War looms as Saddam flatly refuses to destroy missiles

Bard

It's looking more and more likely that the UN will pass a new resolution allowing the US to be at war with Iraq by St. Patrick's Day.

[ source ]

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has denied in a US television interview that his al-Samoud missiles are in violation of UN disarmament obligations, and has indicated that he does not intend to destroy them, as demanded by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. Conor O'Clery, North America Editor reports from New York

The defiant move from the Iraqi leader, who also challenged President Bush to a televised debate, came on the same day that the US, Spain and Britain tabled a long-awaited resolution at the UN Security Council in New York declaring that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity to disarm.

The text of the preamble to the two sentence draft noted that previous resolutions made clear that failure to co-operate with the UN or make false statements would provoke "serious consequences" - the diplomatic term for military action.

Last week Dr Blix issued an ultimatum to Iraq demanding that it begin destroying by this Saturday all its Al-Samoud missiles, on the grounds that they exceed the UN-permitted range of 150 km (92 miles).

Failure by Iraq to obey the order and destroy the missiles would gravely weaken the case by France and other countries that inspections are working and that the UN should be given more time to achieve disarmament.

Iraqi officials have argued that when the missiles are fitted with guidance systems their range is restricted to the 150 km limit. In an interview with Dan Rather of CBS, Mr Hussein indicated he did not intend to destroy or promise to destroy the missiles, according to CBS news in a press statement.

France, Russia and Germany circulated an alternative plan to pursue a peaceful disarmament of Iraq over at least the next five months. China said it also supports that proposal.

Responding to Saddam Hussein's proposal for a debate, White House spokesman Mr Ari Fleischer dismissed it as "not serious". The new UN resolution was formally presented by British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock on behalf of Spain and the US.

It must have nine "yes" votes and avoid a veto by France, Russia or China. Eleven of the 15 council members have said they want UN weapons inspections to continue.

The resolution recalls that false statements or omissions and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with or co-operate fully in implementing Resolution 1441, passed in November requiring Iraq to disarm, would constitute a "further material breach" of Iraq's obligations.

It notes that Iraq's December 7th weapons declaration contained "false statements and omissions" and asks the council to recognise "the threat Iraq's non-compliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles poses to international peace and security". The resolution then asks that the Security Council "Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded it in resolution 1441 (2002); Decides to remain seized of the matter".

The US will likely bring the resolution to a vote on or shortly after the Security Council meets on March 7th to consider a report from Dr Blix. The resolution does not set any deadlines but the US could invade Iraq at any moment after the council vote, diplomats at the UN said.

US President George Bush said yesterday the resolution "spells out what the world has witnessed in the last months. The Iraqi regime is not disarming." He said "We are going to work with the members of the Security Council in the days ahead to make it clear to Saddam that the demands of the world and the United Nations will be enforced." The US has begun an intensive round of lobbying to get support at the UN.

US Secretary of State Mr Colin Powell urged China yesterday to support the new resolution at meetings with officials in Beijing.

The alternative plan by France, Russia and Germany urges the UN to pursue the peaceful disarmament of Iraq's reputed chemical weapons programmes over a further 120 days after setting Iraq specific tasks. China said it also supports that proposal.

PH01

Didn't expect that. I though that Saddam was smarter that this. And it plays into the hands of the US and it undermines the French position.

So there is going to be parades and war on St. Patrick's Day TV.

gandalf

Cork I deleted your soundbites again, engage in the discussion or you'll be very silent here.

Back on topic. I think this missile problem is creating a dilemma for Iraq. From what I can see and I reckon Saddam can see, even if they destroy the missiles the US are probably going to go in. Therefore I suspect that they are holding on to them as they believe they need them to defend their country.

The other issue here is that these missiles were developed with the permission of the UN weapon inspectors and its only when 25% of them have exceeded their range on testing that this has occured. I would like to know by how much they have exceeded the 150km range, 5 kms, 10kms, 100kms.

Looks like the US have been given their stick to beat the French with. I believe that you guys are right this war will start before Paddys day. Unfortunately I believe we in the West will be paying a very high price in the future to allow US citizens to fill their SUV up with cheap petrol.

Gandalf.

growler

"According to the CIA, the Al-Samoud missile, as designed, is capable of exceeding the UN-permitted 150-km-range restriction with a potential operational range of about 180 kilometers. Once economic sanctions against Iraq are lifted, Baghdad probably will begin converting these efforts into longer range missile systems, unless restricted by future UN monitoring. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm

surely it's academic , if it is 150 km , 250 km whatever not exactly going to pose a threat to the US or UK is it? and they did say that the missile went the extra bit because they werent fitted with their usual tracking / guidance systems. So we go to war to defend israel (the other serial UN resolution ignorer)
I presume Saddam knows the clock is ticking and wants to make some attempt and going out with a bang.

Meanwhile north korea lets everyone know that it has new long range missiles.

Anyone else get the feeling that the war on terror could take the rest of our lives ?

Hobbes

He didn't say he won't destroy them, he hinted at it in a "CBS Interview". Do they have more details from any other sources?

TBH, while I read US papers I'm really starting to take everything from US papers with a pinch of salt. If you were to believe half the crap that seems to be appearing Saddam has nuclear capability in huge tankers just off the shore of Iraq :rolleyes: .

Saddam will more then likely destroy the missiles. After all a war is coming if he doesn't. A war is probably coming if he does, but he's not going to be able hit anything with their range and it would be in his intrests to deal with the UN then the US/UK.

Victor

Originally posted by gandalf
The other issue here is that these missiles were developed with the permission of the UN weapon inspectors and its only when 25% of them have exceeded their range on testing that this has occured. I would like to know by how much they have exceeded the 150km range, 5 kms, 10kms, 100kms.

From http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030221-1633-un-iraq.html

Iraq had declared the results of the missile tests in its semiannual report to U.N. inspectors in October, and again in its 12,000-page weapons declaration on Dec. 7. It said that 13 of the 40 tests went beyond the 93-mile limit, once to 114 miles.

114miles is 183km (+21%). Presumably the difference is in part due to variable quality in the materials used. The stated range was 149km, while statisticly it is possible some of these would go over, this was not permitted.

bonkey

Thanks Victor. I was hoping someone would find the relevant info, cause I didnt have time to look today

What interesting here is that the Iraqi's did include this information in their declaration and yet we still hear people telling us that this is proof the declaration was incomplete or contained omissions.

Then again, like Sand has said before, I guess some people just refuse to believe

Shame on me for not believing that this was a newly discovered issue which proved the US case for war. Bad bonkey. Naughty.

Did it strike anyone else as convenient that the detailed weapons declaration contained this information since December, but it is late February before anyone bothers to act on it, just at the same time as new proposals for war are about to be tabled.

I must be being an unbeliever again, but the co-incidece of the timing smacks of political games being played by the western powers. If that is the case, it casts even more of a bad light on the pro-war case.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Thanks Victor. I was hoping someone would find the relevant info, cause I didnt have time to look today

Lazy bonkey, bold bonkey

Originally posted by bonkey
What interesting here is that the Iraqi's did include this information in their declaration and yet we still hear people telling us that this is proof the declaration was incomplete or contained omissions.

Yes, but the information was wrong.

Originally posted by bonkey
Did it strike anyone else as convenient that the detailed weapons declaration contained this information since December, but it is late February before anyone bothers to act on it, just at the same time as new proposals for war are about to be tabled.

Yes, but weren't the tests only completed recently? So an obstensibly legal system has been declared illegal.

Originally posted by bonkey
I must be being an unbeliever again, but the co-incidece of the timing smacks of political games being played by the western powers. If that is the case, it casts even more of a bad light on the pro-war case.

Perhaps, but I think there is an element of "two sides to the argument".

Éomer of Rohan

Would you not agree, each of you, that this is ultimately an academic question since the US are going to invade with or without UN approval and with or without proof (most likely without - you got to love Colin Powell's statement about how the missiles not being found was proof of their existence!!) and with or without allies?? Even if Saddam COULD build neuclear weapons with range to reach the UK, the US or even Israel, how many think he would use them, given that his entire country would be obliterated? Since the man is nothing more than a glorified privateer, there is no reason to suspect he wants to destroy himself and the golden goose (Iraqi oil) he is sitting on. The use of weapons on his people is another moot issue since, having a weapon of mass destruction means the potential to have other weapons unleashed against you if you use them at all. Let us not forget that Israel and her lance nuclear batteries could destroy the arabic world with ease.

mike65

If the missiles go further than they
are permitted then they break the
UN dictats and should be destroyed.

Simple enough really...

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

You say UN dictat as if you disagree with it. Would it not be better to disarm ALL nations as they agreed ultimately to do under the Non proliferation agreement - which means starting at the top and working down - US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and then, if necessary Iraq? The US argument against this is that Saddam and other dictators would be too willing to use these weapons -surely then the weapons are obsolete then since the MAD theory no longer applies as a deterrent to such people?

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
which means starting at the top and working down

Personally I think a wedge method would be more realistic with the largest taking the largest cuts, but the smaller nations eliminating first.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
surely then the weapons are obsolete then since the MAD theory no longer applies as a deterrent to such people?

Actually, instead of being used as diplomatic chips, they can be used as weapons, thereby restoring not MAD, but deterence.

Éomer of Rohan

I agree now that I reconsider about a wedge method but the use of nuclear weapons as anything other than a diplomatic chip is horrific would you not agree?

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
If the missiles go further than they
are permitted then they break the
UN dictats and should be destroyed.

Simple enough really...

Not really. If you have a missile that 95% of the time manages a maximum range of less than 100km, and one in 20 times manages better....anywhere from 100km up to say 120km, what is the range of the missile?

From a realistic usage point of view, its less than 100km, unless there is some way of determining in advance which missiles can go further. Then there are multiple classes of missiles - the sub-100km, the 100km, the 105, the 100, the 115 and the 120...assuming you wish to make use of such granular breakdowns.

Now, applying that logic to the actual facts of the case in hand (75% instead of 95%, 150km instead of 100km), you still have the same issues :

If it is possible to determine which missiles can break 150km, then only those missiles should be destroyed.

If it is not possible, then it is difficult to argue that Saddam will be able to use it in any way, unless we posit that he's gonna fire a huge salvo of missiles at a target just over 150km away (up to 180km, basically) hoping that enough odds are in his favour to get one of (or a couple of) his missiles far enough to hit things.

In other words...in the real world, missile range is determined by the highest consistently-attainable distance produced from the design. In the Iraqi case, this logic no longer applies, and missile range is apparently determined by the longest test-distance achieved.

I accept that the missiles should probably be destroyed for straying too far in to the "grey area" and that it would be better to be safe than sorry. However, I do not accept that this is an open and shut case no matter which way you look at it, and as such should at best be viewed as a true test of the viability of the current inspection process - nothing more, nothing less.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
However, I do not accept that this is an open and shut case no matter which way you look at it, and as such should at best be viewed as a true test of the viability of the current inspection process - nothing more, nothing less.

But Mr. Blix is (1) no fool (2) no American patsy.

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
But Mr. Blix is (1) no fool (2) no American patsy.

I agree Mr. Blix seems a very impartial and decent man - Yet Saddam seems to be making no attempt to comply with the wishes of Mr. Blix.

I think we need a stong UN. Saddam seems to have little regard for the UN. I think that, when deplomacy fails - war is inevitable.

Saddam is handing over documents in an ad hoc (drip, drip) manner trying to buy himself time.

Saddam can either co-operate with Blix or not.

The choice is his.

But - the international community needs to get behind the UN.

BKtje

The inspectors when they left country said that there were 400 r-400 biological bombs missing.

Today in The Irish Times i read that saddam just said he'd found one buried somewhere or other. These bombs are filled with anthrax etc.

Theres still 399 missing... i wonder how many more he'll find....

PHB

Israel have the ability to destory the middle east.

Big ****ing deal, of all the countries in the world I trust Israel with nuleor/chem/bio weapons the most because they have shown incredibly restraint in using them, dispite all the horrible acts commited upon their country, and can any other country say the same?
Comparing Iraq having nukes with Israel having nukes is just silly!

jonno

Hussein for all intents and purposes in trying to waste time. I'm not saying that he is guilty of anything but then again he won't give Bush or the UN a reason NOT to attack by refusing to cooperate. One reason is probably that he believes that the US will attack anyway regardless of what the UN say.

Koopa

every country has its **** side, its because all the people in a country are not the same, theres ****heads in every country

israel has done its share of "horrible things" too, and israel has never been attacked by nuclear/chemical/biological weapons yet (i think), this might be why they havent responded in kind yet.. and it had a LOT of help from the US with weapons and design etc over the years, it doesnt want to piss off the US.

im not condemning israel, just saying its just another country, and its not that silly comparing iraq having nukes to israel having nukes

saddam hussein is probably trying to figure out whether the us will attack him anyway, or not - his "occasionally over 150km" missiles might help him involve israel in the war, if the us attacks him, etc etc. so he'd be reluctant to just destroy them if he thinks the US will just find another excuse to attack him
i mean, from his point of view, this could just be a diplomatic pre-war ploy by the US to get him to destroy the only weapons he has which could involve israel in the war, which would result in the US being able to attack him with impunity, because they know he cant even strike back in any way anymore

The Saint

"Big ****ing deal, of all the countries in the world I trust Israel with nuleor/chem/bio weapons the most because they have shown incredibly restraint in using them, dispite all the horrible acts commited upon their country, and can any other country say the same? "

You mean in retaliation for throwing stones? Israel has used a 1kTonne bomb to kill 1 person in a civilian area and has invaded 4 of its neighbours and you say has used restraint?

Lemming

Originally posted by PHB
Israel have the ability to destory the middle east.

Big ****ing deal, of all the countries in the world I trust Israel with nuleor/chem/bio weapons the most because they have shown incredibly restraint in using them, dispite all the horrible acts commited upon their country, and can any other country say the same?
Comparing Iraq having nukes with Israel having nukes is just silly!

Sorry for going off-topic before I begin.

Actually, I think you'll find the REAL reason as to why Israel has not used WMDs is more like this:

Firstly, what exactly are they to aim at? Terrorists don't have big military camps/buildings like your regular army. So they'd be aiming at civilian populaces deliberately.

Secondly, if the first happened, pandoras box would have been opened and there's no telling what retaliation you'd have going on.

Thirdly, if the first point was carried out, not only would the international community ostracise Israel, but I should imagine that a great deal many people in the US would also be horrified at the inappropriate use of WMDs.

Further to that the point that using a WMD against an entire population when someone does a suicide bombing is a little extreme, no?

Ireland and Britain have seen many horrible acts, but you don't see Britain trying to nuke Ireland, or the Irish trying to procur NBC materials to do the Falls road in now do you?

It's called appropriate response ....

DadaKopf

Israel has used 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in the past.

Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky claims that lethal tests have been performed on Arab prisoners at the IIBR [Israeli Institute for Biological Research]

There are allegations that Israel has used CBW [Chemical Biological Weapons] on numerous occasions:

• chemical defoliants by the army against Palestinian lands, inclusing Ain el-Beida in 1968, Araqba in 1972 and Mejdel Beni Fadil in 1978;
• armed nuclear missiles in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars;
• chemical weapons in the 1982 war on Labanon, including hydrogen cyanide, nerve gas and phosphorus shells;
• in the 1980s lethal gases against Palestinian civilians and Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli Jewish prisoners.

[T]he 1993 report by the Office of Technology Assessment for the US Congress states that Israel has 'undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities' and is 'generally reported as having an undeclared offensive biological warfare programme'

The UN Security Council regularly calls on Israel 'urgently to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency'. Israel has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, but is one of only four countries in the world - with Cuba, India and Pakistan - not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

All quotes from Index on Censorship; Vol. 32, Issue 3, 2003.


Just another point: there's never been a clear definition of 'weapons of mass destruction'. There never has been a concrete, qualitative definition of a WMD - at what exact point does a weapon become a weapon of mass destruction? Presumably all weapons are capable of mass destruction? In that case, Israel certainly has them and has used them (Sharon even gassed "his own people"). People should be careful using the term WMD - when it's used, people are uncousciously implying a set of assumptions they may actually disagree with.

Victor

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Israel has used 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in the past. On several occasions between the 60s and 80s, they've used nuclear warheads and chemical weapons against the Lebonese and Palestinians and even imprisoned Israeli Jews. (I haven't the actual incidents on me right now, I'll edit this post later and add them.)

Can you clarify this? I don't recollect many über mushroom clouds over Lebanon.

mike65

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
The inspectors when they left country said that there were 400 r-400 biological bombs missing.

Today in The Irish Times i read that saddam just said he'd found one buried somewhere or other. These bombs are filled with anthrax etc.

Theres still 399 missing... i wonder how many more he'll find....

Saddam's very careless is'nt he?

These bombs will be turning up at regular intervals from now until we all get bored and go home...exactly what he intends.

Mike.

shotamoose

Unconfirmed report here that Iraq will destroy the missiles as requrested by Blix:

Iraq will announce later today that it will comply with a UN order to begin destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles by the weekend, the Egyptian Middle East News Agency reported.

There was no immediate comment from the Iraqi government, but the agency quoted unidentified sources in Baghdad as saying the step was intended to deprive Washington of an excuse for war.

Baghdad as saying the step was intended to deprive Washington of an excuse for war

I wonder how they intend to do that, when the US have spent so much money moving troops/equipment into position. Do you really think that the US will back away if the UN asks them to? Not likely. The US will invade regardless of whether Iraq co-operates or not.

One other point. Use of chemical weapons have been used by many sides over the last 100 years, including the allies during WW1. How come we don't see weapon inspectors looking into US army bases, for chemical/biological weapons? Its politics. Iraq is small, with a small army, and very little political clout. America is Huge. Iraq will be taken out, since the world wants to make a statement against WMD's. (regardless of whether they have em or not).

Cork

Originally posted by mike65
Saddam's very careless is'nt he?

These bombs will be turning up at regular intervals from now until we all get bored and go home...exactly what he intends.

Mike.

I think Saddam will quickly find more weapons if the US invades.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I think Saddam will quickly find more weapons if the US invades.

Well if US soldiers find themselves within 150km of Baghdad in the absence of a UN resolution to support them being there he's legally entitled to use any legal missiles (read "capable of travelling less than 150km") to blow them to hell.

TomF

So far it looks as though the United States of America is getting more done by jawboning and shuffling troops, ships and aircraft around in the matter of disarming Iraq than the United Nations has done in the past 12 years. Could it be that Europe is really an ineffective presence in world politics and that a policeman is really needed? Hmm.

DadaKopf

Europe an 'ineffective' presence in world politics? No. Greatly diminshed in power, yes. Do we need a global police force? Yes. A reformed UN with improved instruments capable of mainting world order.