July 10, 2004
Iraq Invasion led to Nuclear Proliferation
When the U.S.-led coalition invaded, the unintentional consequence may have been allowing nuclear material to fall into the wrong hands. While Saddam was in charge of Iraq, the U.N. had closed and sealed several research facilities and put them under the watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the 1991 Gulf War.
The officials were evacuated during the invasion and the subsequent looting led to enriched uranium and other nuclear items being stolen from the sealed facilities. While it's a good thing that the U.S. is now removing the material from Iraq -- 1.8 tons so far -- it is unknown how much may have fallen into the hands of looters and has spread to terrorists. Reuters has the full story in Iraq Confirms U.S. Has Removed Nuclear Material:
U.S. and U.N. officials said Wednesday Washington had transported 1.8 tons of enriched uranium out of Iraq for safekeeping more than a year after looters stole it from a U.N.-sealed facility left unguarded by U.S. troops
Again, the question is: How much was looted that the U.S. and U.N. has not been able to recover?
Iraq Confirms U.S. Has Removed Nuclear Material [Reuters]
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at July 10, 2004 03:31 AMSeems this would be a mixed critique of the Bush administration’s policy: on the one hand, it was true Iraq had nuclear materials, but on the other hand, inspections and international pressure would have been a more effective way to prevent their falling into terrorist hands.
Jethro Bodine leadership strikes again.
Well, that’s 1.8 tons of nuclear material that’s no longer in the hands of a suicide-bomber funding genocidal madman. And we’re supposed to be upset about this because?
“International pressure” would have done what? Puh-lease. The idea that a stern glance from Mohammed El Baradei toward the Iraqi ambassador over the hors d’ourvers table at the Waldorf would have stopped Saddam is just ridiculous.
In the last few days El Baradei has unveiled his grand plan for “containing” Iran’s nuclear program. Here’s what it consists of: don’t bring the issue before the Security Council because doing so might piss off the mullahs. International pressure, indeed. The UN reminds me of that Monty Python skit:
Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely ran away away
When Danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled!
Also, if you read the reports about the looting of the nuclear facility, it appears that the facility itself was looted—not the nuclear material containers, which would be easily detected because the material was sealed and catalogued. So it didn’t happen, but looters who decided to carry off nuclear waste in their backpacks would be pretty easy to detect—they’d be the guys with no hair or teeth and the kids who have flippers (no, I’m not referring to the senator from Massachussets).
Well, because I’m a Republican, and therefore enshrine truth, fairness and objectivity in my very soul, and shun fact-smashing partisan creepiness like poison (unlike, say Michael Moore, John Kerry or his new boyfriend), let me be the one to say it: this isn’t a story about WMD.
This nuclear material was under the seal of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which means that it was fully accounted for and monitored.
I don’t know this for sure, but if the IAEA used the same technique they did in North Korea, there were probably 24 hour cameras on the nuclear containers ( that is before the North Koreans made a fool of Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter, who had supposedly solved the problem with one of his meek high-minded pretty-pleases, by removing the cameras and firing up their reactors).
Martin, the material itself was part of what was looted. If you had read the article (specifically, what I quoted from it) you would have seen the following:
U.S. and U.N. officials said Wednesday Washington had transported 1.8 tons of enriched uranium out of Iraq for safekeeping more than a year after looters stole it from a U.N.-sealed facility left unguarded by U.S. troops. [emphasis added]
I think it would clearly state that looters had stolen anything except the uranium if that had been the case. There’s no wiggle room here to challenge the fact that the IAEA had the place secured up until the invasion.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 11, 2004 06:23 AMThe article didn’t make clear whether all the nuclear materials were recovered, or whether some remains unaccounted for.
But this does at least seriously erode the “no WMD” critique of the invasion, if not fully eliminate it. The capability to produce “dirty bombs” with it was there, and “dirty bombs” are WMD. Question is, was the intention there, and was that intention documented?
Some clues can be garnered from Saddam’s radio addresses over the course of the years following the first Gulf War:
“Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?”
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
“[W]hen peoples reach the verge of collective death, they will be able to spread death to all…”
Al-Jumhuriyah, October 4, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)
“[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them.”
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)
“One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.”
Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)
“Although Iraq’s options are limited, they exist…Iraq’s present state is that of a wounded tiger. Its blow could be painful, even if it is the last blow…”
Al-Quds Al-‘Arabi, June 9, 1995 (State-controlled newspaper)
“[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store.”
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996
“If [other Arab nations] persist on pursuing their wrongful path, then we should — or rather we must — place the swords of jihad on their necks…”
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999
“Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner…Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values.”
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999
“[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory.”
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999
“Whoever continues to be involved in a despicable aggressive war against the people of Iraq as a subservient party must realize that this aggressive act has a dear price.”
Saddam Hussein, February 16, 1999
“What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds.”
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)
“[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means…”
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)
“The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world.”
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001
“The real perpetrators [of Terrible Tuesday] are within the collapsed buildings.”
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
“[Terrible Tuesday was] God’s punishment.”
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
“If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?”
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
“The simple truth [about Terrible Tuesday] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world.”
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)
“[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything…”
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
“The United States must get a taste of its own poison…”
Babil, October 8, 2001
========
Source:
Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs
========
One could say, at the very least, that the Baathist regime remained hostile and made threats.
Posted by: Ciggy at July 11, 2004 10:25 AMCiggy: No, this does not erode the no WMDs critique of the invasion. We knew Saddam had this nuclear material, it was sealed away, fully accounted for, and carefully monitored by the UN to prevent its use in any weapons programs. (Oops, there goes the myth of the UN being completely useless, I guess.) There was absolutely no danger to anyone from this material until we invaded and failed to secure the sites from the looting which occurred after our invasion. This is not the secret WMDs or secret WMD-making material that it was claimed Saddam possessed.
Posted by: Jarin at July 11, 2004 12:06 PMCiggy, I don’t understand your point. Saddam hated America and, in blusterous addresses to his people, encouraged them to hate America, too. He made empty threats towards us. What does that prove? First, this isn’t news. And second, it doesn’t prove his ability to deliver on any of the threats.
> The capability to produce “dirty bombs” with
> it was there, and “dirty bombs” are WMD.
The “dirty bomb” angle is a red herring. First, everyone knew that he had unrefined nuclear material - this was never under debate. Half the countries in the world have such nuclear material, thus half the world has the ability to make dirty bombs, including some countries that are full of people who hate us as much as Saddam (including, say, Saudi Arabia where most of the September 11 hijackers came from and thus could deliver on threats like Saddam’s).
Besides, dirty bombs barely count as WMDs, actually. They don’t do all that much more damage than a regular bomb. Not that the USA and the international community shouldn’t be fundamentally concerned with nuclear proliferation, but we should realize that a Saddam in posession of spent nuclear material is about .1% more dangerous than a Saddam without such material.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 11, 2004 01:18 PMBy the way, that link I included above is really scary. When I wrote that dirty bombs don’t do all that much more damage than a regular bomb, I was merely speaking of deaths. The economic damage can be staggering.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 11, 2004 01:33 PMCF,
He made empty threats towards us
And CIA had the notion they weren’t just empty. This, due to post-9/11 jitters. Human nature.
If John O’Neill had been wrong about Al Qaeda and we did a preemptive strike against Afghanistan, the same sound and fury would have erupted. The “being wrong” part is extremely tragic, and intelligence is not an exact science. You don’t get to use the DNA gimmick like in criminal investigation.
On the other hand, that’s also an argument for remaining “reactive” rather than “proactive” in our defense posture. Just wait until there actually IS a strike, and then there’s no denying that the capability and intention were there, by whatever nation it was that wielded it. Then the country is more united in going out for some payback and we wouldn’t have all this infighting like we’re seeing right now.
Calling a dirty bomb WMD is like calling a candle stadium lighting. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had about 70,000 deaths each with an almost equal number of subsequent deaths due to radiation. A dirty bomb can in no way cause comparable mass destruction.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 13, 2004 09:09 AMSo how come the site wasn’t immediately put under guard? If the site was known to the UN and (presumably) to us, why wasn’t it immediately secured when we invaded, or even before we invaded?
If Bush invaded Iraq because of concerns over WMD proliferation, he really dropped the ball. Can one of you conservatives please let us know how that happened? Was it ignorance or incompetence? Thanks!
I am confused over how anyone can claim the spend nuclear material was secured by the UN. A 24 hour security camera and a lock on door? Seems like it didn’t work so swell in North Korea. If Saddan decided to turn off the cameras, break the seal, and use the spend material in a dirty bomb attack, how would the UN have prefented this?
Also, I find it amusing that liberals are claiming dirty bombs are not WMD, and are minimizing their potential damage. At the same time our nation’s nuclear power capability is falsely degraded by liberal horror stories. Saddam Hussein with spent nuclear fuel is only .1% more dangerous, so using that analogy wouldn’t nuclear power in the U.S. safe?
Posted by: appleguy at July 14, 2004 07:06 PMIronically, a combination of nuclear power and hydrogen fuel generation could very quickly get us independant of any oil at all, let alone foreign oil. We could perhaps continue to pump it to see to European pseudoallies, just out of spite.
But it seems the groundwork has been laid to convince the left that nuclear energy is totally safe and harmless and perfect. Excellent. (If need be we can always say France does it.)
Posted by: Ciggy at July 15, 2004 03:03 PMHey Ciggy,
The only problem I have with nuclear power is waste security and storage. It’s a problem now, and a rapid expansion of facilities will make it even more critical that a long-term solution is found.
Also, after the Three Mile Island incident, safety at the existing plants got really good. But I read recently where it’s slacked off again. A review of saftey systems, procedures, and monitoring might be a good idea, too.
In an effort to avoid another hack-job like Bush’s post-invasion “plan” for Iraq, how about a little thought up front on this issue.
I’m also not averse to the latest clean coal plants and expanding domestic natural gas production.
appleguy,
If Saddan decided to turn off the cameras, break the seal, and use the spend material in a dirty bomb attack, how would the UN have prefented this?
Bomb the crap out of the site, like Clinton did in 1998. The same thing should have happened in North Korea.
Bush puzzles me. The Chinese forced him to apologize when their jet fighter rammed our spy plane in international air space. He’s constantly telling Taiwan to pipe down so as not to rile up the Chinese. He won’t act unilaterally against North Korea’s nuclear facilities - I’m guessing for fear of Chinese retaliation.
What I’m getting at is, I thought Bush was Mr. Tough Guy. Yet every time the Chinese say boo! - no matter how critical the issue is to our national security - he jumps. Is it the billions of dollars in trade his campaign donors do in China? Is our military no match for the Chinese army? I don’t get it.
AF, I understand you didn’t intend to fight a straw man on my behalf, but I am not averse to safety inspections and standards for nuclear power plants. But a large viable electrical power generation capability will be needed to supply hydrogen fuel. That’s all.
When it comes to China, yes, China is a huge economic pie for Bush’s buddies. It’s like Halliburton cubed.
