[John H K]

One thing to keep in mind is that chemical agents (though this can vary) usually are not stored in warheads, but they are loaded in just prior to use.

One plausible scenario is that at the end of the Iran-Iraq War, some Iraqi company or battalion commander had some mortar shells he'd just loaded but didn't get to use.

Rather than go through the potentially dangerous and time consuming process of taking the chemicals out of the shells, he simply buried them. Quite possibly without telling any superiors or Baghdad (who likely wouldn't have cared that much what happened to them.)

Now, of course, the above scenario will be flamed viciously by people who don't want that to be a possibility, but it's a thousand times more realistic than the idea these shells are part of a grand plan to hide WMDs for use later.

[Bluntpoint]

Now, of course, the above scenario will be flamed viciously by people who don't want that to be a possibility, but it's a thousand times more realistic than the idea these shells are part of a grand plan to hide WMDs for use later.

John H K Since Dec 4, 2000

We know who you are!!!!!!!!

[Nebr FAL owner]

The U.S. has thousands of arty shells, rockets,& bombs loaded with various chemical agents dating back to the Korean war sitting in bunkers at places like the Anniston Army Depot just outside Anniston Alabama, or the Tueollo depot in Utah which has a standing order of no digging allowed on post as you dont know what piece of unexploded ordinance going back to WW1 you might find. These shells in the storage areas are still dangerous in spite of the fact that they are several decades old. The shell found in Iraq might not be pretty but they are still quite capable of killing .

[justa-hairyape]

Rather than go through the potentially dangerous and time consuming process of taking the chemicals out of the shells, he simply buried them. Quite possibly without telling any superiors or Baghdad (who likely wouldn't have cared that much what happened to them.)

This is precisely the points the UN resolutions were addressing. Saddam had these WMD munitions, told the UN they were disposed of, but he could not provide documented evidence of their destruction. Either way with the UN all in a huff about buried land mines all over the world, the idea that a countries leader was potentially lieing about burying WMD, is in itself justification for everything the UN was worried about. The clueless twits that are running around saying there are no WMD, are not even in this game. There ARE WMD. Saddam admitted it to the UN. The question is why could he NOT document their destruction ?