Replies

He got the issue exactly right. The democrats are running around pretending that if the 16 words on African Uranium were inaccurate, the entire rationale for the war is gone! That's nuts. Fact is everyone was very focused on Iraqi chemical and biological capability. Nuclear was a distinct runner up, as in Sadaam Hussein had the money and desire to build a nuclear weapon some day, let's not wait until he does. No one was saying he had an atom bomb or anything like it. That was NOT the major rationale for he war.

Fact is everyone was very focused on Iraqi chemical and biological capability. Nuclear was a distinct runner up, as in Sadaam Hussein had the money and desire to build a nuclear weapon some day, let's not wait until he does.

I have some knowledge of nuclear weapons. While a high-yield nuclear weapon yields high psychological (and the most destructive) impact, the development of high-yield weapons is a financial exercise requiring outrageous amounts of money, technical expertise, fissile material and time... All of these aspects are required, to develop even one nuclear warhead. Now, considering the enormous investment of resources required, even a bone-head like Saddam Hussein would never entrust someone else to deliver such a weapon within striking-range of the US (much less to a major U.S. city) because the probabilities of being caught with such a weapon are exceedingly high. Such a weapons program attracts a lot of attention, because certain materials- namely the Uranium or Plutonium needed to complete the bomb- are closely monitored world-wide. If non-enriched uranium was obtained, it would take billions of dollars to enrich it to a useful enrichment level to make even a moderately powerful bomb. Again, such efforts attract a great deal of attention. And finally, if such a weapon were developed from stolen uranium or plutonium, it's not terribly difficult to trace (from residue) the origin of the uranium- a very important clue for finding the perpetrator. All in all, an expensive, risky proposition, with a high probability of being caught.

Biological weapons, on the other hand, are more effective from a psychological standpoint- a victim could be contaminated, and spread the wealth to many others before they finally expire from the contamination... Such weapons are cheap and easily made. More, their development is relatively easy to hide. If a good dispersal agent can be used...? Then their "bang for the buck," if you'll excuse the pun, is far greater than a nuke, without the inherent risks of detection...

Consider, for example, a biological weapon could conceivably be inside a bottle of gatorade, taken onboard a plane as carry-on luggage, and flown to a major city without so much as a second glance by security... Drop it into a water-supply, or ventilation system of a skyscraper...? And you won't know what happened until after some of the victims have died...

That is the scary thing...

Knowing what I do know about nuclear weapons, it was never a real concern... The real thing that worried me (and still does) is the biological... Because for this, there's no protection... Except to kill the bad guys on their own turf.

Be well...

We can't just sit here and wait for another attack with thousands or more lives lost without doing everything we can to prevent it. Had more been done before 911 it might not have taken place. Water under the bridge now so to speak, but that does not mean that we coddle terrorists until they blow up a few buildings or who knows what else.
The President and his administration believe we will be hit again. That is why he is so focused on doing all he can to root out all of the terrorists and their state sponsors that he possibly can. Saddam was really first on the list. Thank God President Bush takes his oath of office so seriously.

I like your reasoning!

He got the issue exactly right. The democrats are running around pretending that if the 16 words on African Uranium were inaccurate, the entire rationale for the war is gone! That's nuts. Fact is everyone was very focused on Iraqi chemical and biological capability. Nuclear was a distinct runner up, as in Sadaam Hussein had the money and desire to build a nuclear weapon some day, let's not wait until he does. No one was saying he had an atom bomb or anything like it. That was NOT the major rationale for he war.

Try telling that to Chrissy Matthews and he tells you that you're wrong .. He's been doing that to all his republican guest for the past week

Thanks for the ping Howlin