Nuclear Saddam?

[Sdug]

Hi,
I am currently working on my senior project in which I need to prove that Saddam Hussein had the capabilty to make nuclear weapons. I have tried to follow all the events in the middle east since before 9-11 and have always believed that Saddam was a problem. It bothers me that schools are so ready to declare that he was never a threat and didn't have the capability or the will to create nuclear weapons.

I am courious as to how the people who have been there feel about Saddam's nuclear agenda.

Thank-you for any insight you have.

[Papa Smurf]

Read up on Operation Opera...

Iraq was within weeks of bringing their reactor online when the Israeli military struck the reactor site. The Iraqi military had the technology as far back as the early 1980's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

[RetPara]

Here's a good what if for you.... Consider the future if we HAD NOT invaded Iraq in 2003. Saddam dies from a heart attack in 2011, his son Uday takes control of government as heir apparent when his brother Qusay dies in a helicopter crash on the way to his fathers death bed..... Read up on the brothers. They were a nuclear option in themselves.

[bmbsqd]

Also consider that Iran was already well on the road to their nuclear program. Had Iraq not been "taken care of" and SH was still in power, the potential would be enormous. The world would be dealing with two Arab countries, border enemies, racing to achieve nuclear weapons on their own, and likely hard in the market to buy one on the side to be "one up" on the other country across the border. This would have also meant that Syria would have to be in the game.

Remember, SH felt compelled to lie about his WMD, nuke, bio and chem (and fool the world in the process...to his own peril) so Iran would think Iraq was more of an aversary. Even though SH was being lied to by his generals, he thought he he was moving ahead.

What we could have had was Iran, Iraq and Syria each trying to get a nuke...or somehow actually having one by now (production or purchase). What we have is basically Iran getting close, but Syria likely nowhere near it, and Iraq no longer in the game.

Look at what just happened on the border where Iran came over and took the oil well in the disputed area. Imagine if from 2003 to today, SH was still working on his goals....that sort of situation could have been real ugly!

[The Fat Guy]

This was not the only shipment of YC uranium taken out of Iraq,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml

Thank God there were no WMD's

[Johan]

I would change topic of your paper some amount.

You are playing 'down' by arguing that Iraq was capable of nuclear weapon manufacture.

Presence of WMD was never primary justification for invasion of Iraq according to official declarations by US Government. That 'presence of WMD' was allowed to become focal point in media is a failure by US Government in my opinion.

The true principle- that Iraq had technology and industrial base to eventually field nuclear weapon and delivery system, and all of decision power was with 1 man. By comparison- at most hot moment of 'Cold war', 1 person in Soviet Union could not authorize launch of nuclear weapon. There was chain of command, etc.

You should also focus on principle that it is foolish to wait until WMD and delivery system are present before action. Preemptive action is best course with WMD and delivery system under control of 'rogue' entity.

In your paper I would argue that decision for war is with Hussein. He is required to fully comply with inspection, and he does not. At this point, it would be irresponsible for Western Nation to not remove him from power. He has shown that he cannot be trusted to be stable in framework of international relation. 1 thermonuclear weapon and delivery system and he threatens Saudi Arabia oil supply, and has power to destabilize global economy. He also threatens any assembly areas for military forces that are to be used against him at the strategic level.

"Where are the WMD!?" is dishonest question.

Regards,

[HARLEYMAN]

[QUOTE=Johan;1238878]
. 1 thermonuclear weapon and delivery system and he threatens Saudi Arabia oil supply, and has power to destabilize global economy.


He might have slipped one in on us.

[LRS Guy]

Read "Bomb in my Garden"....I think that's the title. It was by one of Saddam's top nuke scientists. Saddam wanted the bomb, wanted everyone to think he had the bomb, eventually he would have tried like hell if he could have gotten the world's attention off of his regime.

Saddam while a ruthless tyrant at home, was not that good at playing the games of world power. Hence Castro, Syria's Assad, Kaddiefi and many other dictator's are still playing on the world's stage......and Saddam is worm food.

[Typhoon]

Read "Bomb in my Garden"....I think that's the title.
Yes, that is the book. The author is Mahdi Obedi, a U.S. educated Iraqi scientist forced by Saddam to work in his nuclear program...

[stanpunjabTrini]

Hi,
I am currently working on my senior project in which I need to prove that Saddam Hussein had the capabilty to make nuclear weapons. I have tried to follow all the events in the middle east since before 9-11 and have always believed that Saddam was a problem. It bothers me that schools are so ready to declare that he was never a threat and didn't have the capability or the will to create nuclear weapons.

I am courious as to how the people who have been there feel about Saddam's nuclear agenda.

Thank-you for any insight you have.

The facts are as follows:
1. There were no WMDs found
2. The impetus for going into Iraq was 'bogus'
3. There were plans to invade Iraq at least 3 years previous to the invasion
4. There were attempts to buy/ and obtain nuclear scientists to develop said programme.

That being said, Saddam was a nuisance, he attempted to bully his neighbours, he forced the hand of the geater community with his chemical arsenal in Iran and the Halabja Kurd incursion. He may not have been a problem in the greater sense but he continued to thumb his nose even after he was beat back from Kuwait. You will to examine the details and decide for yourself the degree of threat Saddam was and state it in your conclusion.

If even Saddam had the capability to make nuclear weapons, that in itself, means nothing. If you take Iran, that would be a different matter because they have stated that they will destroy Israel and that is their MO for creating nuclear weapons. Now they have revised that but saying it is for energy usage! Good luck.

[Ralphie]

3. There were plans to invade Iraq at least 3 years previous to the invasion

Just to put that in proper context for Sdug and avoid erroneous inferences, there are plans to invade everywhere...that's why they're called contingency plans. We would be remiss in not developing them ahead of time.

[KidA]

Hi,
I am currently working on my senior project in which I need to prove that Saddam Hussein had the capabilty to make nuclear weapons. I have tried to follow all the events in the middle east since before 9-11 and have always believed that Saddam was a problem. It bothers me that schools are so ready to declare that he was never a threat and didn't have the capability or the will to create nuclear weapons.

I am courious as to how the people who have been there feel about Saddam's nuclear agenda.

Thank-you for any insight you have.

Old news. Write a paper on why we allow NKorea to develop them instead.

[Matchanu]

The facts are as follows:
1. There were no WMDs found

Well, no massive amounts anyway, nor in the context we were all thinking (when I say all, I mean all of the varous intel agencies).



2. The impetus for going into Iraq was 'bogus'
.

Not really. If you count in all of the factors for the invasion, it wasn't bogus at all, in fact, justified.

The WMD argument got the most press and play. UN resolutions should have been on the forfront.

Everyone wanted to see something tangible, when it wasn't produced, it was a gigantic "uhh ohh". Nothing else was even considered after that.

[Matchanu]

Old news. Write a paper on why we allow NKorea to develop them instead.

Cause I'm so ronrey.

[heavyguns1/1]

I think that people consider WMDs and nukes on the same level as ours. Our technology would probably be difficult to match, making what Saddam had not as potent as ours, but deadly nevertheless. Just because Iraq's nerve agents could only kill a few thousand people at a time and not millions doesn't make them less than a WMD.
President Bush stated a fairly lengthy list of legit reasons that justified military force in Iraq.
President Bush also caught hell from the left for not directly addressing North Korea. I'm sure that President Obama is working on that.

[Typhoon]

Just because Iraq's nerve agents could only kill a few thousand people at a time and not millions doesn't make them less than a WMD.
As I understand it the figure of Iranians killed by gas during the Iraq-Iran war may be much higher than what is known by the outside world. First because the combat took place in remote areas where there was little or no observation by outsiders; and second because the Iranians tried to hide the gas casualties from their own people until it became apparent that the outside world sympathized with the Iranian victims...

[JumpCut]

The facts are as follows:
1. There were no WMDs found
2. The impetus for going into Iraq was 'bogus'
3. There were plans to invade Iraq at least 3 years previous to the invasion
4. There were attempts to buy/ and obtain nuclear scientists to develop said programme.


The Boeing 707 parked in Salman Pak was used to train hijackers starting around 1995. This was reason enough to attack. Saddam knew of the camp, allowed it to exist and most likely financed it.

But as Match mentioned, the 'main' reason for the invasion (WMDs) took center stage and was therefore the 'only' reason once the anti-Bush media got their teeth into it. Never mind the UN sanctions, yellow cake, gassed Kurds, etc.

[Papa Smurf]

The facts are as follows:
1. There were no WMDs found
2. The impetus for going into Iraq was 'bogus'
3. There were plans to invade Iraq at least 3 years previous to the invasion
4. There were attempts to buy/ and obtain nuclear scientists to develop said programme.


In the early 1960's Iraq was poised to attach Kuwait. It was prevented by the British. Saddam, then a no-body, protested - claiming the government had no backbone. He was thrown in prison for his civil actions. While in prison the POS earned a degree in criminal law, got a retrial, won his freedom, then started on a path of destruction the likes of which Stalin and Hitler would have been proud.

By the mid 1970's it was clear to the world he would at some time have to be dealt with; however, no one in the middle east made a move out of fear.

By 1979 Iraq had the 4th largest army on the freakin' planet only behind China, Russia, and the US. Saddam selected several brigades and created his own personal 'Republican Guard" and equipped them with the latest military technology from the Soviet Union and France. To prove his military might he authorized the execution of Kurdish villages with gas, then had his scientists calculate ways to improve the quality of the mix to kill more with less...

Saddam used the war with Iran as a testing ground for the new French Mirage fighters and Soviet T series tanks. Oh, and lets not forget the SA2 & SA7 anti-aircraft missles. SCUDS, and a host of every other freakin' weapon he could get his hands on.

Now that you have just a glimpse of what he did with the weapons at his disposal, WTF do you think he would have done once he secured the means to assemble a nuclear arsenal???

Had the US not stepped on his dick in 1990, try to imagine what the Arab world would look like today.

The US did not take the threat lightly - and while to the world a WMD equates to a nuke - to the US it equates to any war machine capable of destroying an entire civilization, which is exactly what he had amassed. Call it low-tech, the outcome would have been the same.

Just remember, the atomic bomb on Hiroshima killed an estimated 150,000 but at the same time so did the fire bombings of Tokyo.

The leaders of the US had hindsight into his previous activities and the foresight to prevent another Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot/ Armageddon makin' POS...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing :cool:

[IrishSoldier]

The facts are as follows:
1. There were no WMDs found


2. The impetus for going into Iraq was 'bogus'
3. There were plans to invade Iraq at least 3 years previous to the invasion
4. There were attempts to buy/ and obtain nuclear scientists to develop said programme.
.

Actually cyclosarin was found. Although the rounds were from the Iran/Iraq war, they were still prohibited WMD's according to the U.N.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-02-poland-iraq_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

[stanpunjabTrini]

Sdug stated I have tried to follow all the events in the middle east since before 9-11 and have always believed that Saddam was a problem. It bothers me that schools are so ready to declare that he was never a threat and didn't have the capability or the will to create nuclear weapons.

I am courious as to how the people who have been there feel about Saddam's nuclear agenda.

Now you have 1/2 of what you were looking for! Just choose the worldview that fit the agenda you are following and back it up with objective criteria based on the above referenced links!

[Purple36]

Also consider that Iran was already well on the road to their nuclear program. Had Iraq not been "taken care of" and SH was still in power, the potential would be enormous. The world would be dealing with two Arab countries, border enemies, racing to achieve nuclear weapons on their own, and likely hard in the market to buy one on the side to be "one up" on the other country across the border. This would have also meant that Syria would have to be in the game.

Remember, SH felt compelled to lie about his WMD, nuke, bio and chem (and fool the world in the process...to his own peril) so Iran would think Iraq was more of an aversary. Even though SH was being lied to by his generals, he thought he he was moving ahead.

What we could have had was Iran, Iraq and Syria each trying to get a nuke...or somehow actually having one by now (production or purchase). What we have is basically Iran getting close, but Syria likely nowhere near it, and Iraq no longer in the game.

Look at what just happened on the border where Iran came over and took the oil well in the disputed area. Imagine if from 2003 to today, SH was still working on his goals....that sort of situation could have been real ugly!

Minor point of order: Iranians are not Arabs and don't speak Arabic.

[Jimbo]

Read the following:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
http://www.curveballbook.com/
http://books.google.com/books?id=R3brydgkbg0C&dq=woodward+plan+of+attack&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=2j8wS_7vIY_hlAe_h-mgBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You'll have as many of the answers as can be found without significant first person research. You will also know more about the subject than most officials in Washington, including those who were involved.

[HoosGhost]

Hi,
I am currently working on my senior project in which I need to prove that Saddam Hussein had the capability to make nuclear weapons.

Thank-you for any insight you have.

Unless you have a number of exceptional hard science degrees and are willing to examine both Iraq's nuclear fission program and how such things marry up with a nuclear weapons program, your proposal will be a difficult one. It will require pages upon pages of diagrams and rather dull examination of ground plowed long ago.

I'd rather suggest examining Saddam's rationale behind his WMD program. You can find illuminating links here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm), here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217_pf.html) and here (http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/husseinsaddam.htm). It's applicability in other places -- especially as a motivator to a megalomaniac or paranoid leadership cadre-- would be a far more provoking treatise. And it could be done in about 1000 words.

[Abu Khalil]

Sdug stated

Now you have 1/2 of what you were looking for! Just choose the worldview that fit the agenda you are following and back it up with objective criteria based on the above referenced links!

Far easier to make finds fit facts, in hindsight. Agree.

Nuclear WMD development a no-go for Many years before 2003. Outside current "un-pleasantness" window at minimum. CW based on previous Iran Conflict. BW Threat based upon what "we" wanted to hear, when we wanted to hear it.

OUT