posted on February 24, 2001 10:06:30 PM new
I'm sorry I don't know how to shorten this link. If someone wants to tell me how I'll go back in and edit it.
According to this UK article there is pretty strong evidence that Saddam has two fully operational nuclear bombs. I never know whether to believe this kind of thing... is it spin to justify the recent actions of the U.S. and U.K. - or is it fact?
If the U.S. and U.K. actually have proof of this then I can't think of any reasonable excuse not to take some kind of immediate action... and not by just blowing up a few communication sights. What are they waiting for? Does he have to actually use one before they'll act... maybe on Isreal.
A partial quote from the UK article:
[i]The principal source of the new evidence about Saddam's nuclear programme is a
former military engineer, known as "Leone", who says he worked for a special scientific
department of the Republican Palace in Baghdad, which supervised the development of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
His claim is corroborated by a scientist from another branch of the weapons programme
and by Abbas al-Janabi, a former personal assistant to Uday Hussein. "A nuclear test was carried out in 1988 or 1989 in an underground site beside Lake Rezzaza," said Janabi, who claimed to have been in the test cavern before the explosion. Satellite images from 1989 show a huge tunnel at the site.
Last month, another former engineer from the weapons programme, now in hiding, said Saddam had two "fully operational" nuclear bombs.[/i]
posted on February 24, 2001 10:14:42 PM new
That story is very unlikely to be true. In 1981 Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor to prevent just such an occurrence, and they would do it in 5 minutes again today if he was *that* close to nuclear capability. Simply put, Israel cannot tolerate Iraq having nukes and would have already acted, long before Iraqi "sources" told their story to the Sunday Times. The story posits that they carried out a successful test in 1989. It's hard to see how. I'm just not buying it.
posted on February 24, 2001 10:17:52 PM new
I was actually just reading an article earlier that says that Iraq is 3 years away from nuclear capablities.
posted on February 24, 2001 10:35:37 PM new
I thought the 1989 test seemed far-fetched too. It sure seems impossible, IMO.
I read your article - It sets a completely different tone then the U.K. one. The big question for me is - who's lying and why? I mean did Saddam's defectors make this up or is the whole story false?
Another chilling quote from the U.K. report:
[i]Israel's prime minister-elect, Ariel Sharon, is expected to warn Colin Powell, the visiting American secretary of state, during talks today that the region may slide into war. Powell, who was in Egypt yesterday, urged Arab countries to join America in countering the threat posed by Saddam.
Israeli military sources say that Sharon has ordered Shaul Mofaz, the chief of staff, to prepare the army for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq's missile launch zone, which is close to its border with Syria.
Resurrecting and developing plans from the Gulf war, Sharon threatens to deploy tactical neutron bombs to "wipe out" the launch zone in the event that intelligence reports say a non-conventional weapons attack by Iraq is imminent, according to the sources.
Sources close to Sharon say he will tell Powell that Israel would not sit still and wait for Iraqi missiles to rain down on its towns, as it did in the 1991 Gulf war in reponse to American requests for restraint.[/i]
It sounds to me like Isreal is preparing the U.S. and U.K. for whatever action they take - and, that they'll be acting soon.
posted on February 24, 2001 10:41:50 PM new
The reason I think the Times report isn't factual is because I read enough Israeli sources that it's unlikely that not one of them would have picked up on this "story" but the Times gets the scoop. It's like, do I believe the deep anlyses quoting specific high-ranking IDF officers that I always read, or a casual article in the Sunday Times?
posted on February 24, 2001 11:04:21 PM newJamesO Good point. I rarely read Isreali publications. I just can't imagine why they would report something like this if there isn't at least some truth to it... Either the paper is lying or the informers are.
posted on February 24, 2001 11:06:18 PM new
With international intelligence, it is just as important what is not said, what is denied, and how it is denied.
Certain things will not be formally recognized - such as exactly who has nuclear capabilities besides the security council countries recognized as nuclear powers.
Israel will not wait for a first strike against them, nor will they permit their sworn enemies to have massive strike capabilities.
Iraq and Iran would both love to have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, there are countries willing to sell them the technology.
China has been aiding Iraq with more than fiber optics. Clinton blasting their embassy was a warning and not an accident.
An arab state with nuclear capabilities will destabilze the entire region, with effects felt around the world. Whichever state gets the weapons, all the rest will come under its control- including the oil supply.
A country with nuclear weapons becomes like a porcupine - it can not be touched with conventional forces - unless we want to risk major loss of life to our armed forces. A nuclear power will command a new prospect and position on the world stage.
I should hope Israel acts before it is too late !!
