Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3453118?source=Evening ^

[lightsabre]

Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea By Patrick McGowan, Evening Standard 19 February 2003 Three huge cargo ships feared to be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are being tracked around the world by British and American intelligence. The vessels, which have been at sea for three months, are believed to be carrying weapons smuggled out through Syria or Jordan. They are all refusing frequent requests to provide details of their cargo or destination and officials are worried that the vessels are maintaining radio silence in clear contravention of maritime law, which states all ships should be in constant communication. Despite grave suspicions of what is on board, Britain and the US are afraid to order interception by naval ships because of fears the crews would scuttle the vessels, each between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes. If they are carrying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons this could cause catastrophic environmental damage. The vessels have called briefly at a handful of Arab countries, including Yemen, but they have been resupplied at sea with food, fuel and water by other ships. All three were chartered by a shipping agent based in Egypt and are understood to be sailing under three different flags of convenience. The discovery of weapons of mass destruction would be a huge boost to George Bush and Tony Blair and would represent the "smoking gun" they need to justify invading Iraq. However, environmental concerns are preventing boarding of the vessels, whose positions are provided by satellite 24 hours a day. They set sail just a few days after UN inspector Hans Blix returned with his team to Iraq to search for Saddam's weapons arsenal. Iraq is effectively blockaded by US and Royal Navy ships patrolling the Gulf and the three vessels are not thought to have set sail from there. A shipping industry source said: "These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and for a considerable time they have been steaming round in everdecreasing circles. "If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now." In the build-up to possible war in Iraq, meanwhile, another huge wave of British troops flew out to the Gulf today. About 1,000 members of 16 Air Assault Brigade, including paratroopers, infantry and support units, left RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on three overnight flights. The troops, who are mainly from the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, based in Colchester, are among the last expected to be deployed to the Gulf region. A group of 180 soldiers were the last to leave at just after 6am today when they boarded a passenger charter jet before heading off to a secret location. They will join around 40,000 other British military personnel who have been sent to the Gulf over the last few weeks in preparation for a possible conflict to disarm Iraq.

[Dead Dog]

Just use nukes, nothing cleans up bugs like nuclear fire.

[txradioguy]

Well, most of the countries over there still tend to use the Persian Gulf as abig sewer outlet anyway. Who would know the difference if a few more chemicals were added? LOL!

[LibertyJihad]

As a former squid I must ask, where is the "coast of Iraq"? Last I checked it was landlocked.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Iraq has a very small coastline on the Persian Gulf:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/cia02/iraq_sm02.gif

[foreshadowed at waco]

I heard Mazoor Ijaz on FNC the other day...he said that the next attack from el Qaeda might be at US interests in the Pacific like in Singapore...also read here yesterday that Israeli intelligence has predicted a major terrorist attack on Austrailia in the next 2 weeks...wouldn't be surprised if one or more of these ships detonated themselves...

BTW what's this about radio contact?...do we have the right under international law to blow up a ship that won't respond?

[JimRed]

...where is the "coast of Iraq"?

They have a little patch of coastline on the Persian Gulf, just north of Kuwait.

[Blueflag]

Not a naval expert really. Just well-read and, ahem, connected to folks who really know the facts - been there done/doing that.

Best scenario is to seize the vessels in question and commandeer them to a safe offloading point after inspection. Might be a good use for the E-bomb featured on another thread. I understand they make a pretty good flash-bang... Gotta disable the electronics/detonators in case they have a dead-man or doomsday circuit. Gotta kill the perps so they can't manually deploy. Need an assault plan that kills the electronics, kills the ability to manuver the vessel, kills the perps, doesn't rupture any WMD containers. I'm outta my league on the specifics of that mission.

All other scenarios, short of a 1-megaton contact-fused weapon fall short. A 30,000 ton cargo vessel is a mighty robust structure. Add to that the cargo is likely well-protected as well. Water (and all that steel) attentuates the blast and heat effects of a large conventional or small nuke, so I say, go REALLY big, go contact fuse, no airburst (unless it's at 100'). [ remember the Pacific H-bomb tests? Nearby men-of-war were damaged but not sunk. ] Still this is a LAST resort option.

Sinking the vessel with Mk-48s gives the bad guys time to act, even if you hit the ship with a spread of 4-6 wired-guided shots within a span of a few seconds. All you need is some bad guy on the 'phones to call out "high-speed screws, torpedos in the water" and Achmed pushes the buttons. They know they are being tracked, afterall. Launch/detonate on warning is bound to be their orders. (this puts any assault team at risk as well-- die in the sel-destructive martyrs' blasts)

And conventional explosives/ sinking the ships puts accidental release high on the list of likely outcomes

Second scenario is to disable their propulsion when they are mid-ocean and pursue option 1 above

Scuttling in shallow water would seem preferable to deep water, so again, the cargo could eventually be off-loaded.

Scuttling in deep water raises the specter of eventual catastrophic release due to corrosion or pressure rupture.

Anytime you have a large concentration or WMDs, seizure is the best option, followed by 'long' duration plasma-temp incineration. Dispersion by blast is not preferred, 'cuz you may not get it all, and radioactivity is not consumed in a chemical reaction like incineration.

So, the issue is not really that the WMDs are on a ship (allegedly) but that they are concentrated and hidden and could be dispersed or delivered prior to safe seizure or destruction.

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

Paragraphs are our friends!!!!
As are pictures, bold font, italics, etc.

The journey of HTML begins with the first step. The link below will set you free.
Step briskly now, no pushing, there's room inside for everyone.

Reference HTML Cheatsheet

[Calpernia]

I little help with my naivette here.

There ARE Iraqi ships, no?

SHOULDN'T the UN Inspectors board them?

[Blueflag]

Missing the point here. It is not the duty of the inspectors to search everywhere, it is the duty of the Iraqis to prove they have disposed of what they have, account for past arsenals, and OPEN their facilities, unrestricted, to inspectors.

But yes, the inspectors could board Iraqi flagged or chartered vessels. So can the US/UK/Australian Navy.

[Calpernia]

>>>>It is not the duty of the inspectors to search everywhere, it is the duty of the Iraqis to prove they have disposed of what they have, account for past arsenals, and OPEN their facilities, unrestricted, to inspectors

That is what is understood with OUR logic. However, the libs/idiots/commies/pick a name, want the inspectors to *find* something.

Therefore, going by their logic, the inspectors should board them now, no?

[r9etb]

ABC Radio News just reported that the ships are off the coast of Iraq, are believed to have a cargo of WMDs, and that we are tracking them ...

I think we're probably tracking every surface ship on the high seas.... The fact that they've been watching these three particular ships is rather telling, IMHO.

[ezo4]

"SHOULDN'T the UN Inspectors board them?"

No Kidding

[r9etb]

I found it strange why he would bring this up. Maybe he had this information then.

And don't forget W's comment regarding the possibility of launching poison-spraying UAV's from the deck of a ship.

All of these recent references to seaborne threats may be coincidence, or it may be coming from specific intel. I'm beginning to think it was the latter.

[r9etb]

It is not the duty of the inspectors to search everywhere, it is the duty of the Iraqis to prove they have disposed of what they have, account for past arsenals, and OPEN their facilities, unrestricted, to inspectors.

That's the theory, anyway. As it's being played out, however, we know, and the inspectors know, and the !@#^%$ French know, that the Iraqis are hiding stuff, and that the job of the inspectors is to try to find it, or at least to seem like they're trying. That's what the U-2 flights are all about, after all.

[Calpernia]

>>>>>That's what the U-2 flights are all about, after all.

LMAO! Apparently the U-2 flight plans didn't include maritime in the FILED flight path.

[Quilla]

You are certainly more well versed that I on this subject, so bear with my simplistic questions. If Achmend could push the button before we could sink the ship, what is to prevent him from doing the same during a boarding raid? Disabling electronics or detonators seems far-fetched since we have no clue what may trigger these weapons. Can this actually be done, and if so, why not do it now?

If we have intelligence that proves without a doubt that chemical/biological/nuclear weapons are on board these ships, I suggest secretly sinking them by damaging the hulls and avoiding the weapons. We don't have to take credit for it, just do it.

[Calpernia]

>>>>Britain and the US are afraid to order interception by naval ships because of fears the crews would scuttle the vessels, each between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes

What does scuttle the vessel mean?

[glennaro]

Scuttle = Sink them on purpose.