Skip to comments.No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq? Not Exactly
Posted on 10/08/2004 9:12:03 AM PDT by Prost1
Is it really true that Saddam Hussein had no "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003?
Not exactly - at least not if one counts the 500 tons of uranium that the Iraqi dictator kept stored at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Is there that much uranium that's been mined, EVER?
That sounds like A LOT of uranium?
It's not enriched, just the raw stuff called yellowcake
And if you consider that uranium is one of the heavier metals, 500 tons probably isn't all that much.
9/11 #1 lesson... Do not give the threat a chance to materialize.... 500 tons seems to me more than enough justification to claim stockpiles... Why aren't the Republican pundits jumping on this?
LIBS: "Let them eat yellowcake!"
I cannot imagine why the pubbies let the demoncrats have this issue...500 tons is a pile...a big pile....142 weapons yikes....sounds like they could have enriched it given enough time. I hate pubbies for taking illegimate shots from Demons.
Do not give the threat a chance to materialize.... 500 tons seems to me more than enough justification to claim stockpiles... Why aren't the Republican pundits jumping on this?"
I agree - don't let a threat materialize. While we're still STILL focusing on what Saddam had/didn't have, the N. Koreans already have nuke capability, which they've refined while we've been freeing Iraq.
The North Korean threat HAS materialized and Iran isn't far behind. If either of these two foolish nations use a nuke on us, the blame will rightfully be placed at the feet of both Clintax AND Bush. One for appeasing them in 1994 (nod to Jiminy Carter too) and the other for completely doing nothing to stop the nuke threat from 2001-present, even though (unlike Iraq) there's zero doubt of N. Korean nuke capability.
It would have been enriched a long time ago though if the Israelis hadn't taken the wise precuation of blowing up their nuclear reactor. Iran, anyone?
No I don't agree.. The justification for the war in Iraq is simply the fact that we could no longer afford to allow the threat that materialized on 9/11 to happen again... The threat that materialized on 9/11 was Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism. Hence homeland Security, Patriot Act, War in Iraq are all fronts on the War on Terrorism.
Bill Clinton appeasement of North Korea by allowing Kim Jong IL to develope Nuclear capability in the first place allowed the North Korean nuclear threat to materialize already. Too late for the President to do anything but go one for one with North Korea... 6 party talks put all neighbors of NK on alert and get them involved... If NK sells to terrorists or uses Nuke on us or neighbors it will be dealt with in total finality by this president... but what would Kerry do? It will never pass the global test and we would have to eat the casualties making us weaker and weaker in the end.
If Iran is allowed to pursue Nuclear weapons via the same appeasement that Clinton used than they will ultimately develope weapons just like Korea did ... Korea is the lesson learned for Iran. If Iran is allowed to pursue it goals and develope the weapons than This President failed to imagine the threat...but I personally don't think that would happen...
Difference is one talks about it and one does something about it....
Everyone knows that Saddam was just waiting until the heat was off. The second the world's attention was diverted to some other trouble spot, he would have been up and running again. To argue that he wasn't a threat is just idiotic.
Here's what I don't get too. Why don't we hear more about the mustard gas shells that the Polish army has been finding?
Why wasn't more made of the sarin shells used as IED's.
I'm not sure exactly what these "experts" think shows proof of an active WMD program...but here's my definition:
If you have ONE shell full of NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) agents...regardless of how long ago it was made...and you maintain that shell in a state that it could be used at a moments notice...THAT is an active WMD program.
If 500 TONS of weps grade uranium isn't proof...then NOTHING short of a nuclear bomb traceable back to Iraq will ever be proof enough for the RATS and the MSM.
The reason is simple. Yellowcake is not a weapon. Calling
a pile of yellowcake a stockpile of WMDs is like calling a
pile of Hematite a stockpile of assault rifles.
Now, the Iraqi yellowcake was NOT a matter to be ignored.
If my arithmetic is correct, depending on the efficiency
with which it is separated, the efficiency of the weapon
design, 500 tons of yellowcake contains enough U-235 to
make between 100 and 150 simple fission bombs.
The separation of the U-235 from the Natural Uranium is a
difficult task. Indeed, it is the ONLY dificult task
involved when making a simple U-235 bomb.
What the original poster did not mention is that the
500 tons of yellowcake had been inventoried by the IAEA
under UNSCOM. It was reinventoried by the IAEA under
UNMOVIC. It was intact up until the inspectors left
shortly befor the invasion began.
Perhaps the original poster failed to mention this
because NewsMax.com published the blatant lie:
And press reports going back more than a decade
give no indication that weapons inspectors had
any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a
staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S.
That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency
was finally able to take a full inventory, and
suddenly the 500 ton figure emerged.
Here is a link to a pre-invasion (1997) report that addresses, in part, the quantity of yellowcake which,
as of that time "remains in Iraq, under the control
of the IAEA".
My arithmetic indicates a total of about 556 tons.
Reading is a powerful tool.
a pile of yellowcake a stockpile of WMDs is like calling a
pile of Hematite a stockpile of assault rifles."
Ok I'll volunteer to ask this.
If the 500 tons of uranium and the 18. tons taht had already been weaponized isn't proof enough for you that Saddam was doing his best to keep an active WMD program;
Is there ANYTHING that will ever be enough "proof" for you?
before I get hammered I put my period in the wrong place. It should be 1.8 tons of weaponized material not 18 like I stated.
"No I don't agree.. The justification for the war in Iraq is simply the fact that we could no longer afford to allow the threat that materialized on 9/11 to happen again... "
So the ONLY threat we're facing is from the Islamosucks? Kim Jong Il is happy to hear that.
"Bill Clinton appeasement of North Korea by allowing Kim Jong IL to develope Nuclear capability in the first place allowed the North Korean nuclear threat to materialize already. "
I've already agreed to that. Don't forget Carter's role in this.
"If NK sells to terrorists or uses Nuke on us or neighbors it will be dealt with in total finality by this president... but what would Kerry do?"
Given Bush's tepid response to the Saudis, who were almost 100% responsible for allowing Al Quaida to grow in their country, I doubt Bush's response to North Korea would be anything with 'finality'. Although, his ties to the North Koreans aren't nearly as established as those to the House of Saud so you might be right. Who knows what Kerry would do? Maybe shoot some North Koreans in the back? I don't bother considering Kerry, honestly, as I foresee a Bush victory. Thus me trying to focus on what Bush should/shouldn't do, rather than waste thought on that idiot Kerry, no offense.
"If Iran is allowed to pursue Nuclear weapons via the same appeasement that Clinton used than they will ultimately develope weapons just like Korea did ... Korea is the lesson learned for Iran. If Iran is allowed to pursue it goals and develope the weapons than This President failed to imagine the threat...but I personally don't think that would happen..."
Good point that I hadn't thought of. Iranian nuclear development would be solely Bush's responsibility and not Clintax's. I agree with your assessment of the situation and hope Bush does the right thing in dealing with the imminent Iranian nuke threat.
"Difference is one talks about it and one does something about it...."
True, but one must also do the right 'something' about it. See 'Appeasement of North Korea' as an example of what not to do.
Since the invasion, no one has found 18 tons of weaponized
anything in Iraq, let alone 18 tons of 'weaponized Uranium'.
_Weapons grade_ uranium is high purity U-235. Kilogram
quantitites were found in the 1990s, as were gram
quantities of Plutonium and both were removed from Iraq.
How was the program active when he had no centrifuges,
calutrons or diffussers, the raw materials were
declared more than a decade ago and have been
locked under IAEA seal ever since?
All that was found to be left of the Iraqi nuclear
weapons program were a small number of old components
buried in someone's yard, blueprints, raw or weakly
enriched Uranium that had been declared to UNSCOM,
and the desire to resume the program when possible.
That is hardly an active program.
No one ever claimed that Iraq would not resume WMD
production if it could, that was one of Bush's lies.
No one ever claimed that Saddam Hussein could be
trusted, that was another of Bush's lies.
But it is clear that the UN sanctions and inspections
program had completely shut down the Iraqi nuclear
"before I get hammered I put my period in the wrong place. It should be 1.8 tons of weaponized material not 18 like I stated."
And it is still untrue.
Not according to this report:
Associated Press Worldstream
October 01, 1999; Friday 14:47 Eastern Time
HEADLINE: Iraq, North Korea urged to comply with nuclear weapons inspectors
DATELINE: VIENNA, Austria
Iraq and North Korea came under fire Friday for failing to cooperate with nuclear weapons inspectors, while Israel was accused by its Middle Eastern neighbors of blocking efforts to create a nuclear weapon free zone in the region.
At the International Atomic Energy Agency's 43rd annual meeting, representatives from more than 100 countries urged Iraq and North Korea to comply with agreements allowing the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency to inspect the nuclear programs of the two nations.
Iraq has been accused of blocking access to documents and possible nuclear sites, and the IAEA has been unable to conduct inspections since December.
Iraqi officials have repeatedly argued that they have fulfilled their obligations, and sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council at the end of the Gulf War should be lifted.
However, U.S. representative John B. Ritch III said, ''Iraq is challenging the will of the Security Council. Iraq is solely responsible for the present situation.''
Criticism also was leveled at North Korea for failing to grant IAEA inspectors access to a suspected underground nuclear site.
International officials also fear North Korea may be destroying information about its nuclear program.
Did you consider reading the 1997 IAEA report?
a. Low enriched uranium
In 1982 Iraq imported from Italy 1,767 kg of uranium enriched to 2.6% in U-235 in the form of UO2 powder. The material has been verified and fully accounted for and remains in Iraq, under the control of the IAEA, at Location C (a storage complex close to Tuwaitha), in the same form as it was received. "
I provided the link, here it is again:
IIRC, 2.6% U-235 is about right for reactor fuel rods
and is a long ways short of weapons grade.
Here, you can read up on the UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and
It is far from being the only place to find them online.
In this day and age what excuse can anyone posibly have
for not checking the UN reports on Iraqi WMD programs
befor writing about them?
Is there ANYTHING that will ever be enough "proof" for you?
Proof would have to consist of several warehouses full of weaponized (loaded into shells, mines and bombs ready to go) poison gas, biological agents and nuclear weapons. All would have to be clearly labeled in Arabic, French and English Weapons of Mass Destruction and have Saddams signature on each one. Each would have to have a clear manufacturing date to show they were made after Operation Desert Storm.
How can it be untrue when it's in the report quoted in the NesMax article?
Talk about not taking the blinders off!
Oh wait I get it...I've discussed this matter with your type before...anything short of a nuclear detonation that can be traced back to Iraq will EVER convince you that Iraq had WMD's.
I shoulda known.
500 tons, no, no, no. Now if you were in Germany, 500 tons would be a stockpile, but were not.
Paraphrasing one of the two GOOD things to come out of Canada - Red Green Show being the other.
Steer clear of Fred Fighter. His line of discussion on this topic is designed to stir the pot and cause an instant argument with everyone who posts here.
NOTHING any of us say to him will sway him...even a sworn statement by Saddam himself wouldn't make him budge from his thinking that he knows better than we about this issue.
Argue with him if you dare...but don't say I didn't warn you.
And no FF I'm not saying this becasue I can't show you where you're wrong in your thingking...hell what do I know...I only spent year over there anyway. Life is just too short to argue with a brick wall.
Note his signup date as well......
Has troll written all over it.
Well said. Combine the above with the fact that Saddam was using the Oil for Food Program to bypass or dismantle the sanctions and the fact that he would not cooperate with the rest of the world in apprehending terrorists within Iraq and any sane person would rightfully conclude that he needed to be removed from power. Thank God for President Bush and his leadership.
"How can it be untrue when it's in the report quoted in the NesMax article?"
1) A number of people are quoted in the newsMax article,
however I do not see where any specific report is cited.
So I have no way to identify the report to which you refer.
2) You said they found 1.8 tons of 'weaponized' uranium
in Iraq. That claim did not come from the NewsMax article.
There is an incorrect statement in the NewsMax article
about 1.8 tons of uranium 'Saddam had started to
3) That claim was incorrect because the material in
question had been enriched outside of Iraq as shown
in the IAEA report I cited. Also, as shown in the IAEA
report I cited, it had been secured by the IAEA since
some time shortly after the 1991 war.
There is no doubt that Iraq had WMDs. That doesn't
change the fact that the NewsMax article is a product
of some combination of ignorance and dishonesty, sort
of like Rush Limbaugh, but less entertaining.
35 pounds, I repeat, 35 pounds, was always considered a critical mass, when I was undergoing CBR training in the service. Critical mass is the amount needed for a low grade bomb.
BUSH/CHENEY IN 20004!
May you get ZOTTED early and often.
"35 pounds, I repeat, 35 pounds, was always considered a critical mass, when I was undergoing CBR training in the service. Critical mass is the amount needed for a low grade bomb."
Agreed. What did your DBR training tell you about the
degree of enrichment needed to convert natural Uranium
to fissile (weapons grade) material?
Not even NewsMax claims that 35 pounds of weapons grade
U-235 was found in Iraq. That was a fabrication by
Don't trust me! Read the NewsMax artilce for yourselves.
Then go read the IAEA reports. In 1981 or 1982 Iraq bought
1.7x tons of slightly enriched Uranium (2.6% U-235) from
Italy. That material had been stored in Iraq under the
supervision of IAEA from 1994 to 1999. In 2003 the IAEA
re-inventoried it and confirmed that it was still stored
under the IAEA seals. That is NOT weapons grade material.
That is reactor fuel material.
Don't trust me! Read the IAEA reports for yourselves.