Britain finds Iraq's 'smoking gun': a top-secret missile

British military officers have uncovered an attempt by Saddam Hussein to build a missile capable of hitting targets throughout the Middle East, including Israel, The Telegraph can reveal.

Plans for the surface-to-surface missile were one of the regime's most closely-guarded secrets and were unknown to United Nations weapons inspectors. Its range of 600 miles would have been far greater than that of the al-Samoud rocket - which already breached the 93-mile limit imposed by the UN on any Iraqi missiles.

Saddam's masterplan for the new missile, which was being developed by Iraq's Military Industrialisation Commission (MIC), the body responsible for weapons procurement, constitutes the most serious breach uncovered so far of the tight restrictions imposed on Iraq's military capability after the 1991 Gulf war. The range of Saddam's missiles was restricted to prevent him from using them as a delivery system for weapons of mass destruction.

David Kay, the former United Nations weapons inspector responsible for dismantling Iraq's nuclear weapons programme in the 1990s, said the British discovery proved that Saddam had no intention of complying with UN requirements.

"This is the smoking gun we have been looking for," he said. "We have known all along that Saddam was desperate to develop a delivery system for his mass destruction weapons, and this missile would undoubtedly have given him that capability."

Details of Saddam's secret missile programme were discovered by British weapons experts after interviews with several former senior officials of the MIC.

Gen Mudh'her Sadeq Sabe'a, the head of missile technology at the MIC, was in charge of the development programme, which began in 1999. Once a week Gen Mudh'her and Abdul Tawib Mulla Hawish, the minister responsible for the MIC, would travel to the presidential palace in Baghdad to deliver a progress report to Saddam, who is said to have taken a keen personal interest in the project.

Mr Hawish surrendered to coalition forces shortly after the war and has provided British officials with a detailed breakdown of Saddam's plans to manufacture the weapon.

The rocket motor was to be built at the Abu Ghraib military base, the main fuselage at al-Waziriyah and the navigation system at al-Taji. "We had finished the research stage and entered the development stage," said a senior Iraqi engineer who worked at the MIC and is now co-operating with British officials. "If it had not been for the war, development would have been completed within a year."

Iraqi officials insist that the missile was intended to carry a conventional warhead, but British weapons experts believe it could easily have been adapted to carry chemical or biological weapons.

The Iraqis say that the missile's main purpose would have been to protect Iraq from attack by neighbouring countries. However, it could also have been used to attack Israel. During the Gulf war Saddam launched Soviet-made Scud missiles at targets in Israel.

The discovery of the plans for Saddam's secret missile programme is being hailed as a significant breakthrough by coalition commanders, who have so far failed to find any convincing evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme.

Bush's point was that we needed to go in before they developed additional WMD. The Bio Labs are enough, for legality and "I told ya so!"

Having said that, there were tons of stuff developed elswhere. Where to put them? How about the other Baath party state? Syria. Eastern Syria, far from population centers. For which Syria was compensated with free oil for 12 years. Where do you think that Saddam is hiding now? No messy plane or sea connections.

You recall that Abu Abbas was captured in Iraq, he who was intercepted by fighters and forced to land in Italy. Saddam will have avoided air travel.

Technically, development means they were making the tooling. Development means that soft (wood or plastic) tooling is made and used to make sample parts. The sample parts are tested, and used to refine the plans for hard tooling.

This does not specify whether the parts made by soft tooling were good enough to actually use. The parts made by soft tooling would be made as well as they could be, but usually you learn something, so that is why you make the cheap soft tooling first, and modify that until the parts work. Then you make the hard metal tooling to a proven design.

It still gets back to the basic question: Where are they at? I didn't hear any qualification in the propaganda leading up to the war: "We THINK they have WMD's". It was always: He HAS WMD's and the world is in danger".

Blair, Bush, and the coalition that believed them, are responsible for one of the biggest hoaxes in history. We are talking death and destruction here, not raiding the cookie jar. We have to worry about our nation's credibility when future crises come along. I don't believe lieing and deception are the way to solve problems. Now that we have lowered the bar, expect more of the same.

Blair, Bush, and the coalition that believed them, are responsible for one of the biggest hoaxes in history.

I see, you think Baghdad Bob was telling the truth. As I recall Resolution 1441 was a UNANIMOUS statement to the effect that Iraq DID HAVE these weapons. Don't you get that?

Even those opposed to the war, France, Germany, and the Russians agreed to that. So now it's a BUSH, BLAIR lie , or better yet the DEMONCRAT LIE: BUSH lied to the world. That's what they're saying. That's what you're saying.

IMHO I think I'll just give it a little more time. Think of searching California for those needles in those haystacks. I suspose you're one that thought we should just let the inspectors solve the problem, give them more time, right?

I don't believe lieing and deception are the way to solve problems.

BUSH is a liar, SADDAM told the truth, wouldn't you be happier in the DEMONCRAT UNDERGROUND website, they ALL AGREE with you.

Now that we have lowered the bar, expect more of the same.

Clintoon lowered the bar, BUSH has raised it, try the DU.

Now the hysteria begins. Saddam and Baghdad Bob are good examples of the problems lieing causes. Bush and Blair didn't lie because the UN lied, Saddam and Baghdad lied, everybody lied, so the B's had a right to lie too. Some people feel that lieing is alright as long as it advances their argument. I appreciate your attempt to send me to DU but I assure you that I am going to stay on FR and try to make honesty and truth the principle of conservatives.

You can resist but eventually the truth will be your argument's downfall. The truth always wins out, even if it takes time. It does not support conservatism to try to counter the lies of the liberals by lieing themselves. Recognize the truth instead of avoiding it. Better luck next time and quit dissembling, it does not do you any good in your cause.

It does not support conservatism to try to counter the lies of the liberals by lieing themselves.

OK I agree with this statement completely.

I guess is down to the meaning of "lie". I believe this conversation started with you stating that the WMD argument was a "lie". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think I have enough contrary facts to draw the same conclusions you have drawn.

Since we haven't found Saddam yet does that mean to you that he doesn't exist either, BUSH and BLAIR made him up too?

If you wish to discuss the degree of enthusiam leaders have to exhibit in order to "make their case" to their publics, well maybe we could agree about some things but, outright intentional falsifications, I'm not ready to believe that, the risks are way too great.

Intelligence is murky but I'm picturing Saddam deep underground in some Iraqi bunker minikingdom, perhaps WITH his WMD at his side, laughing at us cause we haven't found him or them, YET anyway. This maniac had years to prepare for everything that he was afraid could happen to him, very paranoid.

There is a great difference between Saddam who walks, talks, and can move from place to place. The WMD cannot so it should be easier to find. The reason I do not give Blair or Bush too much credit for being straight is the following reason.

If I was misled by my intelligence people, and that caused me to make a statement, that I KNEW there were WMD's based on that information that proved to be false, I would be all over someone for misleading me.

I have not heard a peep from either one of them so I have to assume that they knew there were none. Therefore, I assume that they knew that they were lieing themselves, and nobody else to blame.

I regret that we lost almost 190 servicemen and women under false pretences. We tore up a country and caused the death of 2000 civilians and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers. This is not an insignificant amount of lives lost and property damaged.

We really don't need to hold our breath and hope they find WMD's. It is apparent that the Iraqi army was a threat to no one, and definitely not a threat to our territory, as was represented. I despise a liar, I want the truth when it comes to our security. I chastised Clinton for his lieing. He and his supporters are incapable of telling the truth.

I will say that his lies caused a large number of deaths in the Balkans. I was hopeful that Bush could put this tendency behind us and get the country back on a higher plane.

It seems that this is more of the same from what justification we have uncovered so far in Iraq. When you call the military for duty, you better have a damned good cause. I served under Eisenhower and I never had to question the cause we were fighting for.

I don't know what losing a buddy in a war being fought for false or unspecified reasons would be like. You can bet that it is not a good feeling. When we need the troops for a just cause, they should be available and ready to go.

They should not have to wonder if this is another grab-ass to keep the Presidential ratings up or the defense industry humming.

The Iraqi Army? No one ever said that was the threat: that's a strawman.

You would never have believed 19 guys with box cutters could do what they did nor would I at the time. I feel sorry for you. If you have no faith in GW BUSH I'm afraid there's very little hope anything would have convinced you anyway.

If they found the WMD on the first day you might just as well assumed they were planted, right? In fact, if BUSH is so dishonest,as you say, why haven't they just planted a bunch of weapons?

For you time is up, for me time is not up, we'll be in Iraq for a while. It's as big as California, do you understand how big that is? Why are you so impatient, do you miss Saddam?

When you call the military for duty, you better have a damned good cause.

We are fighting a protracted war on terrorism on many fronts, I don't remember a time since WWII where the military felt so good about themselves, and the bind between them and the American people was stronger. The taint left by our Vietnam experience has finally faded and been replaced by the pride of a job well done. Afghanistan, Iraq, Phillipines, or wherever.

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.