Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea

Associated News Media London ^ | 19/02/03 | Patrick McGowan

[Mr. Mojo]

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.

F/k the environmental damage and torpedo those G/D things!

[Destro]

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.

What kind of bull is this? Out in the high seas is where you want them to go off if they are to go off, right?

Scare tactics or stupid tactics?

[JimVT]

In the SecDef news conference just aired neither Rumney nor Gen. Myers had any info on this.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

 

Terror Ship ...

[theFIRMbss]

>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 open ocean
probably isn't the best
place to hide weapons.

Even in calm seas,
rogue waves sometimes sink a ship.
And the Navy Seals,

I'm sure, can arrange
all manner of accidents,
if rogue waves don't come...

[ken5050]

Nukes would be sensed by radiation detectors.....as far as chem or bio hazards..a large explosion would incinerate anything.....most of this article is BS

[Destro]

yea. Sounds like a yank cranker story.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Drop some nukes on the damned things. At sea, the ecological damage and fall-out is non-existant.
End of story

[Mr. Mojo]

Nukes would be sensed by radiation detectors

Even if they were transported in thick lead containers?

[Blueflag]

Long thread on this article underway at

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846629/posts

[tracer]

Why risk the lives of our valuable SEALs when we have such wonderful, quiet, and "deniable" submarines??

[Destro]

Many of us are all for this war no need to scare us into it by crap stories like this which hurt the cause when exposed as a fraud down the line.

[Mr. Mojo]

Exactly. We used to blow up whole islands every other week in the So. Pacific in the 50's ....with serious multi-megaton H-bombs. Dropping a small tactical nuke on each of these ships would be environmentally benign by comparison.

[LibWhacker]

Wonder if the e-bomb would work on 'em? In other words, cripple 'em, shut down all electronics onboard and perhaps give the SEALS a few minutes to storm the ship(s) before any terrorists could react and release biochemical/radiological agents and/or scuttle the ships?

[theFIRMbss]

>Terror ship...

Well, this terror boat
is destroying a nation
just by sailing fast...

[bandleader]

This sounds to me like a job for The Navy Seals!They could intercept via nuclear subs and board in total darkness!!They "OWN THE NIGHT"!!!!!

[Blood of Tyrants]

There is very little sea life out in the middle of the ocean along with literally hundreds of billions of gallons of seawater to dilute and disperse chemicals.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Gotta get on board first.

[ken5050]

Your correct, but with biologics..there's always the possibility of airborne disseminaton...so why take a chance.....immolate..