Poll: Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Doctrine1st]

Could one of the nine that voted "some have been found" point out exactly what has been found?

 

[cbk]

Could one of the nine that voted "some have been found" point out exactly what has been found?

Speaking for myself, I believe that some WMDs has been found and is being kept uncovers until a time that would give the president a greater political advantage over his opponents. When this info is released, Bush could then discredit any political opponent that attacks him with the words "unjustified" and "no WMDs".

I believe Bush is waiting for the correct time. The defense will be that the weapons had to be analyzed and tested to ensure they were legitimate WMDs. Something could have been found months ago for all we know.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Speaking for myself, I believe that some WMDs has been found and is being kept uncovers until a time that would give the president a greater political advantage over his opponents. When this info is released, Bush could then discredit any political opponent that attacks him with the words "unjustified" and "no WMDs".

I believe Bush is waiting for the correct time. The defense will be that the weapons had to be analyzed and tested to ensure they were legitimate WMDs. Something could have been found months ago for all we know.

That's a interesting point, but do you think that they would do this knowing that as time goes on and the war has no "evidence" of justification and instead with this lack of justification fosters an environment of more hate for us and more terrorist groups, they would still keep the evidence secret for political gain? Surely Bush being the Christian he is wouldn't be that callous now would he?

 

[Garyapostle]

To All,
I do not believe that Iraq has wmd. If they did, so what? Israel has them. The US has them. England, France, China, Pakistan, and India have them.
Who is the only nation to have used nukes? The United States!

Ameirca must repent for its creation, use and possession of Nukes.

Peace,
Garyapostle

 

[TheBear]

To All,
I do not believe that Iraq has wmd. If they did, so what? Israel has them. The US has them. England, France, China, Pakistan, and India have them.
Who is the only nation to have used nukes? The United States!

Ameirca must repent for its creation, use and possession of Nukes.

Peace,
Garyapostle

I understand what you are saying. But, the reason WMD's are a critical issue in Iraq is several-fold. UN sanctions prohibit Iraq from possesing WMD's or WMD programs....(regardless where they first obtained them or who helped Iraq develope them in the past.) And more importantly, this entire war, and all those who have died as a result of it, was said to be justified by claims that Iraq has WMD's.

We can talk about the US, England, France, China, Pakistan, and India in other threads. Let's stay on topic in this one.

 

[Garyapostle]

Dear Bear,
Thank you for your note. I appreciate it.
No WMDS have been found in Iraq. I think sooner or later this administration may put some there in order to find them. Thus they will have justification for this war.
I personally believe it is hypocritical for the UN to single out Iraq for WMDS in the first place, since so many other nations have them.

Peace,
Garyapostle

 

[My Higher Self]

- how volatile or stable chemicals used in CW are, and how long they last on average

Depends on which ones you are referring to. In their storage state they last pretty much indefinately.

- what kind of containers are they stored in, and what special precautions are taken to prevent leakage. Are simple gallon drums enough to keep them and make sure they don't leak?

Our weapons are pretty much stored in their weapons configuration...that is, in the projectile, bomb, rocket that it is delivered in. And no, 55 galllon drums are not a safe storage container, but its not to say they wouldn't be used. As an example, the fuses on our ordnance generally require multiple events to happen to arm, ie: launch inertia, shell rotation and time delay...so that the shell only goes off when it is supposed to, the Russians on the other hand had fuses that were as basic as a firing pin on the tip of a projectile, that would go off if a soldier dropped it. What our country considers safe, is not necessarily what anothers does. And to make the point a little more relavant to our conversation, their nukes are built pretty much the same way.

- other than the actual chemicals, what other equipment are needed to launch chemical weapons eg. what about MOPP protection gear, the launch tubes & rocket fuel, launch vehicles, warheads, pumps to fill up the warheads

Honestly, not much, I mean do you know what a chemical landmine is like? Its a one gallon jug with some TNT/C-4/Detcord attached to it. It's not complex. Al-Samuds can be used to deliver chemical weapons (Which is why they were under UN sanction). But now that you mention it, howitzer rounds would be even easier to hide.

--are we to expect that all of these are hidden in the same hole in the ground?

Yeah, why not?

if they are left in the ground, can we expect them to stay stable and not leak into the water table and soil? If they do leak, what kind of symptoms might show up in the local population, and are they easy to recognise and detect?

They very well could leak, but that could be now or 20 years from now. And yes the symptons would be easy to spot...people would probably start dying...but many CW are not water soluble, so they may not enter the water table, ultimately, how does that relate to whether they had them or not?

- what traces they leave behind as they are manufactured, transported etc. and how sensitive chemical detectors are to these traces

According to you we gave them the CW, so manufacturing facilities would not be necessary.

- what facilities are needed to house those chemical drums, and how easy it is to scrub them of all traces, or why haven't these facilities been found?

As you said, they were not manufactured there, additionally, once they are in a safe container, the storage facility would not need to be cleaned. Unless they were in the habit of spilling nerve agent all over the place.

What about facilities to store, monitor, manufacture chemical weapons? Facilities for decontamination and treatment of infected victims? Storage of antidotes for own soldiers? Are we to believe that these are all buried underground?

I am sure that the Iraqi Army would have this equipment even if it did not possess CW, as many enemy nations do, so it would hardly be viable evidence.

I personally think that chemical weapons are way too volatile to leave in simple gallon drums, and will leak out sooner rather than later, giving rise to symptoms in the local population, and making them rather difficult to hide 'just buried in the ground'. Also, the entire infrastructure to manufacture, produce, store, and monitor a comprehensive CW programme as Bush claimed Iraq had is simply too difficult to just bury underground.

I agree, 55 gallon drums are probably not the safest form of storage, but it doesn't really matter, I didn't expect to get taken so literal on the drum bit, I was just trying to demonstrate that they are substantially smaller than a mig. Additionally, Iraq has many many miles of uninhabited desert, so symptoms may never show in the population, we have weapons that get dug up here in the US that have been there from many many years and you don't see people dropping off here all the time.

Plus, the weapons could have been shipped off to another country. They have had chemical weapons before, so I don't see why it is such a far stretch now.

of course Iraq had WMDs! Rumsfeld gave 'em to them in the 80s...what a no-brainer...

Then why are you grilling me on the production methods and how they hid them. According to you, the didn't have any because we gave em to them. So was your ploy simply a straw man?