Staredit Network

" Published on Sunday, September 15, 2002 in the Toronto Sun
Saddam's Nukes are a Western Myth
by Eric Margolis

BARCELONA, Spain -- Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Last week, Britain's authoritative International Institute for Strategic Studies issued a study that concluded Iraq had the ability to produce a few nuclear devices, but lacked the enriched uranium or plutonium to do so.

The institute's report seemed timed to provide more justification for a U.S.-British attack on Iraq. The U.S. and British governments as well as world media seized on the report to intensify claims that Iraq was a grave nuclear threat.

As a long-time member of the institute, I was disappointed that it would appear to bend to pressure from the British government by producing a report that was misleading and sensational. Instead of supporting "regime change" in Baghdad, the IISS might do better to review its own weak leadership at London HQ.

Iraq has no nuclear weapons or fissionable materials. This fact has been certified by the UN's nuclear inspection agency. As to IISS claims Iraq has the capability to produce nuclear devices, so do more than 40 nations. Making a nuclear weapon is relatively simple. Take 4-9 kilos of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, surrounded with a specially shaped shell of high-explosive lenses, and detonate.

The recipe is available on the Internet. The trick is acquiring highly enriched uranium or plutonium. This process requires hugely expensive, laborious separation and enrichment using banks of centrifuges, as well as expertise in fusing, and shaped-charge explosives.

In the 1980s, Iraq was indeed working on a crude nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia secretly funded this top secret project in order to counter Israel's large nuclear arsenal, believed to number over 200 devices. Iraq acquired uranium from South Africa in exchange for oil. South Africa, which produced eight nuclear devices, secretly obtained its nuclear weapons technology from Israel. Ironically, South Africa later sold the Israeli uranium enrichment technology to Iraq.

The Bush Sr. trap

When Saddam Hussein stumbled into the trap laid for him by George Bush Sr. by invading Kuwait in 1990, his scientists were within a few years of producing a primitive nuclear test device. During the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq's total nuclear and, in fact, total national industrial infrastructure, were pulverized by massive U.S. bombing. Before the war, Iraq had been the most technologically developed and best educated nation in the Arab world. After, Iraq was reduced to pre-World War I level, with even its water and sewage systems wrecked by America's ruthless air campaign.

However, Iraq still retains a cadre of about 10,000 trained nuclear scientists and technicians. Unless they are all shot, Iraq will in theory be able one day to build a nuclear weapon, provided it can obtain fissionable material. Once the crushing blockade of Iraq is lifted, Baghdad might be able to produce one or two nuclear warheads within five years. But having warheads and delivering them are two different things. Iraq lacks aircraft or missiles to deliver nuclear weapons beyond a range of 70 miles.

Iraq is a leading Arab nation with the Mideast's second largest oil reserves. Unless the U.S. succeeds in implanting and maintaining a compliant regime in Baghdad, such as it has done in Kabul, whatever brutal general that succeeds Saddam will eventually seek nuclear weapons. Why?

First, to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly. Israel is considered a mortal threat by the Arabs and Iranians. Second, because Iraq fears neighbouring Iran, which has three times its population. Interestingly, every Iraqi leader since the 1920s has vowed to invade Kuwait and reunite it with Iraq. Why, in fact, should Iraq not have the right to possess nuclear weapons to protect its vast oil reserves?

President Bush claimed last week that an attack on Iraq was justified because it had refused to bow to UN resolutions and had weapons of mass destruction. Bush could just as well have been talking about Israel, which ignores scores of UN resolutions and refuses to admit nuclear arms inspectors. Or of India, which also ignores UN resolutions on Kashmir, and is developing a very large nuclear arsenal with Israeli aid, that includes nuclear-armed ICBM missiles that will soon be able to reach the U.S.

The original 1990 UN resolution authorizing military action to evict Iraq from Kuwait had a little-noticed article that called for the Security Council to immediately begin a process of regional nuclear arms control and disarmament. This provision was totally ignored, yet it offers a key to the Iraq problem.

Instead of Bush threatening a war of pure aggression against Iraq - what used to be called "warmongering" - the U.S., European Union and Canada should begin an intensive campaign to rid the Mideast of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Regional disarmament cannot be accomplished until all nations, including Israel and Iran, are thoroughly inspected by impartial specialists - Canadians would be ideal. There must be no repeat of the 1990s, when many UN inspectors in Iraq turned out to be U.S. and Israeli spies whose job was to target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

President Bush might even begin this overdue process by getting rid of a lot more of his own weapons of mass destruction."

All found at this address http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modul...=article&sid=51

Wow, I always thought that Iraq had no WMDs, at all. Most of us here thought that too. Looks like we've been right these past few years! Amazing.

And a note to all you foreign countries. This is what happens when you elect an idiot as your president!

Weapons of Mass destruction isn't the most important thing right now, Right now it's about erradicating terrorism, and even John Kerry said that himself.

We can have Nukes yet they can not? The arrogance.

North Korea had nukes, and they've even talked about using them, and I'm pretty damn sure that our capitalist country was keeping an eye on the communist country of north korea over the years. They would've know if they were planning on getting nukes or not. So why didn't we go over there if we wanted to stop them from getting nukes? Cause we all know, there's a good chance we're gonna be fight them down the road someday. Why not get them while they're weak right now? Oh wait, they don't have much oil over there. My bad.

WMD dosn't only mean nukes my friends. It can be gas, such as I would gas major cities in France and kill every one there. Thats a Weapon of mass destruction. And there are WMDs in a Iraq http://www.ngwrc.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=861

Why do you want to attack france? Yes, they are pompous assholes, but that doesn't mean we should...... well wait. Nevermind. (Puts on gas mask) Ok chris, you ready to kill some frenchies?

Lol, they would run away before we have a chance, they would surrender or join us lol.

Off Topic
How do you sink a french boat?

On Topic
There aren't nuclear weapons in Iraq, but there are WMDs.

lol.

I don't know kell, how do you?

Put it in water! LOL

Broken link. Also, why do you sound so confident? Have you been to Iraq? How do you know the media is not deceiving you?

You put trust into things you shouldn't too willingly.

I don't think he read it, because it was talking about the aftereffects that chemical weapons had on US soldiers after serving in the first Gulf Conflict (1991). It was dated 2004, but did not mention anything about WMDs during the second Gulf Conflict.



There were* chemical weapons in Iraq, back in 1991. There is no evidence to even suggest that Iraq has or has recently had chemical, biological, or any WMD for that matter.

Chris, you've just been "Pizzowned"

Bush used scare tactics to get us in there "They have WMD (Clearly not specifying. So all the dumb *ucks in the US thought he meant Nuclear Weapons) so we must go in and take Sadam out of power because he is Sadamizing us. I can't believe I just said that." (And HE DID say that)

If he would have specified, we wouldn't have went in. It's that simple.

You guys missed the whole point of the article. Improvized Explosive Device (IED) and thats what is killing most of our troops over therein Iraq. IEDs are primarly terrorist weapons and thats what our boys call them when they find the bombs. Plus, there hadn't been a WMD attack recently, but there was in the first Gulf War and thats where they were getting their information.

lol, sorry I find that hilarious. LMAO.

ok, listen up all you *ucking faggots and wads who think that they are " al that and a bag of chips"! you all need to get the *uck over yourselfs. yes, ALL of you, even the mods. yes, about the mods, you all think that you can do and say whetever you want, but thats bull shit. just cus your a mod, dont mean your god. chuiu, you warned me for making a general comment, WHAT THE *UCK DID I DO THAT THEY DIDN'T?? they call me all kinds of things and then I get blamed for it? YOU SHOULD ROT IN HELL YOU PEACE OF SHIT!! also, you warned kellimus for what he said.....and how is that not immiture? oh thats right, your a mod. well *uck you and everyone else on the *ucking site. lets move on shal we? all of you ers who never think there wrong, cheeze, alpha, deathknight. you are the reason everyone hates america. your stuck up "know it alls" well guess what, you dont know shit. cheeze, all he dose is hide behind his "burden of proof". well i gave you a way to satisfy that, and you told me to take it up the ass. GO EAT YOU MOTHERS HERPA-GONA-SYPHL-AIDS!!!!! *ucking cocksuckers liek you who dont have a life that make good things like this form, this topic even, turn into a stinky pile-o-shit. to make it worse, we have -nuggets like alpha who cant make there own point, they have to agree with everyone elses posts just so he has something to say! i mean my god, if you dont have enought brain cells to make your own ideaa, then dont en post you en peace of shit!! and dont think i forgot about you, yoshi. your runnign of this site is almost as good as bush runnign this country. you sit on your throne and just let your mods do all the ing work. i have not seen you in a forom once. NOT ONCE! and your supposed to be runnign this site? how can you run a site if your never there? you think that this site is all "professional" and shit....ITS THE LAUGHING STOCK OF B.NET!! this iorn fist thing you have going on, realy, what are you....a commie? your a en commie arnt you? MOTHER LAND BITCH. go home to russia and iorn fist your mom you pathetic mother er! you try to make this site a democracy, it's not.it's a en dictation. what i say goes...exept for my mods...they have different rules....WTF is up with that?if your going to set rules, make it so that EVERYONE fallows them, not just us that arn't mods.

But the information was fourteen years old!

If that's how our intelligence community works, I am very scared for our national security.

All this color code idiocy is a waste of... well not a waste persay (as it uses up about nothing), but is pointless. Color coding the terroristic threats does not pertain (not to mention it looks innacurate to everyone) to real life. It's not like rating the air quality or anything.

question: if korea has proven it self to have WMDs and Iraw might have have WMDs...based on 14 yearold intellegence...and both have opressive leaders...why might one go to war with Iraq over Korea if you pretense is the country has WMDs?