Skip to comments.
Saddam s arsenal revealed
The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^
| 03/17/2002
| Marie Colvin and Nicholas Rufford
Posted on 03/16/2002 4:44:26 PM PST by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
1
posted on
03/16/2002 4:44:26 PM PST
by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78; aculeus; Orual; Tennessee_Bob
A second defector has reported that Iraq has constructed seven mobile germ laboratories, which have been disguised as milk lorries.Baby-milk factory bump.
2
posted on
03/16/2002 4:48:12 PM PST
by
dighton
To: Pokey78
A second defector has reported that Iraq has constructed seven mobile germ laboratories, which have been disguised as milk lorries. They go to and from the "Baby Milk Plant", no doubt.
3
posted on
03/16/2002 4:48:36 PM PST
by
Physicist
To: dighton
You're quick.
4
posted on
03/16/2002 4:49:26 PM PST
by
Physicist
To: Pokey78
I am guessing that our satellites can locate, identify and pinpoint every milktruck in Iraq. Take everyone of them out w/ missle strikes and we're sure to get the offensive ones. Of course, the Iraqi's will be saying, "Got Milk?" for a while.
5
posted on
03/16/2002 4:54:42 PM PST
by
gg188
To: Pokey78
Such claims are expected to add momentum to Americas efforts to win support for military action against Iraq . . . With this new knowledge, no doubt the French will be worried about all the innocent baby milk factories.
6
posted on
03/16/2002 4:56:44 PM PST
by
Harp
To: Pokey78
No wonder things are heating up. Bet Bush is putting a plan together right now.
To: gg188
I am guessing that our satellites can locate, identify and pinpoint every milktruck in Iraq. Well, maybe and maybe not!
During the Gulf War, they had an awful time finding SCUD sites.
8
posted on
03/16/2002 4:59:07 PM PST
by
Gritty
To: Pokey78
Inside the Ring - Big BLU Bunker Buster
Big BLU
The Pentagon is rushing to produce a new and bigger bunker-buster bomb for use against hardened targets, like some of the underground hide-outs used by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Pentagon sources tell us the new bomb is being developed for the Air Force by Northrop Grumman Corp. in California and is called Big BLU for bomb live unit. The new bomb will be bigger and more powerful than the new BLU-118 thermobaric warhead dropped on caves in Afghanistan recently.
Big BLU, we are told, will be six times bigger than the F-15E-carried thermobaric bomb and will be packed with some 30,000 pounds of high explosive. It will be guided to targets by satellite and will sport a cobalt-alloy penetrating warhead that allows the bomb to dive up to 100 feet below the surface before detonating.
The bombs are so big that it will take a B-2 bomber to carry one of them, we are told. Three Big BLUs have been ordered by the Air Force on an urgent basis.
9
posted on
03/16/2002 5:00:20 PM PST
by
TomGuy
To: dighton
Good thing we've got those sanctions in place to keep him from purchasing the tools to produce weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, I'd have to take this report seriously.
He's not developing weapons to use against us, he's just developing them to help deal with those pesky Kurds and other rebels, that's all.
To: TomGuy
All they have to do is find the door. The rest will take care of itself.
To: Pokey78
So, it looks like the evidence that our so-called allies are clamoring for is beginning to take form.
12
posted on
03/16/2002 5:01:36 PM PST
by
Kerberos
To: Pokey78
'A DEFECTOR from Iraq '
Which PR firm planted this one?
13
posted on
03/16/2002 5:02:44 PM PST
by
Boyd
To: dighton
To: Pokey78
I have a hard time believing that anybody privy to that kind of information in Saddam's regime would make it out of the country alive. Could be disinformation, perhaps.
To: TomGuy
Who needs nukes, when we have 30 kiloton bunker busters? Saddam better dig a really deep bunker.
16
posted on
03/16/2002 5:15:17 PM PST
by
tomahawk
To: tomahawk
Who needs nukes, when we have 30 kiloton bunker busters?The big BLU (formidable though it is) weighs 30 kilo pounds, not tons.
17
posted on
03/16/2002 5:23:04 PM PST
by
dighton
To: Gritty
During the Gulf War, they had an awful time finding SCUD sites. We are in the middle of a real-world test of all kinds of new toys. Not to say we can 'bug' the whole country, but we can do a lot better ten years later. I wonder who Gen. Franks is breifing on how to use them.
To: Pokey78
From a speculative perspective, Saddam would probably focus on biological and chemical weapons, rather than nuclear ones because of the lower level of infrastructure required to develop them. You don't need Oak Ridge-sized centrifuges to build a biological weapon. Hence, the milk truck idea.
But biological weapons have their own complications too. One is containment. US biohazard facilities have elaborate systems to process water and air and to decontaminate the researchers at the end of shift. Transporting deadly pathogens in milk trucks will give a traffic accident a whole new meaning. Preventing the escape or capture of research personnel is yet another problem.
Then there is the problem of weaponization, which is in many respects, the hardest part of deploying biological weapons. This requires testing facilities and manufacture that goes beyond a high-school lab level.
My guess is that the milk truck scenario is unlikely, but if it is true, Saddam is well and truly crazy.
To: Pokey78
But...but... this can't possibly be true. Scott Ritter has been on television at least once a week for the past few months, assuring us that Saddam is really no threat. He also assures us that it wasn't true that Saddam didn't allow him to do inspections; all that was 'misunderstood'.
Ritter makes me very nervous. His story has changed so many times it's like listening to a fairy tale. His comments fly in the face of all other available intelligence.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson