WMD

[Nuclear Raunch]

They are? That's gotta be news within the last 10 minutes then because all links posted today have said it was degraded. i.e. so old they're worthless.

[Freenhult]

So...the gases inside can't kill anyone? Is that what you are saying?

[Nuclear Raunch]

I'm saying the gases inside are older than half the people on FAF and are no longer able to kill. It's degraded so bad it's been called worthless by a number of people. Check my first post for sources on that.

[Gen. Volkov]

Except of course, the article from Breitbart, which says that even somewhat degraded, it's still dangerous. And 155 mm artillery has an effective range of 15 miles or so, without rocket assist. Stick a chemical weapon on a Scud, and you can reach Israel. And that is not the point, a 155 mm arty shell is farily easy to transport. You just have a terrorist drive one into the middle of New York and suddenly you've got a major problem.

Volkov: Bush can declassify anything he wants any time he wants. And being wrong about our claim the first time did not stop us from making a 2nd claim, or a 3rd, or a 4th... and it doesn't take 2 years to assess whether or not a shell has sarin in it.

He can, but that has no bearing on whether he will. Most classified documents have a time limit on how long they should remain classified, and US Presidents respect that. Otherwise there is no point in have classified documents.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Temporary Software Error

Did it say any of the shells found were somewhat degraded? It seems odd that they would contradict the DoD's claims on that...

And this wasn't on a warhead, much lower tech than that. Just an artillery shell, nothing big. Even if they could put it in a warhead it would still be a waste since it's too old to be of use.

Incidentally I read in one of those reports that it was unlikely Iraq even knew the shells existed. Buried and forgotten so to speak.

Oh, don't you think soldiers lives would be worth declassifying early?

[Gen. Volkov]

*Blink* What does this have to do with soldiers lives? Who the heck do you think has been DESTROYING the damn things? The bomb fairy? The soldiers KNOW they are there. It's the American people who didn't.

And the report said that even in a degraded state, the weapons were still dangerous. And yes, the MTV report said that some of the shells had been buried and prolly forgotten, but that doesn't mean they all had.

Will you PLEASE read the pocking report?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155 millimeter artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency.

""We're destroying them where we find them in the normal manner," the official said.

In 2004, the US army said it had found a shell containing sarin gas and another shell containing mustard gas, and a Pentagon official said at the time the discovery showed there were likely more.

The intelligence overview published Wednesday stressed that the pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market.

"Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out," it said.

Santorum said the two-month-old report was prepared by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a military intelligence agency that started looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the Iraq Survey Group stopped doing so in late 2004.

Last year the head of Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, said that insurgents in Iraq had already used old chemical weapons in their attacks.

Nevertheless, "the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything," Hoekstra said.

"But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said.

Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: "One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly."

The report said that the purity of the chemical agents -- and thus their potency -- depends on "many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions."

"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," it said. "

Used as designed means fired from an artillery piece. It does not mean they are not dangerous anymore.

[Nuclear Raunch]

The Breitbart link was down earlier (notice my quote) but it's up again so I just checked it out.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

I stand by my original assertation that they weren't a threat to this nations security.

When I say the soldiers lives I'm referring to the influx of insurgents into Iraq that are killing our soldiers, not the gas itself. Those haven't killed anyone since back in the 80's when they were new. Not sure if you paid attention to worldviews, but we weren't exactly popular for invading under false pretnenses and I seem to remember a few reports talking about the lack of WMD's as being one of the key selling points in the insurgent recruiting campaigns.

1: It's easier to recruit people to your cause when you can show moral higher ground.

2: Being attacked without provocation for unjustified reasons can be used to establish hiigher ground for recruitment purposes.

3: An increase in insurgents leads to more casualties on our side.

Oh, and about your Scud missile to hit Israel thing I had a thought. If they could get several of them, with half misfiring and somehow wipe out anyone over 25 in Isreal as well as Palestine we would actually have a chance at quasi-stability over there.

[Gen. Volkov]

Aren't you the one who said "FAUX News"? So why exactly are you trusting them now? And I read that report as well. You took one selected quote from it. I quoted an extensive portion of the Breitbart report. I'm still gonna hafta say that you are wrong about the threat they pose/posed.

As to the whole "moral high ground/false pretenses" argument. That doesn't fly any better than a dodo. You know as well as I do that they do not care why we attacked. They've been led to believe all their lives that America is "The Great Satan". This is their chance to get back at us. If you really think that the big reason the insurgents are flooding in to attack us is because they recruiters claim the moral high ground, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Besides, most of the insurgency is homegrown, it was planned by Saddam before we even got there, and is now being carried through by his loyalists and Al Qaeda in Iraq. I won't deny that people of other countries are not coming in to attack us, but I do say that the insurgency would exist in large numbers without them.

A chemical attack on Israel would probably start World War 3.

[Nuclear Raunch]

One of the common denominators found in all reports I've read is that each one stresses that this is degraded munitions. If you choose to believe otherwise after even FOX (not exactly well known for being a liberal media source) says it's junk then I'm afraid I won't be able to dissuade you regardless of what I find.

Well rather than a blanket statement will you please tell me which par you disagree with? Points 1,2, or 3 or any combination thereof?

[Gen. Volkov]

"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," it said"

This is what the GOVERNMENT REPORT said Nuke. Which is why I say you are wrong about them being "junk". I've quoted these sorts of things multiple times. It's like you aren't even reading it. I recognize they have been degraded, I never denied it. I simply said that, as EVERY report I have read has said, even degraded, they are STILL FREAKING DANGEROUS. I'm not "choosing to believe" otherwise, I'm choosing to believe the words on the freaking page.

1: It's easier to recruit people to your cause when you can show moral higher ground.

Yes it's easier. Unfortunately they do not need that argument to recruit people. They never have.

2: Being attacked without provocation for unjustified reasons can be used to establish hiigher ground for recruitment purposes.

If this was true, only US forces would be attacked. Far more Iraqis have been killed in attacks than US soldiers. So not only do they not need that argument, they don't even care about it.

3: An increase in insurgents leads to more casualties on our side.

It's impossible to determine if there has been an increase in insurgents. To date something like 2500 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. That's about 500 every six months, for the past 2 and half years. I see no increase in the casualty rate.

[Nuclear Raunch]

I think you're missing my point. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they've degraded to the point that they are now weapons of localized destruction rather than mass destruction. Yeah obviously if you go licking the Sarin off the shell you're gonna die, but if you're trying to say they can use them to do any large scale damage then no.

1: OK, we agree on that one.

2: I never said that because of that they would only target US soldiers, all I'm saying is that they can use that to play the victim role up to recruit people.

3: Well there has been a sharp increase in the casualty rate source but that wasn't my point. The point was fighting 100 people is worse than fighting 80 people. Fighting 1,00 people is worse than fighting 800 people, fighting 100,000 people is worse than fighting 80,000 people. The stupidest thing we could ever do would be to aid our enemies recruitment campaign.

[Gen. Volkov]

1. If we agree on this one, then the other two are false. I said it's easier BUT they do not need to use this to recruit people. I will go further and say that they probably are not using it as a large part of their recruitment strategy. It's aimed at fanatics, ones who will not care whether we had a good reason.

2. I meant, if they were using this method, then obviously anyone recruited by this method would not want to attack Iraqi's, because they are the "victims of an unjust war". Or am I just blowing smoke here?

3. I see no sharp increase. The casualty rates per month where actually higher about a year ago. And we're gonna be fighting a large number of people no matter what. If it's helping them, it's not a truly appreciable amount. Besides, most of the recruits just die. The insurgency is finally losing steam, at least according to captured documents. They are having trouble maintaining it as Iraqi security forces gain strength, and our methods get more and more effective. The dumbest thing we could do right now would be to start another war that commits major land forces. In fact, some of the insurgents are trying to provoke a US-Iran war to relieve the pressure on themselves.

As to the WMD's, I disagree, if used the right way, they could still be highly dangerous weapons. And different chemicals degrade at different rates. Some might be completely useless while others might still be 70-80% as potent as they were fresh. They probably wouldn't be effective if shot from a cannon, but that doesn't mean you couldn't use one effectively some other way.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Why do you feel that 1 being correct would invalidate 2 and 3?Just because they do not HAVE to have it doesn't mean it's invalid. I do realize they would still have some, but there wouldn't be as much.

2: I see what you're saying, but I'd think they would probably treat it as we treated Vichy France. For all we know there may very well be some recruits that target coalition forces only.

3: Methinks you read that note that was supposedly from al Zarqawi'(sp?)s laptop and got "leaked" to the press. Must say that is by far and away the best damn translation I have ever read. So good in fact, if I didn't know better I'd say it was composed in English.

You didn't notice an almost 50% increase in casualties after Bush backed away from his WMD stance in Jan 2004? Strange, but irrelevant. So what exactly is an appreciable amount? From a cost/benefit standpoint of declassifying info I see no meaningful cost but I do see a benefit.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well frankly, no, I didn't notice a 50% increase. The months varied widly, with no discernable trend, except for an average of about 50-70 a month.

I guess you and me disagree about the significance of #1. I see it as, while they can use it, it's probably not the big draw, certainly not enough for a sane person to want to go there when compared against the fear of death. I do not think there would be a significant difference in casualty rates or recruitment rates if that reason did not exist.

2. While it's possible, it's not likely, gun battles are a rarity when compared to the nondiscriminatory methods like IED's and car bombs. As to the Vichy France stuff... I suppose, but the Iraqi's generally greeted us as liberator's from Saddam, and in general want us to stay until they can survive it on their own. If this were really about what the people of Iraq wanted, and about whether the war was just, I don't think there'd be even half as many attacks as there are now.

Because despite whatever the WMD issue turns out to be, Saddam should not have been allowed to run that country as long as he did. And I know what I sound like, but can you honestly tell me that you think Iraq was better off under a man who killed thousands of his own people? Under a Stalinesque dictatorship? <-- That last may have been a bit extreme, and probably off subject. But I'm just saying, this insurgency is not about Iraq or the people in it. It's about their hatred of America and the West.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Well frankly, no, I didn't notice a 50% increase. The months varied widly, with no discernable trend, except for an average of about 50-70 a month.

I guess you and me disagree about the significance of #1. I see it as, while they can use it, it's probably not the big draw, certainly not enough for a sane person to want to go there when compared against the fear of death. I do not think there would be a significant difference in casualty rates or recruitment rates if that reason did not exist.

2. While it's possible, it's not likely, gun battles are a rarity when compared to the nondiscriminatory methods like IED's and car bombs. As to the Vichy France stuff... I suppose, but the Iraqi's generally greeted us as liberator's from Saddam, and in general want us to stay until they can survive it on their own. If this were really about what the people of Iraq wanted, and about whether the war was just, I don't think there'd be even half as many attacks as there are now.

Because despite whatever the WMD issue turns out to be, Saddam should not have been allowed to run that country as long as he did. And I know what I sound like, but can you honestly tell me that you think Iraq was better off under a man who killed thousands of his own people? Under a Stalinesque dictatorship? <-- That last may have been a bit extreme, and probably off subject. But I'm just saying, this insurgency is not about Iraq or the people in it. It's about their hatred of America and the West.

Check the deaths per day of 2003 as compared to the other years. 2004 and 2005 were virtually the same at 47% higher casualty rates, 2006 has been a bit better but still higher than 2003.

Anyway I spose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that note.