UN Inspectors Find Empty Chemical Warheads

Adam Smith · January 16, 2003, 15:45

BBC and MSNBC report that UN inspectors found a dozen empty chemical warheads in an ammunition storage area.
BBC Story

MSNBC Story

The shells are supposedly in very good condition.
Did these shells somehow get missed when Iraq claimed to have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction? Or is Saddam's slip showing?

edit: fixed the url's

Boris Godunov · January 16, 2003, 15:47

The warheads were empty. They predate 1990, too, apparently. So?

Asher · January 16, 2003, 15:49

What use are empty warheads?

I don't understand...

Arrian · January 16, 2003, 15:52

The article I saw said they were left over from inspections in 1991. I don't think this is a big deal.

I highly doubt the inspectors will find anything of note. Like the Iraqis are really going to let them! What a joke. It will still come down to Bush saying Saddam's got nasty toys, and Saddam denying it.

-Arrian

GePap · January 16, 2003, 15:53

I very recently got cable (again), so I was able to see (again) 24 hour news at their best: MY GOD, THE HUMANITY!

24 Hours news cable netwroks are Utter Crap! The anchors have the knowledge of a vegetable on any topic, and not only are they generally igonorant, but they aren't even good enough to coe up with good questions. Places like Msnbc, Fox news and even CNN now are more a har, than good. Good news is not simply information thrown at you, but information backed with impartial, informative annalysis. None of the "news" networks provide such a thing.

As for this news:

'Shrug': the admin will make a big deal of it, as they are counting down to the Jan 27 "deadline". Obviously the hawks are itching to get the war started, now that the military is almost ready to go. Opponents of war will dismiss the news. Same ol', same ol'

Perhaps more interesting is what documents were found inside the private homes of a couple of scientists the inspectors searched today.

Adam Smith · January 16, 2003, 15:57

Gepap:
It takes a while to analyze information, so I don't necessarily fault news networks for that.

Arrian:
MSNBC article appears to indicate that these are not the same shells left over from 1991 inspections.

I don't know what to make of this yet, but one question is why there are shells laying around for weapons they supposedly no longer have.

Arrian · January 16, 2003, 15:59

Documents found? Don't leave us hanging, GePap.

I heard on NPR this morning that the UN inspectors had started interviewing people... and that they had left a private residence with a scientist and his papers after a "heated" argument with Iraqi authorities. Have you more to add?

-Arrian

OneFootInTheGrave · January 16, 2003, 16:02

Why wouldn't Iraqis let them (the weapons inspectors), if they don't let them Bush is coming to look for them himself. So far at least they were allowed to go where they wanted to, and so it should be.

Still it remains to be seen if the inspectors find the traces of chemical/bio agents on the warheads, and than ask questions.

Well, at least this is some first tangible evidence of undeclared material. Proof that weapons inspectors can do something.

GePap · January 16, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Gepap:
It takes a while to analyze information, so I don't necessarily fault news networks for that.

But I do. These places call themselves 24 hour news networks, but half of what is going on in the world never makes it in. Why? I could think of various way in which "24 Hour News Networks" could be far better at spreading out info. Number one problem: people don't have to know immidiately about something. Lets say you get the news: well, spend 1 hour annalysing it in the back room, having trained researchers and editors look at it, and write informative peices, while on air, you spell out what is going on around the world: there is plenty of news: natural disasters, international politics, the situation in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the chaning of leaderships in Brazil, Ecuador, Kenya, so forth and so on: how are the peace negotiations in the DRC going?

Would a channel more like a Newspaper be profitable? would it get as high ratings as the muckrakers and yellow journalists? Perhaps not, but it woul be real news.

As for the documents: using their new powers under SCR 1441, inspectors went into the private homes of a couple of Iraqi scientist, took various documents, and my guess is, interviewed the scientists. The Iraqis were not very happy and there were some angry words and reactions from the Iraqis about that. The documents, of course, are still to be look at, their information made public.

Sandman · January 16, 2003, 16:11

Who cares? Those shells would be more dangerous if filled with explosives, anyway. Gas is a highly overrated weapon.

optimus2861 · January 16, 2003, 16:26

^^ Something I've been pondering as well. Chemical weapons are so reliant upon proper dispersion in order to be effective -- wind, temperature, pressure, etc etc -- that to lump them in as a "weapon of mass destruction" with nukes (which are in a class of their own, no question) and biological agents (which share many of the same dispersion problems as chemicals, however can somewhat make up for it if they are infectious agents) has always puzzled me.

JohnT · January 16, 2003, 16:41

Optimus: read up on WW1 for further clarification.

Boris Godunov · January 16, 2003, 16:43

Chemical weapons aren't any more deadly than conventional explosive weapons. To consider them WoMD is hyperbole, IMO.

Arrian · January 16, 2003, 16:43

Chemical weapons make the list mostly due to WWI, I think. And bio weapons are especially creepy (silent, invisible death), and of course there is the potential for someone to come up with a really effective one that could do damage on a global scale (i.e. The Stand).

-Arrian

OneFootInTheGrave · January 16, 2003, 16:50

Bio weapons are the future... you just need to mod a virus, which could be doable in a relativley small lab as technology progresses for a mad dictator or scientists and those will always be around.

When we are at viruses here is an threadjack link about a virus never found before on Antartica that affects humans and animals, but they didn't say it is lethal (probably not). Nevertheless if this was contagious like flu... here you go a perfect bio weapon, for terrorists of course, noone normal would want to use it as you cannot control the spread. http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/16/42144.html

edit: actually if they got hold of ebola virus and just spread it in daylight at New York airport or here in London. Now that would be a global catastrophe. I better not think about those things

Kropotkin · January 16, 2003, 17:57

Still nothing. While the US keeps saying they do have WoMD (I'm getting tired of that phrase). That might be true but it seems to be the time to prove it in some way. Otherwise people on the street will start getting arrested by the police because they can't prove that they haven't done anyting illegal.

Jac de Molay · January 16, 2003, 18:07

Quote:

edit: actually if they got hold of ebola virus and just spread it in daylight at New York airport or here in London. Now that would be a global catastrophe. I better not think about those things

Actually, ebola wouldn't be a good one to use. It spreads and kills so quickly that outbreaks are self-containing. That's why you see them fizzle out so quickly in Africa. Now an aerosoled version of the Rabies virus.....

This find doesn't sound like a big deal, and I doubt that Saddam even has 1/10 of the capacity he had pre gulf-war. The shelf life for the nastiest stuff like VX is long past. Again, like it matters to Bush.

zulu9812 · January 16, 2003, 18:37

I feel this has to be pointed out again. They were empty. Thay's not even chemical warheads, it's metal shells! And as far as that massive document that was produced, concluding that Saddam had no WOMDs - Bush probably didn't even read it. He's itching to finish off his daddy's war whether Iraq's a threat or not. These weapons inspections are a joke.

Sandman · January 16, 2003, 18:59

I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in considering the category of 'weapons of mass destruction' a load of rubbish.

Kropotkin · January 16, 2003, 19:04

Bushie-boy made a threatening speech about leading a coalition of volunter countries against Iraq. It seems weak. After all, if the US or any other country with a sizable military would be forced to do the same list I would think that eleven 'forgotten' and empty 120mm shells is within the margin of error.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2003, 19:06

As long as tehy were empty, I don't think this violates the agreement. You can fill them with conventional warheads too...

And the Iraqis claim that these were listed in their declaration of capabilities. The veracity of that claim is, to put it lightly, disputable...

Kramerman · January 16, 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in considering the category of 'weapons of mass destruction' a load of rubbish.

I think chemical weapons can do a **** load of damage. If dispersed from shells or other aerosol attack, yes, it is very difficult to handle them correctly. And this being their application for war does make them rather weak weapons (unless of course you have the sophistication to deliver them effectively). However, Chemicals can be applied very lethally when applied by terrorism, if used to poison water supplies, and the like. Many people could be killed from very little amounts of an agent.

I would consider chemicals WoMD, just perhaps not to the degree of nukes, or bio weapons (both of which mind you, also require a high level of sophistication to use properly)

Kman

TCO · January 16, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

The veracity of that claim is, to put it lightly, disputable...

Does that mean it's a lie?

Sandman · January 16, 2003, 19:39

With regard to poisoning water supplies, why wouldn't the water company pick up on it before it reached people's homes? And how much poison would be needed to be tipped into a reservoir to make a single glass of water lethal? Something bigger than a barrel, I expect. Are there any historical instances of water supply being so effectively poisoned?

chequita guevara · January 16, 2003, 19:41

According to the article I read, they box they were in was covered in dust and bird poop, indicating they'd been sitting around for a long while and had probably been forgotten about.

DinoDoc · January 16, 2003, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
While the US keeps saying they do have WoMD (I'm getting tired of that phrase).

There are quite a lot of weapons the Iraqis have yet to account for though.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Does that mean it's a lie?

No, it means that whether it is true or not has very little to do with what the Iraqis say about. In addition to lying, they have a bad habit of lying about things which are easily verifiable (like whether or not these shells were listed).

Chris 62 · January 16, 2003, 23:02

More Iraqi appologists in this thread then you see on the news.

Maybe Bushie planted the shells there, eh?

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2003, 23:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There are quite a lot of weapons the Iraqis have yet to account for though.

They've apparently accounted for them, it's just that the way they accounted for them was unverifiable. "We destroyed all other weapons"...

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
As long as tehy were empty, I don't think this violates the agreement. You can fill them with conventional warheads too...

No you can't.