http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities Monday, February 24, 2003 WASHINGTON — Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence. The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened. Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month. "UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," Powell said during his speech. "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States." Powell said there is "ample evidence" that Iraq has dedicated much time and effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. "And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth," Powell said. In the arms declaration Iraq submitted to the U.N. Security Council in December, the country said its UAVs have a range of only 50 miles. But Powell said U.S. intelligence sources found that one of Iraq's newest UAVs went 310 miles nonstop on autopilot in a test run. That distance is over the 155 miles that the United Nations permits, and the test was left out of Iraq's arms declaration. Officials tell Fox that there is solid intelligence that Iraq has tested many different types of sprayers on these drones to disperse chemical and biological weapons. President Bush addressed the threat in October in Cincinnati, making his first big case outlining Iraq's defiance. "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." The president noted, however, that sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. "All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it," he said. Even though it has been mentioned a few times by administration officials, the issue of UAVs and their capabilities has been largely overlooked. But some experts say that even if the UAVs do get assembled for use in the United States, the chances that they could cause widespread damage are low. "These technologies are not terribly well proven," F. Whitten Peters, a former Air Force Secretary, told Fox News, referring to vehicles that can be used to disperse harmful agents. Peters said in order to go undetected in the air, the UAVs would have to be small -- and therefore would not be able to carry too much of a harmful substance, and they would have to fly over densely populated areas if they want to achieve maximum casualties. But because many large metropolitan areas such as Washington have air traffic watchers keeping an eye out for any nearby planes that have not filed a flight plan, the UAVs likely would not succeed in a large-city attack. It's the smaller cities and towns that would be more vulnerable. "It's not clear air traffic would actually see this aircraft," Peters said, adding that if the vehicles flew low enough to evade radar detection, "they would be basically invisible." As to what the government could do to protect Americans from any threat UAVs may pose, Peters said: "I don't think there's much to be done besides the steps we're already taking to deal with chemical and biological threats." But some experts say the threat is very real and should be taken seriously. "This isn't brain surgery," Air National Guard Chief Paul Weaver told Fox News in reference to how easy it would be to assemble a UAV. "The key is getting it into the country." Not too long after Sept. 11, there was a report made public about Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network being trained to conduct air raids through air vehicles outfitted with spray tanks. Some terror network members had looked into the possibility of training on the aerial UAVs. This was the catalyst for investigations into U.S. flight schools. "If they could organize something like Sept. 11," Weaver said, "this would be very doable."
While I think that the likelihood of Iraqi terrorism strikes against the US during an Iraq war is extremely high (I'd bet on it), I don't know about this scenario. Those UAVs were made to spray anthrax over Tel Aviv, not New York. More likely we'll see some truck bombs, airliner attacks, dirty bombs, or maybe a more 'conventional' style chem/bio attack. Not impossible, though. If they could transport them here, and then mate the weapons to them here... Disturbing.
Achebe, you are confused. The Arabian bees are far worse than the African killer bees. I, for one, am ordering my bee-proof suit today.
What was pointed out is that they are not that large (8 feet wide or so) and can be disassembled. They could have been shipped to other locations Canada, Mexico or others and met by the individuals trained to carry it out. They were saying the focus can not be on individuals that attempt to come here from a country of concern that as was the case with the Sept 11th hijackers, they could well pass through several countries before finally arriving in the US. Like you said, it may be unlikely, but its entirely possible.
I knew it! You are that mean kid that, when I was five years old, told me that bees go to sleep in the dark... that if I caught a bee in my little hands and cupped them together so that no light would get in... that the bee would fall asleep and I would not get stung. It didn't work! And then you laughed and said it was because I let light in. Fool me once, shame on you! I won't be fooled again, mean kid!
Treeman: While I think that the likelihood of Iraqi terrorism strikes against the US during an Iraq war is extremely high (I'd bet on it), Good to see you agree with the CIA. Of course this is a very good argument for not preemptively attacking them.
The Horns: If they have a new UAV that is really that small, then it could be fairly easy to transport, arm, and deploy them . Maybe all they would need would be a remote barn-type building and a decent-sized field to launch from? As far as I know, though, the only UAVs that Iraq has that are believed to have been modified to carry chem/bio sprayers are modified L-29 jet trainers and obsolete F-4s modified as drones. Those are large aircraft. It would be extremely difficult to actually arm an 8-foot UAV - we don't even have any armed UAVs that small. It is difficult to attach a working payload delivery system onto an aircraft that small and underpowered - and unstable. But who knows, maybe the Iraqis did it? Like I said, not impossible.
Ah, I see. This would be a good excuse to hide our heads in the sand and pretend that they cannot already attack us, that they don't hate us enough to do so, that they would never help Al Qaeda or someone else in doing so, etc... Correct? This is exactly the reason that we [*must* destroy Saddam's regime, glynch. It is mindboggling that you cannot make that connection.
It is *mindboggling* that you and the other Bushies don't make the connection that the CIA's pov was that Iraq would not attack the US, unless they were attacked first. Like derrrr.... there are costs to a war? Like derrrr.... you mean people will fight back? Like derrrr...
I do not know if you ever watch Fox News (I know some are opposed to all that comes across their air waves), but today they have been reporting it, and Powell as well as another individual were quoted as saying the size of the drones are "just a few meters" and when another was asked he said they are "about 8 feet" wide. If that is the case, then who knows what they are capable of, but regardless, I would feel safer if the threat were a modified F4 as that would be something easier to detect by radar and almost impossible to get into the US.
Achebe: This is the same CIA that didn't see 9/11 coming. Vastly underestimated the threat that Al Qaeda posed. Failed to overthrow Saddam in 1995 (and has been trying to cover its tracks and disengage there ever since they got a bunch of Kurds killed). Funny the CIA would think that, since there is ample evidence that Iraq is already actively engaged in attacking US interests (1993 WTC bombing attempt, plot to kill Bush I, Salman Pak activity, etc). Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't put a whole lot of stock into what the CIA's Iraq desk has to say lately, since they haven't been right about anything that has happened there for over 12 years. Hell, even Tenet is on record as saying that the Iraq-Al Qaeda link is real... Doesn't he work for the CIA? And BTW - no s**t sherlock - of course they are going to try to attack us during an Iraq war. But it will hardly be a "defense" - more like a last, bloody attempt at retaliation, with the sole purpose of killing as many Americans as possible. I'm quite sure that they and Al Qaeda will pull out all the stops... But that will probably happen anyway, regardless of whether or not we invade, won't it? The Horns: Like I said, not impossible.
BBob, rotfl. First they preempt the world by figurin' out the magic of alternative numbahh computin' and now them thar Iraqis are launching model airplane mayhem. We must stop them in thar tracks. treecuckooman, I'm still waiting on the administration or you or anyone else to offer up a compelling argument that Iraq is a threat to us. You guys constantly blur the lines between al Qaeda and Iraq, whether or not Iraq has nuclyar weapons this week to the notion that he might have biological weapons that we sold him two decades ago next week. Stay on target. What is the compelling reason to fight Iraq? B/c Saddam is a bbbbbahhahaad man? Yeah he's a bad man. Hell, when he tried to assassinate Bush, the sentient one, there may have been rational to go to war. What is the argument though this week? The decision to go to war was made 09/12/01... any particular reason? A freebie? We have heard plenty of benefits to going to war with Iraq. I can give you plenty of reasons to go to war with the UK (distribute toothpaste, put an end to pbs British comedies, maybe put an end to the tendency for them to bore the hell out of me w/ 40 minute talks about different cheeses, etc.) but can I give you a just reason? I don't know. Preemptive wars are based on the underlying premise that might makes right. The president is unable to articulate a number of things, but he is culpable for terrorist strikes against the US following a war with Iraq if he is unable to articulate to the Muslim world why we aren't just fighting with Iraq because we can.
Newly declassified CIA image of an Al Qaeda operative in Iraq (left) practicing drone deployment. And a South Dakota sleeper cell (right) denoting the bio-weapon-storage compartment in this rare 2002 photo taken by a Homeland Security operative (photo courtesy Operation Your Hick Model Airplane Club Does Not Fool Us).
Achebe: Like France and Germany, you are likely in the "nothing at all will convince me short of a mushroom cloud in New York city - followed by a public and personal claim of guilt by Saddam Hussein himself" crowd. The arguments have already been made, yet you simply refuse to acknowledge the (rather straightforward) logic and evidence for it. Salman Pak. Ansar Al Islam. A little of research into these two names should give you *plenty* of evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda are in cahootz, and yet you fail to make even a cursory attempt to find any answers. We've even saved your little fingers the trouble of looking by telling you about what these names mean, but you continue to ignore such evidence. Hell, if Powell couldn't convince you, then why should I think anything I say would? What is the compelling reason to go to war with Iraq? Gee, let me see... 1) If Saddam ever acquired nuclear weapons, and he is almost certainly actively pursuing such efforts, he would likely - based on past history, behavior, and stated aims - use them to take over the middle east (and 70% of the world's oil supply). I do not think he would give such nukes to a terrorist group to use against us (they would be too precious to him), but the threat of him taking over the ME is great enough to warrant an invasion by itself. 2) He *would* give chemical/biological weapons to terrorist groups to use against us. Indeed, he has already trained Ansar Al Islam in the use of chemical weapons, and defectors have reported that he has trained Al Qaeda and other groups in their use at Salman Pak. Do you really think that if he gave them WMD to use against us that that would *not* be cause for war? And keep in mind that he has already trained them to use WMD... why do so if he is not going to give them the tools to do it? 3) There is other evidence that has nothing to do with Mohammed Atta that the Iraqis likely had a hand in 9/11. Again, Salman Pak... There is a 707 fuselage there (we know it is there, we have seen it in satphotos) that defectors claim is used to train groups of 4-6 men to hijack airliners using hand to hand methods and small bladed objects. And Saddam tried to knock down the WTC in 1993 - Ramsi Youssef was an Iraqi Intelligence agent. You figure it out. 4) By liberating the Iraqi people and (hopefully soon) setting up a successful market-based democracy, we can hope to enact real change in the Arab/Islamic world that will not only benefit the Iraqis (and everyone around them), but will almost certainly enhance our security by decreasing the hatred and jealosy the Islamic world has for us. Hopefully democratic change there will prompt positive change elsewhere. Logically, it should. If nothing else, we will liberate 24 million people. 5) Unless Saddam's regime is removed, then we have failed to remove the world's second-leading state sponsor of terror (Iran being #1). Isn't that a central goal of the War on Terror? Let me ask you: how are we supposed to win the War on Terror if we do not remove the governments that sponsor such terror organizations? Organizations like Al Qaeda will wither and die if they do not have such sponsors, but with them they will have an endless supply of funds, weapons, expertise, and permanent safe havens from which to train for, plan for, and coordinate attacks. So how the hell do we win if we aren't willing to remove those havens? You tell me an alternative, genius. Try doing it without sarcasm and insults, for once, please. Just one reasonable, rational, logical alternative that is likely to succeed. Proceed.
