Good idea, lets leave Iraq alone...

[IamDavid]

Lets leave Saddam in power a couple more months so he can get a nuclear weapon ready for use..

Weapons Grade Uranium seized in Turkey... (Thats right next door to Iraq)

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Yes I agree. I can't wait for nuclear holocaust!

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Yes I agree. I can't wait for nuclear holocaust!

I can't wait either! I've always wondered what it would be like if my skin glowed!

 

[duke]

5 ounces

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: duke
5 ounces

Even if this was only 5 ounces..makes you wonder how much is being smuggled in....

 

[IamDavid]

Repost....

Sorry, I did a search for both Turkey and Nuclear.

5 ounces

Umm, I don't care how small it was, it proves its out there and we can either try and get lucky by stopping the smugglers or do whats smart and take out the people who want it to use against us..

 

[duke]

iamdavid,

No doubt that any amount of "weapons grade" (It's composition won't be determined until monday) uranium being smuggle anywhere is frightening. Your link, however, appears to be...um...missing a few facts.

 

[HendrixFan]

And how does he deliver this to the US? The radius for a nuclear attack is confined to the middle east.

Besides, which do you find to be the most likely scenario:

1) Saddam attacks the US without any provocation

2) Saddam is being attacked by the US, sees he doesnt have much of a chance, and decides to go down swinging

If you are old enough to remember the cold war, WMD capability is the best reason to NOT attack someone.

 

[BillGates]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Repost....

uselesspost

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
And how does he deliver this to the US? The radius for a nuclear attack is confined to the middle east.

A nuke could easily come in the next shipment of smuggled cocaine....

Besides, which do you find to be the most likely scenario:


1) Saddam attacks the US without any provocation

This happens fairly frequently over the no fly in Iraq.

2) Saddam is being attacked by the US, sees he doesnt have much of a chance, and decides to go down swinging

THis is possible, however you must also consider this: Hitler wanted to do lots of terrible things when the end of WWII was near, but he could find no one that wanted to go along with his plans.

If you are old enough to remember the cold war, WMD capability is the best reason to NOT attack someone.

It is a deterent, but there appears to be a nonzero chance that Hussein would hand a nuke off to Al Queda and let them do the dirty work.

 

[geno]

Good idea, lets leave Iraq alone...

Didn't we try that a decade ago?

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
And how does he deliver this to the US? The radius for a nuclear attack is confined to the middle east.

Besides, which do you find to be the most likely scenario:

1) Saddam attacks the US without any provocation

2) Saddam is being attacked by the US, sees he doesnt have much of a chance, and decides to go down swinging

If you are old enough to remember the cold war, WMD capability is the best reason to NOT attack someone.

A) You don't need an ICBM to deliver a nuclear weapon. A small cargo ship would more than suffice.
B) If a nuclear device were detonated in the U.S., how would be now that Iraq was behind it?
C) Mutually-assured destruction doesn't work when you are dealing with international terrorist groups.

 

[JellyBaby]

This happens fairly frequently over the no fly in Iraq.

Iraq considers the British/U.S. no-fly zones illegal because they were not created by the U.N.

but there appears to be a nonzero chance that Hussein would hand a nuke off to Al Queda and let them do the dirty work.

You used the word "appears" which is proper because there's no evidence. Also, Hussein's regime, as has been reported over the years, is in enemy of al qaida. Hussein's is a secular regime and, like the Saudis, is opposed to Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

[HendrixFan]

Well, terrorists would be a concern with smuggled nuclear weaponry, but we are talking about Iraq here as far as I can tell. After a month of sabre rattling, at the end of August the Bush Administration, despite earlier claims to the contrary, admitted that they had no evidence whatsoever connecting the Saddam to Al Queada. Not suprising since the two are actually opposed to each other, Saddam had already put a price on bin Laden's head in the early 90s.

As JellyBaby said, the no fly zones were implemented by the US/UK after the Gulf War and was not part of the UN agreement that Iraq signed. Iraq never agreed to the no fly zones.

The idea that Iraq is a nuclear threat while we "let him be" is stupid. Isreal has over 400 nuclear weapons, and the US will gladly bring in more if Iraq pulls that rabbit out of its hat. The surest way for Iraq's destruction (and the world's support for it) would be for them to launch a nuclear attack. Right now, the world is behind Iraq, the US and UK are seen as loners, and to make matters worse, public support and congressional support isnt strong in the two countries that are pushing for this. Iraq has the upper hand now in the international arena, and as long as they keep to themselves and allow inspectors that will remain.