I just got into an argument this morning about this with one of my friends. I think he's been brainwashed by some of the Bush spin. For some reason he believes there's no way Iraq doesn't have nukes, or else we wouldn't be going in there. I tried to tell him that there's almost no way that Iraq could get their hands on the weapons grade plutonium or uranium needed for a full nuclear device (without us knowing about it), not too mention saddam would have no way of getting this delivering the weapon to a target any farther than some of our ships in the persian, or israel. Anyone else have a view on the probability on nukes in iraq? My personal opinion is that if saddam did have nukes (although i'm almost positive he doesn't), he would have used them a long time ago.
he does not have nukes, your friend is a brain-washed fool. he was very close to having them back during the first gulf war, and we had no clue until inspectors got in to the country and started poking around...but they destroyed a lot of the required infrastructure.
He doesnt have any nukes. He mustve confused what was speculation that he is CLOSE to having and trying to develop nukes with actually having the product.
Your friend is severely misinformed. Here is a question: What happens if we find WMD? France and the UN would look pretty stupid at that point. We go back top the UN and say "told ya so." Conversely, what happens if troops find no WMD. If the US finds WMD or at least traceable evidence that Saddam was planning to build WMD, then Bush is rightfully justified. If not, then the administration will have some serious explaining to do. the reason we are there is b/c GW says that Saddam harbors them and can potentially give them to terrorists. This is an honest question.
seperate WMD categories. almost everyone (including France/Germany) believe Saddam has chem/bio. no one believes he has nukes. there is significant disagreement over him having a program or the development of that program. the argument was about how to disarm saddam, not about if he was armed.
Does he have nuclear weapons?? I dont know.. I bet he has something up his sleeve. He wont leave quietly and just let the USA forces take everything. He has something big planned for the near future..
Does Saddam have nukes? Almost certainly not. Does Saddam have chemical weapons? Almost certainly yes. Does Saddam have biological weapons? Your guess is as good as mine.
Here's where I disagree, there's only one real reason we've ever had any interest in the persian gulf area. Oil. Plain and simple those oil fields in the area need to be threat free and we need prices to stay at manageable levels in this country. Think of it this way, what's the difference between North Korea and Iraq, let's see: Totalitarian Gvt. And Dictator - Iraq Check, North Korea Check Deceptive Policies to outside U.N. reps and inspectors - Iraq Check, North Korea Check Nuclear Weapons Capability - Iraq No, North Korea Check Weapons of Mass Destruction - Iraq Check, North Korea Check Massive Oil Deposits in area - Iraq Check, North Korea No Harboring of Militant groups - Iraq Check, North Korea Check So really, North Korea is more dangerous to the U.S. and it's citizens, but Iraq is more dangerous to our oil supplies, so who do we go after? Always follow the $$, it's usually the answer to just about anything. Richard, I told him he was being brainwashed, he didn't take that too well though
"Follow the $$" is a really simplistic explanation. A war with NK could literally kill millions. There's no way we would go after Iraq if there was anywhere near these risks.
You realize of course that the United States imports 58% of its oil and roughly only 12% of the total amount of petroleum we consume each year comes from all of the nations in the Persian Gulf combined. Canada is the largest single provider of imported petroleum with Mexico and Saudi Arabia virtually tied for second. Oil is not the only or even the main reason for this war. The reason we are avoiding a military solution in N. Korea is because the potential military risks of a N. Korea invasion are an order of magnitude greater than those involved in Iraq. In addition, whether you believe it or not, those who make these decisions obviously think that Iraq's threat to national security is much greater than N. Korea's. Link for the oil information: http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_imports.html Waiting for the requisite post stating that we will be invading Canada or Mexico next
To answer the original topic here. No, he probably doesn't have nukes. He has been trying to obtain the materials to manufacture them for the past 15 years or so. He also may have tried to buy some of the many tactical nukes that were lost by the Russians during the 90's. However, there is no evidence to suggest he has them. If he does have them, the biggest threat now would be the use of a tactical nucleur weapon on a United States military formation. Possible but very unlikely. Your main worry from Saddam should be chemical weapons.
Canada and Mexico don't aren't really threating to cut off 15% of our oil supply this year, so I don't think we'll be setting up an invasion force anytime soon.
Next??... The next country we invade will be one that is a serious concern in cooperating with terrorists and doing more damage to our Home. Make no mistake, we're 'there' cause we're protecting our interests... RIGHT HERE IN OUR YARD !!!
If you actually believe that saddam hussein is more of a threat to our national security than Korean NUCLEAR WEAPONS, i feel sorry for you.
Okay, feel sorry for me. A) They don't have the means to deliver those weapons to this country. B) They have at last count 3-5 bulky devices (see a) whose total destructive power could easily be outstripped by a several suitcases full of vials of ebola virus or pneumatic plague. The nukes would also be outstripped by say relatively small quantities of Seran Gas, VX gas, Mustard Gas, and various other Nerve, Blood and Blister agents if released under the right conditions. c) One country is publicly commited to supporting terrorists groups with strong anti-american sentiments (Hammas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc.) sp? Iraq d) One country has the extensive and expert intelligence service needed to provide valuable logistic, financial, political, intelligence, and armament aid to our enemies. Iraq d) One country has publicly stated that it wants to revenge itself on this one. Iraq f) One of the two has actually had the political will to use WMD many times in the past two decades. Iraq Keep feeling sorry for me though...that was a scathing argument in your favor
Just a note, this is the same kid who i got into a big argument into with over the last time the U.S. has officially declared war. For some reason he was "Positive" that we declared war on iraq in '91 and vietnam, which of course we did not.
Dude, if we wanted Iraqi oil: 1. We could just buy it, at a much less cost than the war. 2. We would have taken it 12 years ago during the first Gulf War. Seems to me your arguments should be geared towards the French, whose position was solely based on THEIR selfish oil agreements they signed with Hussein.
If we wanted oil, we could also have gotten involved in Venezuela, where the people are essentially revolting against the government, yet the president refuses to step down. The oil industry has been shut down for weeks. Instead of sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the Middle East, we could've given the Venezuelans some weapons and let them get rid of that stupid pig-headed bastard (I forget what his name is).
I also feel sorry for somebody that can't grasp that a having nuclear weapons is a pretty good deterrent. So is the ability to level Seoul. So is the ability to kill thousands of Americans in the first few minutes. The list goes on and on. Feel free to stick with the oil argument, but the comparison with NK is foolish. You can make the case that we wouldn't attack Iraq but for the oil. You can't make the case that we would invade North Korea if they had oil. Invading NK is not an option.
But "we" wouldn't own the fields. No matter how cheap milk is, it's always cheaper for the guy who owns the cow. Especially considering that the cow is going to be bought by the American taxpayer, and not the dairy farmer. Instead, we took Kuwaiti oil. And the Russians, of course. So, uh, why did the Germans stand so firmly against it? Why did the Turks make such a big deal about letting us even use their airspace? Why did Mexico and Chile enroll us in the Order of the Finger? Why is Canada not sending a single man? Why aren't any of our other "allies" besides the UK and Australia sending hombre one? The whole world is THAT obsessed with France making good on an oil deal? And, uh, you never did venture a guess as to why we just didn't say "Fine, you can get oil from us at the same deal once we're running the pumps." If it wasn't about oil, why screw over France and Russia, considering how much easier it would have been to go to war without their opposition?
These "means" are one hell of a lot easier to acquire than the actual nuclear weapons, you've already done 95% of the job if you actually already possess the weapons. Much easier than trying to develop a nuclear program under the nose of UN weapons inspectors for the last 12 years. I'm sorry, but you're comparing WWI era mustard gas to nuclear arms, that's just silly. You might want to wash out all that bush bullshit from your ears, it's starting to clog them up. Anything to back up that claim? The UN's been looking down Iraq's shirt for the last 12 years, very unlikely that they've developed any more significant intelligence services than NK has One country just got made our bitch in 2 nights of air raids. Iraq can talk all it wants but it couldn't rough up my 5 year old brother when he had a broken arm. One country's leadership is just a tidbit dumber than the other's. I mean come on, Iraqi officials have been sitting in their offices, shaking from multiple bomb explosions, claiming glorious victory for Iraq in the upcoming weeks. I personally just don't value many things that come out of the mouths of Iraqi leadership. The WMD that Saddam has are: 1. Very innacurate 2. Very antiquated 3. Very unreliable 4. Extremely beatable with today's countermeasures.
Well, whatever they have, they're not going to have it for long. They had some nice scuds for Kuwait waiting, didn't they?