Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq? Not Exactly ...
NewsMax.com ^ | 10/08/04 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 10/08/2004 4:00:16 PM PDT by SandRat

Is it really true that Saddam Hussein had no "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003?

Not exactly - at least not if one counts the 500 tons of uranium that the Iraqi dictator kept stored at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant.

The press hasn't made much of Saddam's 500-ton uranium stockpile, downplaying the story to such an extent that most Americans aren't even aware of it. But it's been reported - albeit in a by-the-way fashion - by the New York Times and a handful of other media outlets. And one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, admitted to the BBC earlier this year, "We had 500 tons of yellow cake [uranium] in Baghdad."

Surely 500 tons of anything qualifies as a "stockpile." And press reports going back more than a decade give no indication that weapons inspectors had any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S. invaded.

That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency was finally able to take a full inventory, and suddenly the 500-ton figure emerged.

Still, experts say Saddam's massive uranium stockpile was largely benign.

Largely? Well, except for the 1.8 tons of uranium that Saddam had begun to enrich. The U.S. Energy Department considered that stockpile so dangerous that it mounted an unprecedented airlift operation four months ago to remove the enriched uranium stash from al Tuwaitha.

But didn't most of that enrichment take place before the first Gulf War - with no indication whatsoever that Saddam was capable of proceeding any further toward his dream of acquiring the bomb?

That seems to be the consensus. But there's also disturbing evidence to the contrary.

David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector who was hailed by the press last year for pronouncing Iraq WMD-free, shared some interesting observations with Congress this past January about goings-on at al Tuwaitha in 2000 and 2001.

"[The Iraqis] started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together," Kay said. "And they ran a few physics experiments, re-ran experiments they'd actually run in the '80s."

"Fortunately, from my point of view," he added, "Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead. ... Given their history, it was certainly an emerging program that I would not have looked forward to their continuing to pursue."

Kay's successor, Charles Duelfer, also has confirmed that nuclear research at al Tuwaitha was continuing right up until the U.S. invasion, telling Congress in March that Saddam's scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons."

One laboratory at al Tuwaitha, Duelfer said, "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development."

Still, most experts say that Iraq was nowhere near being able to produce nuclear weapons, which is a good thing, considering how much raw material Saddam had to work with.

Writing in the London Evening Standard earlier this year, Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, walked his readers through a simple calculation:

"You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium; you need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. How many nuclear weapons can you build? The answer is 142."

Fortunately for the world, Saddam didn't have the nuclear enrichment technology to convert his 500-ton uranium stockpile into weapons-grade bombmaking material.

Or did he?

After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad last year, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, had some disturbing news for coalition debriefers.

He kept blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge, along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home - buried in the front yard - awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," Obeidi said recently. His only other choice was death.

In his new book, "The Bomb in My Garden," the Iraqi physicist explains that his nuclear stash was the key that could have unlocked and restarted Saddam's bombmaking program.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," he writes. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Last week Dr. Obeidi warned in a New York Times op-ed piece that Saddam could have restarted his nuclear program "with a snap of his fingers."

Perhaps the 500-ton stockpile of nuclear fuel that Saddam kept at al Tuwaitha wasn't quite as benign as our media like to pretend.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2000; 2001; 2004; 200401; 200406; 500tons; altuwaitha; baghdad; blueprints; centrifuge; centrifuges; charlesduelfer; davidkay; dispersal; duelfer; enricheduranium; enrichment; iran; iraq; iraqiwmd; jaffar; jaffardhiajaffar; kay; lebanon; mahdiobeidi; obeidi; reconstitute; saddam; sakr18; stockpiles; syria; tuwaitha; uranium; wmd; wmdchem; wmdreport; wmds; yellowcake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: SandRat

bttt


21 posted on 10/08/2004 5:06:54 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (John F. Kerry. Wrong war? WRONG MAN!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: SandRat

Just for my clarification. I thought this was uranium that we "knew about" (which makes it ok ;-). You know, it was "sealed" by the UN or whatever. But this article makes it seem otherwise. In fact it makes it seem as if we had no idea this uranium was there at all. Is that really true?


23 posted on 10/08/2004 5:12:43 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
... except for the 1.8 tons of uranium that Saddam had begun to enrich ...

1.8 TONS! Isn't critical mass just a few tens of kilos?

24 posted on 10/08/2004 5:19:34 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Excellent post I got this one bookmarked.


25 posted on 10/08/2004 5:30:46 PM PDT by rodguy911 ( President Reagan---all the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC

It's close enough to discern Saddam's intent and the fact that he was in violation of the UN resolutions forbidding Iraq from developing nuclear weapons programs.


26 posted on 10/08/2004 5:37:20 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: snooker
You wonder if the MSM thinks no one is going to read the actual reports? Or is this what the MSM is counting on.

Yep, the DEMOCs and the Lame Stream count on the Sheeple not reading it.

27 posted on 10/08/2004 5:40:50 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
The DEMOCs and the LAME STREAM would say nope and cut errrrrr ..... I mean edit his words so they didn't come out right.
28 posted on 10/08/2004 5:42:31 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

ping


29 posted on 10/08/2004 5:43:10 PM PDT by rudy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan

Can't speak for all of it but the enriched is a surprise.


30 posted on 10/08/2004 5:43:39 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

This info will be buried by the MSM for the duration. As ABC says so eloquently, Kerry's mistakes and distortions aren't done in an effort to win, but GW's are. So they'll have to do their bit in the effort to bring down a sitting president...and in wartime, to boot.


31 posted on 10/08/2004 5:43:57 PM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

take the weight of a regulation softball then start dividing.


32 posted on 10/08/2004 5:44:48 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Bookmark


33 posted on 10/08/2004 5:45:46 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
I guess the UN/Mainstream Media definition of "stockpile" is that it has to be at least 501 tons.

It has to be presented to them in the right way.Now, if somebody were to supply pictures of the scientists being forced to wear panties on their heads.....

34 posted on 10/08/2004 6:07:52 PM PDT by uglybiker (Urrrrrrgh! Kerry! Baaaaaaaad!!!!!!..................Frank N. Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: uglybiker

"Now, if somebody were to supply pictures of the scientists being forced to wear panties on their heads....."

No oil for panties! :)


35 posted on 10/08/2004 6:15:38 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: MercCPC

Yes, I'm sure Saddam was planning to leave it unenriched and use it for purely peaceful purposes--probably nuclear energy, since Iraq is so low on oil. That's probably why he had the centrifuge, too.


37 posted on 10/08/2004 8:24:58 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Hey, can you post a bigger picture of that Rat logo? I`d like to copy it for my collection.


38 posted on 10/08/2004 8:26:58 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nomad
Ask and yea shall receive.

DEMOC

or would you just prefer this


39 posted on 10/08/2004 8:37:10 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

bump later read


40 posted on 10/08/2004 8:37:30 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (John F. Kerry. Wrong war? WRONG MAN!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson