U.S. Says Iraq Would Target Troops

Las Vegas Sun ^ | 6/13/02 | AP

[PJeffQ]

Today: July 13, 2002 at 10:10:14 PDT

U.S. Says Iraq Would Target Troops
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON- The threat from Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is primarily to U.S. troops and to enemies of President Saddam Hussein inside and near Iraq rather than to civilians in the United States, defense and intelligence officials say.

Iraq is believed to have biological weapons including anthrax spores and botulinum poison, which causes botulism. As for chemical agents, Iraq is thought to possess mustard, tabun, sarin and possibly VX gases, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Those are what U.N. inspectors had found in significant amounts before they left Iraq in 1998 and were not allowed to return.

Saddam's most likely targets would be Israel, any U.S. troops attacking Iraq and any rebel forces inside Iraq, the officials said.

The Iraqi military could strike targets inside the country and in surrounding countries with short-range missiles, artillery or aircraft using bombs or sprayers.

Officials say Saddam's military probably also has squirreled away a few Persian G+ulf War-vintage Scud missiles capable of reaching targets 400 miles away. That would pose a danger to Israel and Iraq's other neighbors but not U.S. territory.

Saddam would be likely to consider using the weapons only if the Bush administration were close to removing him from power militarily, officials say. They say any attack that endangered his hold on power, even if it were to cause few deaths, probably would bring massive retaliation.

The United States considers chemical and biological weapons on a par with nuclear weapons.

It is uncertain how much damage an Iraqi counterattack could do, in part because it is unclear what weapons he has developed since 1998, said analyst Anthony Cordesman, who has worked in the departments of Defense, State and Energy.

Experts surmise that Saddam could not stop a U.S. attack by using such weapons. But a chemical or biological attack that caused even a few deaths among American troops in Iraq or civilians in Israel could cause widespread panic.

In the worst case, an attack on Israel could lead that country to consider nuclear retaliation, said Cordesman, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The administration points to Iraq's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as the principal reason to get rid of Saddam. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz visits NATO ally Turkey beginning Sunday to discuss what to do about Iraq. He will be joined by the top U.S. military commander in the region and the No. 3 State Department official.

Cordesman said America's failure to provide specifics on Saddam's activities since 1998 makes allies reluctant to support a U.S. attack.

"Most people outside the U.S. feel we are crying wolf," he said.

Iraq asserts it has destroyed its chemical and biological weapons. Talks between the United Nations and Iraq to renew weapons inspections have stalled repeatedly.

At the end of 1998, Iraq told U.N. inspectors it had 550 tons to 650 tons of mustard gas. Experts estimate it has the chemicals to make another 220 tons. Likewise, Iraq declared it had 2,245 gallons of concentrated, weapons-grade anthrax. The United Nations believes current stocks could be as much as four times that.

Iraq also has researched nuclear weapons but is not believed to have the material to build any. Israeli jets attacked and destroyed an Iraqi nuclear research center at Tuwaythah, near Baghdad, in 1981.

Saddam ordered chemical weapons used against Iraqi Kurds and Iranian forces in the 1980s and killed thousands of people.

To make a successful strike with such weapons, the target must have no defenses. U.S. troops have protections against them, defense officials said.

Biological weapons are more of an unknown, Cordesman said. Iraq's were relatively primitive before the Gulf War and the U.N. inspections that followed. But since biological and chemical weapons require only small production capabilities and can be hidden easily, Cordesman said, "It's almost impossible to track what they may have and may not have done."

Iraqi weapons laboratories would provide even more important targets for a U.S. strike than his weapons stockpiles, defense and intelligence officials say, because a lot of lethal agents can be produced in a short time.

U.S. officials say Iraq's scientists have survived, and production facilities bombed by the United States in 1998 have been rebuilt. Since Bush stepped up anti-Saddam rhetoric after Sept. 11, Iraq has moved more production capabilities underground.

---

On the Net: Federation of American Scientists Iraq weapons page: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/index.html

[Mo1]

As for chemical agents, Iraq is thought to possess mustard, tabun, sarin and possibly VX gases, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Those are what U.N. inspectors had found in significant amounts before they left Iraq in 1998 and were not allowed to return

Ummmmm .. would Scott Ritter like to explain this??

[The Great Satan]

WASHINGTON- The threat from Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is primarily to U.S. troops and to enemies of President Saddam Hussein inside and near Iraq rather than to civilians in the United States, defense and intelligence officials say.

Why? No reason given. Guess these folks weren't watching TV on September 11, 2001. If there is a war to remove Saddam from power, he will bring it to US soil. Count on it.

[PJeffQ]

Go here for the specifics: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2002/jul/13/071301661.html

Today: July 13, 2002 at 10:15:15 PDT

Iraq Weapons Glance
ASSOCIATED PRESS

By the end of 1998, U.N. inspectors had been unable to account for numerous weapons and chemicals used to make weapons believed to have been in Iraq's armory. Iraq declared it had held certain weapons but that all weapons had been destroyed. The inspectors left in December 1998, hours before U.S. and British aircraft began four days of air and missile strikes against suspected weapons facilities.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, made the following estimates of Iraq's remaining stockpiles, based on statements from U.S. and U.N. officials:

CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Mustard gas: Iraq declared 550 tons to 650 tons to U.N. inspectors. Experts estimate Iraq probably could make an additional 220 tons with chemicals believed in its inventory. Mustard gas is a banned weapon first used during World War I.

Nerve agents: Declared between 110 tons and 165 tons and probably could make an additional 220 tons. Sarin and tabun are common nerve agents.

VX: Declared at least 4 tons and probably could make an additional 220 tons. VX is an extremely deadly nerve agent.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

Anthrax: Iraq declared 2,245 gallons of concentrated, weapons-grade anthrax; United Nations believes Iraq could have made three or four times that.

Botulinum toxin: Iraq declared 5,125 gallons of weapons-grade toxin; United Nations believes Iraq could have made twice that amount.

Gas gangrene: Iraq declared 90 gallons of weapons-grade material.

-Unaccounted-for delivery systems:

Scud ballistic missiles: Two to 60.

Scud warheads: 45 to 70.

Rockets: Between 15,000 and 25,000.

Aerial bombs: 2,000.

Artillery shells: 15,000.

Aerial spray tanks: Unknown.

Source: Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[Mo1]

So you're telling me Ritter isn't telling the truth ??

I'm SHOCKED ...

[EternalHope]

The threat from Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is primarily to U.S. troops and to enemies of President Saddam Hussein inside and near Iraq rather than to civilians in the United States, defense and intelligence officials say.

This article is a transparent attempt to weaken support for overthrowing Saddam.

To understand this article, it helps to know the source: The Federation of American Scientists. This is the same bunch of left wing kooks that hatched Barbara Rosenberg.

Cordesman is cited by name, but not the "defense and intelligence officials" cited at the start of the article. Nor is any support given for Cordesman's assertion that: "America's failure to provide specifics on Saddam's activities since 1998 makes allies reluctant to support a U.S. attack."

The facts are quite the contrary. In spite of weak knees and rubber spines, most of our allies are behind an attack on Iraq. Sufficient facts are in the public domain to justify such an attack. In addition, our allies have publicly stated they are satisfied with the additional information we have provided.

The REAL story here is Cordesman and the anti-American agenda of the Federation of American Scientists. Any bets on when we see Tom/Peter/Dan talking about this? (Hell freezing over comes to mind.)

[Thud]

That's what I've been saying.

"The threat from Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is primarily to U.S. troops and to enemies of President Saddam Hussein inside and near Iraq rather than to civilians in the United States, defense and intelligence officials say.