Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Yes or no; did the UN resolution specify nuclear weapons, or WMDs?

It depends on how you read it.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

The latter half of "as all other nuclear programs" to me that they clearly intend nuclear weapons as the thrust of the first statement. This resolution established a UN inspection agency that worked in co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Do you think they were looking for mustard gas?

Additionally, the resolution specifies WMDS and missiles with a range of greater than 150km (about 93 miles), and these mustard gas shells only have a range of about 14 miles. So, according the the UN resolution you so stridently demanded, you're wrong either way.

So, I answered your question, answer mine, yes or no: Are references to uranium acquisition, mushroom clouds, and aluminum tubes for enriching uranium - all phrases used by the Bush administration as the basis for our casus belli - references to mustard gas shells?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
Kind of a side note, but would you consider nuclear 155mm shells to be WMDs? Serious question.

Mmm.. Kind of a sticky one. See, the problem with the phrase "WMD" is that it's a political word, not a technical one, so there really isn't a clear, universally agreed upon definition. Clearly Dreadclaw considers mustard gas to be a WMD, and I do not, but we both have compelling arguments as to who is right.

US criminal law 18 U.S. Code § 2332a defines a "weapon of mass destruction" as, among other things, "any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title" Destructive devices include, but are not limited to, 4a - grenades. So, someone who throws a hand grenade into a crowd in the US could be charged with "Use of a weapon of mass destruction".

I think most people probably don't think of hand grenades as a WMD.

I like the US military definition best:

Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[21]

I don't consider mustard gas, as conventionally deployed, a WMD because I don't consider it to be capable of a high order of destruction or mass casualties. Those terms are both undefined, unfortunately - but I don't think a 500 foot radius weapon that disperses by itself pretty quickly counts.

Our smallest nuclear weapon that will fit in a 155mm shell was a W48, which has a pretty big kill ratio, and will dump a lot of radiation* - it would kill nearly everyone in a half-mile radius. As such I think any nuclear weapon would qualify as a WMD.

I don't want to exclude some theoretical chemical agent that is capable of a high order of destruction, so (personally) I would say always nuclear, usually biological, and possibly chemical.


*you can see the effects here - you want .072 for a W48.

A nuke though would deny an area to both sides (tactical nuke). We had those (W48) in South Korea which of three battalions of 2ID were capable firing it out of a M109/M198. We later removed them from South Korea to Japan on a deal with North Korea. Round was to be used at major intersections/choke points of a North Korean advance if the combat was going down south in a Hershey Squirt way. So getting vaped and radiated to death is pretty much it

Mustard gas being quite interesting will clog and overwhelm an entire area forcing a stall being we just flooded the North Koreans with mass chem burn causalties that needs to be removed from the battle field and into the medical units. not only that but they need to De-Con everything that was effected by mustard with STB.

STB is Super Tropical Bleach. That will take a couple layers of skin off on de-con

Think everyone not thinking a chemical weapon has two forms. Persistent and Non-Persistent

North Korea though have I think an Anthrax program. We were vaccinated in 95 in South Korea first before CONUS and Europe were vaccinated.

 Jihadin wrote:
A nuke though would deny an area to both sides (tactical nuke). We had those (W48) in South Korea which of three battalions of 2ID were capable firing it out of a M109/M198. We later removed them from South Korea to Japan on a deal with North Korea. Round was to be used at major intersections/choke points of a North Korean advance if the combat was going down south in a Hershey Squirt way. So getting vaped and radiated to death is pretty much it.

You know, I always think of nuclear weapons as, you know, kind of a theoretical weapon. Yeah, they're a real thing obviously, but I never think of practical... actual deployments, I just think of them in the mutually-assured-destruction, never actually gonna happen way.

Reading what you said, It's got to keep you up at night if you're deployed in an area that it's an actual possibility.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
A nuke though would deny an area to both sides (tactical nuke). We had those (W48) in South Korea which of three battalions of 2ID were capable firing it out of a M109/M198. We later removed them from South Korea to Japan on a deal with North Korea. Round was to be used at major intersections/choke points of a North Korean advance if the combat was going down south in a Hershey Squirt way. So getting vaped and radiated to death is pretty much it.

You know, I always think of nuclear weapons as, you know, kind of a theoretical weapon. Yeah, they're a real thing obviously, but I never think of practical... actual deployments, I just think of them in the mutually-assured-destruction, never actually gonna happen way.

Reading what you said, It's got to keep you up at night if you're deployed in an area that it's an actual possibility.

Actually drinking is what keeps you up at night or FTX. Dec and Jan are the "watch the border" being its so cold the ground (rice paddies) are frozen hard enough to support armor weight. Also the tunnels under the DMZ makes thing's lively to when they get found. 2nd ID sits in the Western Corridor. Across the DMZ is nine North Korean divisions

Been awhile since I was last there in 98-99
2 regular Infantry Divisions
3 Mech Infantry Divisions
3 armored divisions
1 Artillery divison

I was one of the few that pulled the last full rotation at Four Papa Three (live fire base) on the DMZ before South Koreans took over

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Yes or no; did the UN resolution specify nuclear weapons, or WMDs?

It depends on how you read it.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

The latter half of "as all other nuclear programs" to me that they clearly intend nuclear weapons as the thrust of the first statement. This resolution established a UN inspection agency that worked in co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Do you think they were looking for mustard gas?

OK bro

So let me get this straight, you guys are claiming that the invasion of Iraq, that the waste of trillions of US dollars, not to mention the death of hundreds of US servicemen and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was actually not because of a nuclear and biological threat that Saddam posed, but because he still had a few thousand CW shells lying around since the 90's? And that the discovery of those shells somehow vindicates the reasons for the invasion?

That does rather seem to be the argument, doesn't it?

It's pretty amazing, the levels of cognitive dissonance on display here.

Claiming Obama's tax scandal (which is btw a pretty shady and bad thing) is on the same scale as an invasion of another country with hundreds of thousands wounded and dead...
It is your responsibility, if you are deciding to declare war, to ensure that your intelligence is NOT faulty. There is no excusing going to war on "faulty intelligence", all of those involved are simply wrong.

I have more sympathy for those in the general pop or the military who supported the invasion, since they were mislead, but at this stage I reckon we should just be admitting - that invasion was a pretty huge mistake.

I disagree. The invasion was the right decision. The aftermath was handled poorly and the decision to completely pull out was a terribly one.

Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.

The problem is you don't know what disasters are averted by taking an action, only those that occur following the action. Had we invaded Afghanistan before 9/11 it may have prevented 9/11, but no one would have known and the perception would be that it was a bad descison. So we have to wait to get punched in the face before doing anything.

The way you end up with really nasty, drawn out, horrific wars is by ignoring early warning signs and failing to act when the enemy is weak. If you wait until they are strong and start perpetrating serious atrocities, the conflict appears more justified than early intervention would have, but the casualties suffered are much greater. Better to stop that stuff early when the costs are relatively low.

What? I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11, that was bin Laden.

I didn't say he did.

You talked about, "Saddam is a horrible person", and then, "invasion could have stopped 9/11". It's quite an implication.

I said invasion of Afghanistan may have been able to stop 9/11. Saddam is Iraq. It is an illustration of the point I'm trying to make.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You talked about, "Saddam is a horrible person", and then, "invasion could have stopped 9/11". It's quite an implication.

We have time traveling invasions?

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
I said invasion of Afghanistan may have been able to stop 9/11. Saddam is Iraq. It is an illustration of the point I'm trying to make.

Ah, I keep getting the countries mixed up.

Sorry 'bout that.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.

Saddam was a toothless old dictator to anyone not already in Iraq. He had literally 0 chance against any foe in the area, and certainly was no danger to the US.

His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police. Our unilateral action against Iraq should be recognized for what it was: a terrible decision based on terrible intelligence, with a horrific aftermath leagues worse than anything that was already going on there. The amount of straight up fraud that went into "rebuilding" Iraq borders on treason.

There are dictators in countries all over the world; many doing worse than Saddam ever did. It is not the sole business of the US to fix these situations. Our interference anywhere in the middle east has almost always ended up making the entire situation worse than it already is.

 streamdragon wrote:


His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police.

We aren't?

 cincydooley wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:


His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police.

We aren't?

As much as our government, and other governments, seem to want us to be, no.

It's deja vu all over again.

 streamdragon wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.

Saddam was a toothless old dictator to anyone not already in Iraq. He had literally 0 chance against any foe in the area, and certainly was no danger to the US.

His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police. Our unilateral action against Iraq should be recognized for what it was: a terrible decision based on terrible intelligence, with a horrific aftermath leagues worse than anything that was already going on there. The amount of straight up fraud that went into "rebuilding" Iraq borders on treason.

There are dictators in countries all over the world; many doing worse than Saddam ever did. It is not the sole business of the US to fix these situations. Our interference anywhere in the middle east has almost always ended up making the entire situation worse than it already is.

It wasn't unilateral.

Afghanistan was an even more toothless country, yet it produced the deadliest attack on the continental United States in the last century.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.

Saddam was a toothless old dictator to anyone not already in Iraq. He had literally 0 chance against any foe in the area, and certainly was no danger to the US.

His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police. Our unilateral action against Iraq should be recognized for what it was: a terrible decision based on terrible intelligence, with a horrific aftermath leagues worse than anything that was already going on there. The amount of straight up fraud that went into "rebuilding" Iraq borders on treason.

There are dictators in countries all over the world; many doing worse than Saddam ever did. It is not the sole business of the US to fix these situations. Our interference anywhere in the middle east has almost always ended up making the entire situation worse than it already is.

It wasn't unilateral.

Afghanistan was an even more toothless country, yet it produced the deadliest attack on the continental United States in the last century.

I do stand corrected on unilateral. Forgot we roped the UK and a few others into it.

@bolded I was unaware that Afghanistan and Al Qaeda were the same thing. Oh wait...

Lol, I'll stand corrected as well at least as far as I oversimplified. Al Qaeda from the safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan under the sympathetic Taliban government planned the attack.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Lol, I'll stand corrected as well at least as far as I oversimplified. Al Qaeda from the safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan under the sympathetic Taliban government planned the attack.

I readily agree that the Afghani Taliban definitely had 0 issues with OBL and AQ hanging out in their territory.

 d-usa wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You talked about, "Saddam is a horrible person", and then, "invasion could have stopped 9/11". It's quite an implication.

We have time traveling invasions?

I too would like to know how the October 7th 2001 invasion of Afghanistan may have prevented the 9/11/01 attacks.


I feel like there's a point here trying to come out, but it got stuck somewhere.

I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. In the same sense, invading Iraq before Saddam did something stupid could have been the lesser evil". The problem, of course, being that we can't know.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. In the same sense, invading Iraq before Saddam did something stupid could have been the lesser evil". The problem, of course, being that we can't know.

Yep

PhantomViper wrote:
So let me get this straight, you guys are claiming that the invasion of Iraq, that the waste of trillions of US dollars, not to mention the death of hundreds of US servicemen and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was actually not because of a nuclear and biological threat that Saddam posed, but because he still had a few thousand CW shells lying around since the 90's? And that the discovery of those shells somehow vindicates the reasons for the invasion?

No. I respectfully suggest that you re-read the posts as you seem to have omitted some vital context when you were attempting to frame your retort

Gwaihirsbrother: It's good that your invasion of Iraq solved the problem of brutal dictators in the region then. Thank god for that!

The threat of terrorist attacks from the region has certainly been diminished!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. In the same sense, invading Iraq before Saddam did something stupid could have been the lesser evil". The problem, of course, being that we can't know.

Ok, I see where you are going.

The problem is, I'm sure how much of legal basis we had for going into Afghanistan. I don't buy the idea of attacking a country just because their leaders are bad people doing bad things because, frankly, that's like a large part of the world and the American people elect a government aimed at trying to make America better, not be the world police.

There are a lot of valid arguments for why the invasion of Iraq was a bad decision, and even more that it was poorly handled, but I think it's much tougher to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified.