The US, The UN and Iraq

Just to play Devil's Advocate here,

Fitting even a crude, low-yield-high-radiation device, with either autonomously timed or remote detonation provision, into a standard shipping container would be no big deal. Given the skill and ingenuity of mere criminal smugglers, a governmental entity should face no insurmountable obstacle to surreptitiously getting such a container aboard a ship of compelling unremarkableness. Such a scenario is no more or less feasible than slamming passenger-laden civilian airliners into commercial and governmental landmarks.



timber

Timber

Absolutely, it's the delivery nightmare I envision as well. But the stretch to conceive of Iraq perpetrating this is huge (though Tantor will helpfully fill it in with all the invisibles he's certain of).

It seems to me the following statements are so, but point me if you see something amiss.

First, he can't threaten, even suggest he might do it, because he knows the sure consequence of such a communication.

For the same reason, he will surely know he can't do it (in any pre-emptive way) for the same reason. If the US is hot for war now, the loss of Miami wouldn't not likely make them less eager.

He can't use it on Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Israel for same reasons.

He seems to me to be constrained precisely by the the same circumstances as Soviets/US during the cold war - MAD.

I don't succumb easily to arguments that Sadaam is Personality Type X, if only because those same arguments were made about Kruschev (etc), Soviet intelligence, and the Soviet military personnel. This sort of demonization is just a predictable part of the black-PR game. A few years ago Sadaam was a good guy, now he's a bad guy. These moves aren't difficult to predict.

The only sane, moral solution is to call in the warmongers, bring about a civil atmosphere and spend the money on creating a safe world and ridding it of terrorists. Anybody can deliver the system that timber describes if they want. Right now saddam is being watched - let it be forever with ever increasing diligence. Put the cameras back up and watch, watch, watch. It is far cheaper.

Bill W

I agree with this strategy. But I would suggest it is more likely to be cheaper not so importantly in terms of dollars (which, of course, Lockheed Martin would be unpleased regarding) but cheaper in terms of human life.

The prospect which I truly consider possible is the further, perhaps irreconcilable, enmity between the Muslim world and the west. There are any number of historical examples of such enmity parading down through generation after generation.

Aside from the dangers to every person in every mall in the west, are the probably social consequences for ourselves and our liberties in such an eventuality - cameras everywhere, police everywhere with powers that won't promote liberty, and a militarization of governance and civic life under a constant state of 'war'.

blatham, You, sir, hit the nail on the head. If we 'force' a peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, the Arab world will rejoice, and the US will no longer be looked upon as the boogeyman that supports only one side. I fear, however, that this administration and congresss will remain myopic, and not see why the US is distrusted and hated by the Arab world. c.i.

blatham, again, just Devil's Advocate speaking here, but Sadaam, or any other suitably capable and motivated despot, for that matter, need not necessarily make any overt threat or claim of responsibility regarding a nuke attack. To my perception, just the opposite could well be the case. Such an event could have immediate popularity, as an Allah-Directed blow against the infidel, in "The Arab Street". Just being on the side most benefitted by such an event gives Sadaam considerable currency ... he can strut proudly among his fellows, rightiously proclaiming solidarity with those waging Jihad against The Hated Crusaders while disclaiming complicity in or foreknowledge of the specific event. The nature of nuclear explosions being as it is, there would be small likelyhood of physical evidence being recovered from the immediate vicinity of the blast's point of origin. Were the ship to be closely berthed in a crowded harbor it could well be impossible to determine absolutely which ship had carried the device. None of this even takes into consideration the possibility the device could by rail, other ship, or truck, be moved from a port to a suitable inland target ... say, Chicago, Toronto, or Omaha. It would be relatively safe and potentially quite profitable for Sadaam, or some one else, to take such a stand, effectively leaving the injured party no clear and certain target for retribution. Such a situation would be a clear "Victory" for "The Other Side", at least from their point of view.



timber (who really should use spellcheck before posting)

I'm not so certain of that, c.i. ... as I recall, The Romans tried that approach a couple millenia ago with but rather qualified success.



timber

timber, The only problem I see is the size of a nuke weapon. How does Saddam get this bulk transferred to the US via what country or countries? We're not talking suitcase size bombs. c.i.

timber, you could take your entire response of a moment ago and remove Sadaam's name, completely - and it still makes full, complete sense.

c.i.

Standard Shipping Containers are essentially Cargo Trailers without wheels. A container could be as much as 45' X 10' X 10' empty steel box, with a weight capacity of a couple dozen tons. They are dropped onto wheeled frames and hauled by Large Commercial Road Tractors ("18 Wheelers") or onto railroad boxcars for inland transport. Plenty to accommodate a huge amount of relatively unsophisticated physics.



timber

Tantor

Yes, again. I understand that the forensic trail is the soft part of my argument.

Yet I don't think it terminal. You sound like you probably have a much better grasp than I of extant (and soon to evolve) intelligence capabilities with which to penetrate Sadaam's circle, even if no UN presence in the country - but of course there is no reason to assume the UN isn't there and very active.

But the more telling point, I think, is who might Sadaam preen in front of, given the need for absolute secrecy about his involvement? More likely he'd follow Stalin's model and just kill everyone in sight who might spill the beans.

Your point about the rah rah from elements in the Muslim world argues, I think, mostly for my position that the west's strategy must be in the direction of reconciliation and compromise and shared wealth and peace.

The ultimate madness is that such madness makes horrifying sense.



timber

Agreed!

timber, Anything that big coming out of Iraq will be trailed and traced to its final destination, but probably more likely stopped in transit before its destination. c.i.

One would hope so, but just about ANYTHING coming out of or going into ANYWHERE travels in Standard Shipping Containers. They are ubiquitous, may be relatively anonymous, and are most certainly globally mobile. That is their function.



timber

timber, That may be true of most international trading companies that ship trade goods in those shipping containers, but anything that BIG is too obvious not to miss coming out of Iraq. I'm sure we have spy planes and satellites flying around taking mucho photos of anything suspicious going on in Iraq. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. c.i.

c.i., I understand what you are saying, but ANYTHING can be and is transported in Standard Shipping Containers ... from Farm Product to Furniture. Even in Iraq, they are the "Unit of Shipment", comprisng if not the bulk at least a sizeable portion of ALL Rail and Truck transportation. In Bagdad and Basrah alone, there are thousands of them. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about them, making them the perfect place to "Hide Something In Plain Sight". I, among many others (including the International Shipping Community), am terrified by the prospect.



timber

timber, HOw many of those shipping containers cross borders, and into what countries? Will those countries accept those containers from Iraq without knowing what's in them? Are they inspected at all if they come out of Iraq? Which country(s) will take responsibility to act as middleman for Iraq without knowing what it contains? I'm sure the US has some rules and regulations concerning these matters. If they don't, they should. c.i.

Here's a link on the UN Regulations on Iraq:

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/U-2/SOR-90-531/text.html

Tell us which countries are going to risk helping Iraq?


c.i.

Multiply large nuclear devices could be suspended by cables in all direction in various chambers of a supertanker then surrounded by oil and shipped to the destination of your choice - of course, on the coast. Yes, we are very, very vulnerable!