The US, The UN and Iraq

I wish I could share your optimism, c.i., but I can't. Very little of anything that crosses international borders travels by any other method than container. There are safeguards, of course, but not every container is examined. Drugs, arms, stolen or embargoed goods, and even human beings are routinely and without incident transported thus ... even into and out of Iraq.



timber

You're probably right, but the mathematical odds of such a thing happening, in my humble estimation, is almost zilch. If Saddam is able to develop one bomb, not tested, where will he use it? Ship it all the way to the US, or use it closer to home, like in Israel? c.i.

Israel already warned Saddam, that they will retaliate with everything they have in their arsenal. It's almost a sure way to commit suicide for Saddam. c.i.

Here's another scenario: If Israel is hit with any WOMD, they are going to blame Saddam whether he's responsible or not. It's a losing proposition for Saddam any way you cut it. c.i.

c.i., unless Saddam is about to lose it anyway! hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The issue of a nuclear warhead or even large amounts of radioactive material being sent anywhere is a bit of a red herring. It can and would be picked up in any surface ship. The only way to avoid detection of any large quantity would be to send it on the ocean floor and Iraq doesn't have a transatlantic submarine capability thusfar.

Small quantities (a few kilograms) could concievably be smuggled in proximity to the US mainland and could be used to do a relatively large amount of damage from a terrorist perspective.

love red herring with a little bit of sarcasm sauce, get my fill everyday

and i am pretty sure we still have some ICMB's hanging around, wouldn't want to waste them. um lets see, Rummy says that ship with them scuds no matter where they are going aren't going to get there. but along comes Powell and he says well um, ain't no laws broken here and its legit to sell them scuds if they want to, and Bush says doh does Korea have nukulears? and then S Korea tells Bush to butt out they are trying to make nice with N Korea. but Lott shows up and everyone has forgotten what page of the agenda they are on. oops more resignations showing up under the door. looks like we live in interesting times. just my opinion, i might be wrong.

Wouldn't it be ironic, if Saddam does send a nuke to Israel, and it's a dud - except it's a high explosive bomb? Israel retaliates with a nuke that works...... c.i.

Now, don't get me wrong here, fishin' ... I just have a different take on the issue.

"A few kilograms" of suitably rich fissile material will suffice nicely for a weapon with destructive power equal to or in excess of the weapons used against Japan. Even with shielding adequate to mask the reaction mass from all but the most specific detection, a suitable device not much lbigger than a minivan easily may be postulated, and, if effected, readily transported in a Standard Container. The behemoth electronic circuits which comprised so much of the bulk of the "Manhattan Project Devices" can now be replicated in solid-state modules that would not strain a shirtpocket. I believe less than 10kg of weapon-grade plutionium can be made to surrender a multi-kiloton yield ... pretty scary stuff.



timber

You wouldn't be able to get that much weapons grade material over (and I doubt Iraq has that much weapons grade material if they have any at all..). It would have to be low grade material (aka "dirty bomb quality") and when I say a few I mean 2 or 3 at most. The type of container and method of transport would be irrelevant. The US built systems to track nuclear material and deployed thousands of sensors so that our Navy could track Soviet nuclear ships/subs and our AF could track Soviet bombers carrying nuclear bombs. They'd have to get the radiation levels below the detection thresholds of those sensors to get it moved very far. It may not be an impossible feat but I'd guess they'd have to send several hundred shipments to hope one gets through.

I might be a bit behind in the discussion here, but I'll post consecutively.

ci

Here in Vancouver, we get god knows how many containers landing on our docks each day. Plus more via rail from the other coast. Plus more via truck. I'm not sure what percentage of containers undergo any check at all, or some cursory check, but it's not high. So lots of stuff sneaks in already...heroin and people, for example (and out, eg stolen Mercedes).

Your situation down south will be many multiples larger. And sender address wouldn't be Iraq anyway. Easy enough to reroute via other countries as is done with commodities mentioned above.

Adding here too...

I think fishin is correct, if a point he might add is that nukes are not near the top of the list of things coming through our ports or boders that we ought to be wary of.

Nukes would give Saddam Hussein many advantages, all of them bad for the world.

First, it would consolidate his power in Iraq. With a nuke, the threshhold for bad behavior is raised considerably in Iraq before outside powers would intervene. It is probably raised so high nobody would dare intervene.

Second, it would probably inspire him to take Kuwait again. Who is going to risk a nuclear war over Kuwait? I don't think America would. There probably isn't a pound of American support for the Kuwaiti ingrates who have occupied themselves lately in drive by shootings of our troops, the same troops who saved them from a brutal occupation well within living memory. My guess is that we would just write Kuwait off.

Third, Saddam is likely to take Saudi Arabia. He tried it once during the Gulf War, weakly. The Saudis have little inclination to defend themselves. I doubt America would have any sympathy for the evil Saudis being slaughtered by the forces of evil Saddam. We are not going to risk a nuke to save Mecca. We would just write Saudi Arabia off.

The oil revenues from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would rebuild Saddam's war machine and increase its research, development, and production of weapons of mass destruction. It's control of a large portion of the world's oil supply would also give it a strong voice in OPEC, allowing it to dominate the other oil producing nations and influence the price of oil to promote its agenda.

After the consolidation of Greater Iraq, there would be a real threat of a nuclear confrontation with Israel, which has an arsenal of two hundred nukes which it would use without hesitation to defend itself. Israel may make the cold calculation to launch a preemptive nuclear strike if it sees a hostile Iraq preparing to attack it. One is reminded that Saddam has happily launched missiles at Israel during the Gulf War to gain popularity with the Arab world. One of Saddam's army units is named something along the lines of "On To Jerusalem".

Once the nukes start flying, nothing good will happen.

In general, Saddam with nukes does not improve the world.

There is also the possibility that Saddam delivers a nuke to America. Perhaps it sails into New York harbor on board a noname steamer and flattens Manhattan. Maybe it is smuggled across the Mexican border on the drug smuggling routes. Maybe it comes from Canada on a fishing boat. Maybe Saddam smuggles a half dozen into America and sets them off on the Fourth of July, one every four hours, in different cities.

We would not necessarily know who dunnit. It could be Iraq. Could be North Korea. Could be Iran. The blast will wipe away a lot of the evidence.

I can't think of any good outcome derived from Saddam having nukes. None. Can you?

Tantor

blatham, fishin', I'll grant the possibility may be remote, but it is not inconsiderable. From a technical standpoint, there are no physical obstacles to such an undertaking, but there are substantial practical considerations which would complicate its execution. A sizeable strike force of inconspicuous, pre-symptomatic individuals, infected with or without their own knowledge and consent with some virulent disease, could deplane within hours of one another at airports damned near anywhere on the globe.

Now, I'm not saying"The Sky Is Falling", here. I just think it wise to remember that the most propitious way to gain an advantage over an enemy likely is to gain the element of surprise. I fully expect our adversaries to do the unexpected, or at least attempt such. Currently, the collective "Bad Guys" have a bit of an advantage here; they have a clearly focused aiming point for their hostility ... and that target is us. We have a vague, amorphous, stateless enemy we have been able to identify no more specifically than "Terrorism". An enemy with no flag is a difficult thing for Western Civilization to understand and come to grips with in any effective manner.



timber

timberlandko- Do you have a bug in my house? My husband and I had been discussing just that possibility a couple of weeks ago. I don't think that these people would be infected without their knowledge. Remember, the terrorists think that they are doing a moral act by dying in support of their cause!

LOL! No, just "An ear to the ground", I like to think.



timber

Phoenix says:



That is exactly the problem we have with this entire situation. Now, how do we go about showing a significant minority of the Islamic population that what they are doing is really immoral?

The Japanese did not realize until well after WWII that kamikaze attacks were immoral; Trent Lott did not learn until Sunday night that "segregation" is immoral. The world turns!

Timber, your point on infectious disease is valid IMO. I was speaking only of nukes - not other "WOMD".

blatham - Looking for nukes certianly isn't a top priority for law enforcement and it was a "back burner" issue for the military. The systems are there and have been running for better than 20 years and I'm quite sure they've gotten heightened attention since 9/11 but this is one of several thousand systems looking for one of several thousand possibilities. Determing which threat is at the top of the list has to be decided hour by hour. Until 9/11 the aircraft scenario wasn't very high on the list.

This is one of the problems government's have to deal with. Post 9/11 people wondered why the airports didn't have better security. "How could this happen?" The general public assumes that every possibility is covered in multiple layers of security but seldom considers just how hard that actually is to do.

BillW, But, the kamikaze pilots themselves were not aware of any moral imperative except dying for the emperor and country was an honor. c.i.