Pretty much says it all.

Then they shouldn't expect people to take the UN seriously.

 

I understand about the drones, but the UN inspectors want the U-2 flights, not the US.

 

I think the Bush Administration had a fairly good idea of how this was going to play out (i.e. Iraq would start the same old cat-and-mouse game with the inspections), but still made a legitimate good-faith effort to resume inspections.

 

Yes, but what is the scenario in which the inspections satisfy the Bush admin so as not to go to war?