Where Are The WMD?

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:52 pm

Interesting...

* * *

Iraqi Nuclear Gear Found in Europe

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 15, 2004; Page A22

UNITED NATIONS, April 14 -- Large amounts of nuclear-related equipment, some of it contaminated, and a small number of missile engines have been smuggled out of Iraq for recycling in European scrap yards, according to the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and other U.N. diplomats.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned the U.N. Security Council in a letter that U.N. satellite photos have detected "the extensive removal of equipment and, in some instances, removal of entire buildings" from sites that had been subject to U.N. monitoring before the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

ElBaradei said an IAEA investigation "indicates that large quantities of scrap, some of it contaminated, have been transferred out of Iraq, from sites monitored by the IAEA." He said that he has informed the United States about the discovery and is awaiting "clarification."

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, U.N. inspectors discovered, inventoried and destroyed most of the equipment used in Iraq's nuclear weapons program. But they left large amounts of nuclear equipment and facilities in Iraq intact and "under seal," including debris from the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in 1981. That debris and the buildings are radioactively contaminated.

The U.N. nuclear agency has found no evidence yet that the exported materials are being sold to arms dealers or to countries suspected of developing nuclear weapons. But ElBaradei voiced concern that the loss of the materials could pose a proliferation threat and could complicate efforts to reach a conclusive assessment of the history of Iraq's nuclear program.

"It is not clear whether the removal of these items has been the result of looting activities in the aftermath of the recent war in Iraq, or as part of systematic efforts" to clean up contaminated nuclear sites in Iraq, ElBaradei wrote. "In any event these activities may have a significant impact on the agency's continuity of knowledge of Iraq's remaining nuclear-related capabilities and raise concern with regards to the proliferation risk associated with dual use material and equipment disappearing to unknown destinations."

Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said, "We have seen the reports and are obviously concerned, and as we told the IAEA we are looking into the matter."

ElBaradei's letter is dated April 11 and was circulated privately this week among members of the Security Council.

Evidence of the illicit import of nuclear-related material surfaced in January after a small quantity of "yellowcake" uranium oxide was discovered in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam's harbor. The company that purchased the shipment, Jewometaal, detected radioactive material in the container and informed the Dutch government, according to the Associated Press. A spokesman for the company told the news agency that a Jordanian scrap dealer who sent the shipment believed the yellowcake came from Iraq.

ElBaradei did not identify the European countries where the materials were discovered. But U.N. and European officials confirmed that IAEA inspectors traveled to Jewometaal's scrap yard to run tests on the yellowcake. The search turned up missile engines and vessels used in fermentation processes that were subject to U.N. monitoring. The U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission informed the council about the finds in a letter, according to diplomats. The IAEA, meanwhile, ordered up satellite images to assess conditions at Iraq's former nuclear weapons sites. A senior U.N. official said they discovered that two buildings at one former site had vanished and that several scrap piles contained weapons-related materials were also missing. "In Europe, stainless steel goes for $1,500 a ton," the official said. "And that is worth transporting for the purpose of recycling."

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:34 pm

This was the most likely scenario that I thought Iraq would take before the war. They can't resist a profit, if they have to get rid of all their stuff so they won't get in trouble with the UN and US might as well make some money off of it so they can invest in other illegal activities after everything blows over.

Shows how well that worked out for them

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:40 pm

Its also a very real possibility that the nukes and whatnot are buried underground. The Soviets developed all sorts of ways to bury weapons and secret projects and they were good at it. You could'nt tell if there was anything there.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:25 pm

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we found them in some other country.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:47 am

Notice how this thread didn't get very much attention

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:01 am

Funny how the UN is trustworthy when it supports your views

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:43 am

So if all this material had not been sent out of country, could we construe that Iraq did have or was building towards WMD?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:27 am

woodchip wrote:So if all this material had not been sent out of country, could we construe that Iraq did have or was building towards WMD?

No. However...

bash wrote:smuggled out of Iraq for recycling

... we may conclude that Saddam's regime was environmentally friendly.

Seriously though, this probably is the most likely scenario for the reason Tyranny stated. If you're going to hide your weapons and not be able to use them, why not sell them on the black market and turn a tidy little profit? It is difficult to rationalize, if Iraq had nukes at the time, why they didn't choose to use them when we invaded. Or, for that matter, during the first Gulf War. Either the despot was demonstrating a remarkable amount of restraint (Saddam... restraint... right), or he didn't have them at the time. Which would imply two scenarios. One, he didn't have them, never had them, and was bluffing the whole time. Two, he had them, but they were elsewhere.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:46 am

I thought Rumsfeld said he knew where they were and that Bush didnt want a mushroom cloud in New York City. Seems as though they were pretty far from that huh?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:16 am

If Rumsfeld said that, it was clearly premature data he was relying on. The UN inspectors, after all, never managed to find the WMD.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:10 pm

Kyouryuu wrote: Seriously though, this probably is the most likely scenario for the reason Tyranny stated. If you're going to hide your weapons and not be able to use them, why not sell them on the black market and turn a tidy little profit? It is difficult to rationalize, if Iraq had nukes at the time, why they didn't choose to use them when we invaded. Or, for that matter, during the first Gulf War. Either the despot was demonstrating a remarkable amount of restraint (Saddam... restraint... right), or he didn't have them at the time. Which would imply two scenarios. One, he didn't have them, never had them, and was bluffing the whole time. Two, he had them, but they were elsewhere.

An intellectually honest voice from the center-left. Refreshing. I mean it.

BD

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:18 pm

There would be no way for Iraq to be able to send anything to NYC through the air. If they had such capabilities, the UN would have known about it, let alone us. Most likely Sadaam would have been bragging about it and demonstrating the capabilities of the technology. After all, North Korea can only reach about Sydney with its ICBMs, and we KNOW about their nuke program.

Sadaam's objective was not to attack the United States directly. He was too tin-pot for that. Rather, his terrible sphere of influence was within his own country and the surrounding middle-eastern nations. The area being the hotbed that it is, anything that anyone does causes massive repercussions down the line. If (what "if"? It's not even a question...) Sadaam was recieving one iota of support from neighboring countries, a massive problem could erupt in a really short period of time. The US isn't about to sit back while an Israeli genocide brews.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:24 am

DCrazy, that's an interesting thought. But I'm under the impression that Israel's middle east intelligence is a whole lot better than ours. And they are completely willing to do whatever is necessary..if they felt threatened..they will respond. Case in point, when they destroyed Iraq's reactor back in the 80s. They didnt like the way it looked...so they bombed the hell out of it.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:02 am

I dont know (remember) what they are called, but they found some nuclear devices in a dump in Rotterdam which the Iraqi government have been seeking to obtain for quite some time.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:18 am

And there lies Israel's problem. They're lucky the state exists in its current form; some of the stunts they pull are pretty dangerous. A pan-Arab league would seriously threaten the already precarious existence of the Israeli state. I think Sadaam was little more than a tool for the more powerful Arab heads of state -- Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al.

Sadaam had what he wanted, which was complete autonomous dictatorial control of a country. He contributed to the buddy network of Arab countries with scientific and military developments. His country produced oil as a means of equating itself with the west. But by no means was Iraq as powerful of a player as Syria or Saudi Arabia.

The United States has a couple of problems. One, Saudis really do not like the US. Two, the United States could be brought to its knees in a heartbeat if an oil embargo were enacted. Three, the US faces a credible terrorist threat from Saudi Arabia. This means "don't attack Saudi Arabia". Iraq was the weakest player in the region; we've known that to be a fact ever since the Persian Gulf War. The easiest way to piss off the middle-eastern oil bloc was to take out Iraq.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:48 pm

The US could be brought to its knees with an oil embargo, but I really doubt it would be in the Arabs own best interest to stop their single greatest source of trade/income (these countries economies depend almost exclusively on oil revenue remember) and put the US in a position where we have nothing to lose. It would be suicide, if they did stop the oil they would lose their own power in the globe. If they did then itâ??s probable that other nations would see it as an opportunity to develop new renewable sources of energy to sell in the US. If that happened the Arabs would really be up the creak without a paddle, they are nothing without oil and everyone knows it.

I doubt even the Arabs could be that foolish.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:41 pm

OPEC will hike the prices in the short-term, but ultimately they cannot push them beyond what Americans would pay. The oil relationship to the OPEC countries is symbiotic, and sometimes OPEC forgets this. Their doomsday scenario would be if we were to mass produce fuel cell technology and managed to replace (or heavily reduce) our need for fossil fuels, which would hang them out to dry (a scenario, coincidentally, I wouldn't object to). The more people who are hit in the pocketbook by rising oil prices, the more who will push for more efficient cars until we eventually reach that "doomsday" situation. We aren't quite there yet, and no doubt OPEC will level off its prices after the summer months. They'll take us to the cleaners while they can, then back off. That's the way it's always been. Not too much, not too little - just high enough to prevent everyone from revolting.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:13 pm

DCrazy wrote: A pan-Arab league would seriously threaten the already precarious existence of the Israeli state.

No it wouldn't....not at the moment, and where do you get allready precarious from??

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:24 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:

Seriously though, this probably is the most likely scenario for the reason Tyranny stated. If you're going to hide your weapons and not be able to use them, why not sell them on the black market and turn a tidy little profit? It is difficult to rationalize, if Iraq had nukes at the time, why they didn't choose to use them when we invaded. Or, for that matter, during the first Gulf War. Either the despot was demonstrating a remarkable amount of restraint (Saddam... restraint... right), or he didn't have them at the time. Which would imply two scenarios. One, he didn't have them, never had them, and was bluffing the whole time. Two, he had them, but they were elsewhere.

No one ever said Iraq had nukes, rather it was acknowledged that Iraq was working towards getting nukes. It was unclear as to how close they were.
It was the chemical and biological weapons that people were immediatly concerned about.