http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,767235,00.html Iraq 'close to nuclear bomb goal' Senate hears dire warnings by dissidents Julian Borger in Washington Thursday August 1, 2002 The Guardian Saddam Hussein will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005, a former Iraqi nuclear engineer told senators yesterday, as the US Congress held hearings on whether to go to war. Launching what it called a "national discussion" amid frequent reports that the Bush administration is honing its plans for an assault on Iraq, the Senate foreign relations committee was also warned by an expert on the Iraqi military not to underestimate the strength of Saddam's army and air defences and not to doubt that any invasion would require overwhelming force. A succession of expert witnesses at the high-profile hearings argued that the danger posed by Saddam to the US and the rest of the world was constantly increasing as the Iraqi dictator attempted to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Khidir Hamza, who played a leading role in Iraq's nuclear weapon programme before defecting in 1994, cited German intelligence in saying: "With more than 10 tonnes of uranium and one tonne of slightly enriched uranium...in its possession, Iraq has enough to generate the needed bomb-grade uranium for three nuclear weapons by 2005." He also claimed: "Iraq is using corporations in India and other countries to import the needed equipment for its programme and channel it through countries like Malaysia for shipment to Iraq." Mr Hamza, who now works for a New York thinktank, said that the chemical and biological weapons programmes were making strides and Baghdad was "gearing up to extend the range of its missiles to easily reach Israel". His pessimistic assessment was echoed by other witnesses, including the former UN chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler. However, experts with dissenting views, such as Scott Ritter, another former UN inspector, had not been invited. There were also calls for caution as the media reported that the Bush administration might be considering a lightning assault on Baghdad and other command centres using fewer than 80,000 troops. Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and the author of a new assessment of Iraqi military strength, had bitter criticism for hawks in the administration who portrayed the 400,000-strong Iraqi army as an easy opponent. "Iraq might be a far easier opponent than its force strengths indicate," he said, "but it is also potentially a very serious military opponent indeed, and to be perfectly blunt, I think only fools would bet the lives of other men's sons and daughters on their own arrogance and call this force a 'cakewalk' or a 'speed-bump'." He said that though regular army units had less than 70% manning levels, Iraq still had 2,200 battle tanks, 3,700 other armoured vehicles and 2,400 major artillery weapons. He also warned that US warplanes attacking Iraqi cities would fly into a blizzard of anti-aircraft fire from "one of the most dense air defence networks around urban and populated areas in the world". The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, continued to insist yesterday that no final decision had been taken, but made it clear that he believed that other initiatives, such as renewed UN weapons inspections, would not work because Iraq would not agree to a "thoroughly intrusive inspection regime". At talks in Vienna last month, the Iraqi government and the UN failed to agree on terms for the return of inspectors, and Baghdad has since maintained a defiant stand. Mr Rumsfeld also said air power alone was unlikely to be enough to destroy Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes as many sites were hidden and mobile biological warfare laboratories were being used. Congress has grown uneasy with the slide towards war. On Tuesday, two Democrat senators, Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, introduced a resolution opposing the use of force against Iraq without congressional authorisation or a formal declaration of war. Chairing yesterday's committee hearings, Senator Joseph Biden urged the Bush administration to put more thought into how to deal with the aftermath of Saddam's fall if a military operation were successful. "If we participate in Saddam's departure, what are our responsibilities the day after?" he said.
I don't think it would be fair that we'd goto war so another country will not make nukes. Sure it's Iraq, but Israel has nukes and we didn't goto war with them. So did Russia, an enemy to the US when they were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I think bush doesn't want an enemy that is a military superpower(I think nukes determine if you are a mil. super power).
Israel isn't going to use their nukes on us. Do unto others before they do unto you. The best defense is a good offense.
Are you even halfway serious?? This is a government that has used chemical weapons on its own damn people!!! This is a guy who has been an active supporter of terrorism. It is in our own best interests to make sure this guy does not develop weapons of mass destruction! Fair?? Who the hell cares about fair?? I tell you what...let's play dirty, cheat and stay alive! I'd rather not play fair and keep my city from being blown off the map, thanks. Israel is an ally...they do not threaten us with any of their weapons, whether conventional or nuclear. If we could have taken out USSR nukes, we would have...if we could have steamrolled over them before they developed them, we would have. There was serious thought to extending WWII and changing sides with Russia...they were pretty beaten after WWII but kept rolling into Eastern Europe to set up shop. But the Russians weren't crazy with their nukes...we knew what to expect from them. They weren't nuts. Guys like Saddam who align themselves with terrorist groups are unafraid, and, in fact, hellbent, on making sure that these weapons are detonated over here.
Come on now Azadre. I'm a Muslim too, but this has nothing to do with Islam. Saddam is a crazy ass who will try to use nukes on Israel or US the minute he is capable of doing so. Its time to take his crazy ass out.
I think this is one of the best arguments on why we should remove Saddam. If he gets nukes he will use them. If not on Iraq then probably on one of his neighboring countries. If he invaded Kuwait with conventional forces, then with the bomb what is to stop him from blackmailing Saudia Arabia or Iran. I don't understand why more Arab nations don't support us when they know how crazy he is and what he can/will do. He hasn't hesitated on using chemical weapons, why would he hesitate to use nuclear weapons? If he is not removed there will be many lives lost. As for Iraq's defenses they can/will be disabled just like in the Gulf War. Our stealth bombers took out the air defenses and allowed us to dominate the skies. Also Iraq's weaponry is mostly old Soviet tanks/planes(I believe), we should be able to knock them out very quickly and don't forget how fast the Iraqi army surrendered last time... I am not saying it will be a cakewalk and I don't want us to place our troops in harms way. We should stop discussing the battle plan and get to work.
In Assessing Iraq's Arsenal, The 'Reality Is Uncertainty' Details of Bioweapons Lab Emerge, but Not Proof By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 31, 2002; Page A01 U.S. intelligence analysts have been closely examining satellite images of the west bank of the Tigris River in Baghdad for signs of a laboratory rumored to exist there. Called Tahhaddy, or "Challenge," the lab is purported to have 85 employees and a top-secret mission: making biological weapons for Iraq's military. Details about the lab have trickled out of Iraq in recent months in accounts from defectors and Iraqi exiles opposed to President Saddam Hussein. They tell of underground test chambers, heavy security and a viral strain code-named "Blue Nile," which sounds suspiciously like the Ebola virus. If confirmed, the very existence of the lab could fuel the debate over whether the United States should attack Iraq. But confirming the lab's presence from satellite photos has proved difficult, so the laboratory today remains a mere shadow in the U.S. government's intelligence assessment -- an unknown threat in a landscape filled with others just like it. "It sounds credible. It is certainly plausible," a Pentagon intelligence analyst who specializes in Iraq said of the facility last week. "But proving it is another matter." The search for the laboratory illustrates one of the more vexing challenges facing White House and congressional leaders as they weigh military action against Iraq. Two days of Senate hearings on the topic open today. The decision about war hinges largely on a single issue: whether Iraq is actively seeking biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that could pose a threat to the United States and its allies, and how to respond if so. President Bush has declared that Iraq belongs to an "axis of evil," countries that are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and has threatened to carry out "regime change" in Iraq. Senior administration officials have said Iraq's threat is grave enough to warrant a military invasion. But intelligence officials and military experts on Iraq express caution. While many analysts are convinced that Iraq is rebuilding its stockpile of weapons, the White House has not publicly offered evidence of a single factory or lab known to be actively producing them. Congressional officials who receive classified briefings on Iraq say the case has not yet been made there, either -- in part because of what some officials perceive as a lack of reliable intelligence-gathering on the ground. "The central reality is uncertainty, and the defectors' stories only reinforce that," Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) said in an interview after a recent tour of the Middle East, where he discussed Iraq with regional leaders. "None of the people we met claimed to have conclusive knowledge of the status of Iraq's weapons program," said Graham, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. According to interviews with dozens of analysts in government, the military, intelligence agencies and academia, Iraq has a reservoir of knowledge, technology and equipment to create weapons of mass destruction. These specialists also agree that Iraq still has a residual arsenal from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, including stocks of chemical agents and possibly biological weapons that were hidden from the United Nations during seven years of inspections. The experts also note that Hussein is clearly determined to preserve whatever capability he has. Iraq attempted to conceal its weapons infrastructure from U.N. inspectors throughout the 1990s, and for the past four years it has refused to allow the inspectors back into the country, even at a cost of continuing international sanctions. Beyond that, the evidence that Iraq is actively rebuilding its arsenal consists of a mosaic of defector stories and intriguing intelligence data, including satellite images showing new construction in bombed-out industrial parks where weapons were once made, and documented attempts by Iraq to purchase equipment and supplies. But the intelligence reports and defector claims also leave some large questions unanswered. If a weapons program exists, it is far from clear how extensive it is or how serious a threat it poses. Before the 1991 war, Iraq struggled with faulty weapons designs, and weapons often backfired on its own troops. The military also has not yet managed to marry its weapons with a reliable missile system that can accurately deliver warheads to distant targets. The intelligence about Iraq is cloudy enough to lead to differing interpretations. Experts who favor an aggressive response said the data add up to a compelling, if largely circumstantial, case. "It's as clear as these things get," said R. James Woolsey, director of the CIA from 1993 to 1995. "If defectors are all you've got, that's a problem. But you can triangulate -- you get more than one source." But others, including some former U.N. weapons inspectors, say the evidence is inconclusive, underscoring the need for the inspectors' return to Baghdad. "I'd be the first to admit I have no idea what has gone on inside Iraq since 1998," said Scott Ritter, a former Marine Corps intelligence officer and chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, who accused the Clinton administration of not aggressively seeking the country's full disarmament. "If someone can demonstrate that Iraq has [weapons of mass destruction] and continues to develop them, then Iraq is a rogue nation and I would be the first to sign up for that war. But no one has made that case yet." Congressional leaders are pressing the White House for better intelligence -- and a public airing of the existing evidence -- as reports circulate that the administration is preparing plans for a possible strike against Baghdad. "There's an important role for the Iraqi opposition, but we should be doing more than simply trying to confirm its stories," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "My attitude is we should be like the Missourians: Show me." Biological Weapons The Tahhaddy lab, if it exists, could point to an Iraqi biological weapons program that was kept secret from Western intelligence agencies for more than 15 years. Iraq's known bioweapons labs were so carefully hidden that U.N. officials failed to discover them until 1995 -- four years after the start of inspections. Only after the defection of the program's chief, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, did inspectors find secret laboratories that were producing lethal bacteria by the ton. Iraq eventually acknowledged making three types of biological weapons using anthrax bacteria and two kinds of biological toxins: botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. But Iraq is also known to have conducted extensive research on at least three other pathogens that attack humans or crops, and it dabbled with a half-dozen others, U.N. inspection reports show. In its final three years in Iraq, the U.N. Special Commission, or UNSCOM, destroyed all of Iraq's known biological munitions, and much of the equipment needed to make new ones. But the inspectors didn't get it all. "UNSCOM didn't destroy everything," said Richard Spertzel, a retired biological warfare expert who oversaw the dismantling of Iraq's bioweapons program. "Iraq still has enough equipment, material, people and know-how to make biological weapons." Spertzel said he observed industrial fermenters, spray dryers and other equipment that could be used to mass-produce viruses and bacteria -- equipment that UNSCOM could not legally destroy because it had no proof the machines were being used to make weapons. He concludes that Iraq can now produce biological weapons without help from abroad, which it could not have done a decade ago. Iraq may still possess actual biowarfare bombs, as well. In a report to the U.N. Security Council in 1999, UNSCOM concluded that Iraq had concealed nearly 160 bombs and more than two dozen missile warheads filled with anthrax or other pathogens. While Iraq insists it destroyed the weapons unilaterally, it has offered no proof. Iraq also never handed over its "cookbooks" of instructions for making biological weapons, or accounted for its seed stock of lethal pathogens or hundreds of pounds of imported nutrient broth used to grow the germs in bulk. While conclusive proof remains elusive, there have been persistent reports since the late 1990s suggesting that Iraq has continued biological weapons research using small labs built underground or concealed inside specially modified trucks. Detailed accounts of what were described as secret labs were given to U.S. intelligence officials last fall by Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, an engineer specializing in constructing dust-free "clean rooms" needed for certain types of laboratory work. After fleeing Iraq in early December, he reported that as many as 300 secret weapons facilities had been "reactivated" since the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors. The engineer is being kept in a safe house by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which declined requests to interview Saeed. But according to a transcript of his debriefing session, which was made available by the Iraqi National Congress, a leading opposition group, Saeed said most of the facilities were small and cleverly disguised. "In some areas, houses or a small factory would get converted into labs," Saeed said. He also described a visit to an underground biological lab on the grounds of one of Hussein's Baghdad palaces, and his account is similar to reports of the Tahhaddy biological site offered by the Iraqi National Congress, which claims to have investigated the facility using informants. A document provided to The Washington Post by the group gives directions to the lab, lists its senior officers and describes a layout that includes above-ground offices and rooms for a security detachment assigned to the building. Most of its 85 employees work in a small underground lab that conducts research on pathogens, including a mysterious Blue Nile strain, officials of the opposition group said. Biowarfare experts suggested the name may refer to Ebola, a usually fatal hemorrhagic disease. The Iraqi National Congress officials said they have been unable to learn whether the lab had produced viruses in a weaponized form. Several intelligence and UNSCOM officials described the group's report as credible, but none could verify it independently. Under UNSCOM, inspectors investigated several reports of underground weapons facilities but found none. Chemical Weapons Chemical agents are the oldest and most technologically simple component of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. They were used to put down a rebellion by Iraqi Kurds in 1988. Experts interviewed for this article said there is convincing evidence Iraq still has chemical weapons stockpiles. In their seven years in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, U.N. inspectors destroyed hundreds of chemically armed warheads and artillery shells. UNSCOM's incinerator burned tons of mustard gas and nerve agents as well as the precursor compounds used to make them. Yet a vast amount of Hussein's chemical stockpile was never found and remains unaccounted for, U.N. inspection records show. Among the more worrisome items: at least 3.9 tons of highly lethal VX, an advanced nerve agent so powerful that a few drops on the skin can kill. Iraq acknowledged making the VX and reported acquiring at least 600 tons of precursor chemicals. Iraq claims to have destroyed the chemicals, along with about 550 mustard-gas shells and 107,000 special artillery shell casings, the U.N. documents show. But no evidence was offered, and UNSCOM dismissed the claim as a lie. "Even while we were monitoring, Iraq was conducting activities right under our noses," said Charles A. Duelfer, former deputy executive chairman of UNSCOM and a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Duelfer and other UNSCOM veterans say Iraq could, without much difficulty, resume modest-scale production of chemical weapons -- and there is scattered evidence that it already has. In a report to Congress two years ago, the CIA said Iraq was rebuilding factories at which it once made chemical weapons, and installing dual-use equipment that can be employed to make new ones. More construction was spotted by spy satellites last year at a massive former chemical site known as Falluja, said Kelly Motz, weapons specialist at Iraq Watch, a group in Washington that tracks arms-control issues. Iraqi opposition officials and recent defectors such as Saeed contend that chemical munitions work is underway at such sites, but their accounts could not be independently confirmed. The leader of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, citing informants within the Iraqi intelligence community, contends that Hussein's VX stockpile is far larger than the 3.9 tons Iraq reported -- something UNSCOM inspectors have long suspected. Chalabi also says that the VX had been converted into a dry salt for long-term storage and was positioned in various sites across Iraq for use in the event of a foreign attack. UNSCOM officials said the account seemed credible, given what was learned about Iraq's VX program in the final months of weapons inspections. Nuclear Weapons Hussein was astonishingly close -- perhaps as near as a few weeks, some experts say -- to completing a nuclear device when the United States and its allies launched Operation Desert Storm against him in 1991. Weeks of bombings followed by years of intrusive inspections obliterated Iraq's nuclear program and wiped out its capacity for converting uranium into nuclear fuel, according to a broad cross-section of analysts. Most agreed that Iraq's nuclear program is nowhere near its prewar status. Far less certain is whether Iraq has made significant strides since 1998. Although former UNSCOM officials are skeptical of recent defector accounts about secret uranium-enrichment facilities inside Iraq, many say Iraq retains enough equipment, blueprints and scientific expertise to build a bomb quickly. All Iraq needs is nuclear fuel -- enriched uranium or plutonium, which could be bought or stolen abroad if not made at home. Hussein "is doing everything he can do without special [nuclear] material, and [he is] betting on acquiring the material outside Iraq," said David Kay, leader of three inspection missions to Iraq for the International Atomic Energy Agency. "There are places they can go and find it on sale. And when that happens, they'll be ready to surprise the world with a finished weapon." Even during the UNSCOM inspection years, Iraq conspicuously kept teams of nuclear scientists together and employed them at various make-work tasks, said Timothy V. McCarthy, a former deputy chief inspector and a senior analyst at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. "Our belief is that they are working on technical projects" related to the bomb, McCarthy said. "There are lots of things they can do on paper. We know they have a bomb design; how could they refine it?" There is as yet no firm evidence that Iraq has mastered the technically difficult feat of manufacturing its own nuclear fuel, but a few recent intelligence reports suggest that it is trying. Building a cascade facility for enriching uranium requires large amounts of highly specialized metals and machinery -- some of which has shown up in recent years on lists of goods Iraq has sought to import. Iraq's shopping list contains no "smoking guns," according to experts on Iraq's past nuclear weapons program. Most, if not all, of the listed items have multiple industrial uses apart from uranium enrichment, the sources said. But one person with intimate knowledge of Iraq's earlier attempts to build a bomb said he believes the real evidence of Iraq's nuclear efforts will not show up on official shipping manifests. Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected to the West in 1994, said a decade of trade sanctions has taught Hussein to become much better at getting what he needs through a combination of smuggling, bribery and improvisation. "Any watch list you have becomes meaningless," said Hamza, who describes Iraq's prewar nuclear program in an autobiography titled "Saddam's Bombmaker." "Iraq is increasingly able to manufacture what it needs locally." Hamza contends that Iraq will eventually acquire a nuclear bomb if Hussein is allowed to remain in power long enough. "No one who has ever gone this route has backed away because of political pressure alone," Hamza said. "The only way to stop him is by changing the regime." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23545-2002Jul30.html
I always try to go the less violent route. So let's nuke Saddam before he nukes others. Seriously, if there's a way to take out Saddam and his regime and send in humanitarian help to the Iraquis, then let's do it. If we don't try to make the lives of their children better, we'll have another Saddam in no time at all.
man you guys are in denial,and it will cost you dearly november 11,2001 ,Osama announces to the world he has nukes and yet you guys still dont get it. Great,lets bully sadam into a corner and dare him to nuke us,then when he does many bush haters will laugh their asses off. Word of advice to all you confused people. Terrorists are arabs right?most are Terrorists are in over 60 countries right?fact can we track and control 6 billion people to catch EVERY single terrorists?no the terrorists hate us,dont you think they will hate us even more if we take out sadam?yes if we take out sadam will that end terrorism? no is osama still alive and kicking even if iraq is gone? yes are their alquieda in usa now ?yes is their a new system in place to moniter every single american civilian to find terrorists? will be soon will it be a satelite tracking chip in your hand? yes,hehe read revelations do americans want chip now? no will americans want it if more terrorism happens? yes is bush the most hated man on the planet? yes (1 billion muslims,1 billion chinese,nuff said) does bush think attacking iraq before the elections will boost republican ratings even though it will cost lives? yes,he doesnt care ever heard of mabus? upside down the m and a, = w g bus bush is prophetically a goner is bush and cheney gungho?yes has iraq been trying to obtain nukes for the last 10 years? yes so why didnt americans b**** to clinton to oust sadam? i dont know did clinton want to spare american lives in battle? yes does bush ? no was gulf war syndrome a side effect of our own militarys anthrax vaccine? you bet your ass did sadam do anything to america in the last 10 years? no is israel worth dying over?if you think yes,then go join the forces then is killing murder if your the initiater?yes is america guilty for killing innocent iraqis over the last 10 years by blowing up their water plants? yes,do a little research I have read All of Sadams speeches in the last year,100% of americans misinterpret what he is saying because you all are brainwashed by the media.Not ONCE did he say he will attack america.Reread his words carefully.He says IF america attacks us(iraq) we have every right to defend ourselves.(How is that wrong?its self defense) So,in conclusion,iraq has done nothing(osama did 9/11)and when america whipes out iraq,and terrorists start releasing bio within the usa,you have only gungho bush to blame and yourselves for supporting him You can support your country without having to support the president.case in point, elections China has nukes,why wont we attack them?I guess everyone is forgeting how china just one year ago held american fighters hostage for 11 days,REMEMBER?If that was iraq last year that shot down a plane you can bet your ass wed be at war with iraq,so why didnt we go to war with china? humm,scared maybe? Well,doesnt america allow immigrants into the country? Do you know how easy it is to smuggle in a dirty bomb on the white house while Bush is speaking to the american public?Whitley Strieber,nuff said
R3, I was looking at it as we have let our allies and our enemies before and get nukes. Not at how they will be used. Of course I think Sadam is crazy. I don't think we should have a full scale invasion, BUT attack like we did in Afganistan.
If Saddam has nukes all the more reason to consider the latest offer on the table from Iraq. Discussions on letting weapons inspectors back in Iraq. If the reason we have for attacking him are his weapons, and the fact that he's breaking UN resolutions let's in their and see what weapons he has, and look at ALL possible sollutions to the problem. He may be close to having nukes, but no one is positive. Asking to have weapons inspectors come back in doesn't sound like the actions of a man who's hiding almost ready nukes. I think we need to only use violence as a last resort. If there is any other choice we shouldn't invade. It does appear there are other options at the moment.
Are you halfway serious? Do you know Suddam used to be our biggest ally in the Arab world? I hope you know America funded his war against Iran. I hope you know we supported him even though he was using chemical weapons. Why am I bringing up these points? Because you never know what the future brings. The ones you think are our biggest allies may become our worst enemies. Look at Castro, Milosevic, Hussein... They used to be our allies. That is why Israel should not have chemical weapons. I agree with removing Hussein. But, I believe we should help their people get rid of him rather than starting a war. We have a reason to bud into Iraq's business because of what Suddam did in the early 90s. There are about 6 different Iraqi factions that are interested in ousting Suddam. Lets support them! Instead of instigating a world war.
You can't look at this from a Western point of view and expect it to fly. We have done surgical air strikes and it has done little to quell his quest for weapons of mass destruction. Should he obtain those weapons he will use them against Americans whenever possible. It's not a maybe it is a sure thing. If you go for minimal efforts you will get minimal results. There could be a bunch of dead Americans and I guess the world would say: Boy were they ever moral. We're talking about survival here.
How exactly do you think they would get it done, a nice letter asking him to leave? No...it will be a war whether civil or otherwise. If it is a civil war and we support the groups ousting Hussein...then we have joined a war effort and get the war you say you don't want. You can't have it without armed conflict.
