[Aesaar]

IIRC, there's no conclusive evidence that DU is more harmful than any other heavy metal is.  People hear the word uranium and get irrational.

[Aesaar]

whoops

[karajorma]

Did you forget why this thread exists?  The entire reason this is only news now instead of 10 years ago or more is because the Bush administration deliberately hushed it up to keep said weapons secure.  If you'll recall, 2003 was also right about when Iran stated getting serious about their nuclear program.  News of weapons quality or even the *potential* for weapons quality uranium stores would have been Very Bad.

I'm going to have to ask you to explain it from the start cause I still don't have a clue what you're on about.

[Mars]

The discussion is over my level of discourse, but I would like to say I was not "attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq." I was saying that one can easily concede that Iraq had WMDs but

"That doesn't mean that what the US government did was a Good Idea. It doesn't mean that they didn't use fear mongering and stretches of the truth to build support for an ill-advised war, and I believe (but am not entirely sure) they also used outright lies. This just isn't one of them."

Re summation: The Iraq war can still be a terrible idea even if Iraq did (and of course it did) have WMDs. So I don't see, really, what the dispute is about.

[Scotty]

I'll start from just after the invasion.

1) Troops on the ground discover stores of chemical weapons and processed uranium ore (yellowcake)
2) Troops on the ground immediately secure these stores
3) Troops are deliberately instructed to declare they have not found any such stores
    a) The reasoning for this cover-up is to avoid letting the entire region know that there are thousands of tons of these stores in what is essentially a lawless, government-less country.
    b) Iraq has previously demonstrated knowledge of advanced uranium metallurgy as early as 1988. 
        i) Significant stores of enriched uranium were removed from Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War.  This indicates that they possessed the infrastructure to enrich uranium.
        ii) Related to 3a, Iraq's stores of processed uranium ore and uranium enrichment infrastructure are likewise at rise from the destabilization of the region.
4) The US removes over 500 tonnes of processed uranium ore from Iraq.  No one particularly notices or cares.
    a) This happens during an election year.
        i) Democrat party line cannot mention the facade because it means Bush was right.
        ii) Republic party line cannot mention the facade because the area is still unstable (and Bush wasn't up for re-election that year).
5) The current news breaks.

Iraq was in full possession of the infrastructure, means, and materials to manufacture fissile materials and weapons-grade uranium.  This infrastructure had been in place since the late '80s, and the presence of so much yellowcake indicated a clear intent to continue development and manufacture (in the same way 500 tons of meth indicates intent to sell meth).  US military planners underestimated either the quantity and widespread status of this equipment (and the chemical stuff) and the instability toppling a decades-'stable' dictatorship produces and then collectively **** their pants.  Then the cover-up happens.

That covers most of it, I think?

Before the post EDIT: I'm not condoning, supporting, or giving my retroactive approval to the US invasion of Iraq.  The point I'm making here is that Bush jumped on a ****ing huge political grenade and we all gave him **** for it for a decade and change when he was actually not wrong.

[karajorma]

Okay, I get the point you're making but the question I have to ask is when was the enriched uranium made? Was any made after 1991?

There is an enormous difference between jumping on a live political grenade and throwing a grenade sitting in a cupboard on the ground, pulling the pin out and then expecting people to think you saved us all when the grenade goes off.

[Scotty]

That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up.  All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into.  I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.

[Aardwolf]

Then what was the news story I saw on TV about our soldiers finding drums of the stuff?

[karajorma]

That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up.  All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into.  I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.

In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.

[Scotty]

That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up.  All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into.  I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.

In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.

You mean where it ultimately ended up?  Not a clue.  Your second question, I'm not sure I follow.  Given the state of Iraq in late 2003, or hell, clear through 2006 or 2007, even an armory full of chemical artillery shells that anybody with the agency to do anything knew about was a dangerous proposition.  A dangerous chunk of Iraq's neighbors would have leaped at the chance to get their hands on it.  Right now the reason this news is getting so much attention is that ISIS is in position to lay claim to a good portion of the storage sites.  Fissile material would be even worse.  If a few dozen mustard gas shells is worth hushing up over, a couple dozen kilos of enriched uranium is orders of magnitude beyond that.

[karajorma]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant why the **** would we care about ISIS having chemical weapons if they now have enriched uranium.

That said, I'm somewhat dubious about the presence of said uranium. Given how badly the intelligence community ****ed up over the manufacture of chemical weapons, it's reasonably likely that nothing at all was made post 1991. The international atomic inspectors certainly didn't find any proof of it. 

[Scotty]

Ah, that's a much more poignant question.  I would be shocked if said enriched uranium remained in Iraq any longer than it takes the US Government to decide and do something about it.  Considering the threat level and sensitivity of the substance in question, that process could be as low as a matter of a few weeks, or as long as a couple years;  I highly, highly doubt ISIS has it.  If they do, it's an intelligence failure of proportions larger than it's possible to suggest without hyperbole.

[Phantom Hoover]

That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up.  All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into.  I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.

In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.

I guess any idiot can use even the components for chemical weapons to devastating effect without much difficulty, whereas even turning enriched uranium into a bomb is an incredible undertaking.

[Thisisaverylongusername]

That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up.  All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into.  I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.

In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.

I guess any idiot can use even the components for chemical weapons to devastating effect without much difficulty, whereas even turning enriched uranium into a bomb is an incredible undertaking.

And, ironically, we invented the atomic bomb before the electronic calculator.

[karajorma]

I guess any idiot can use even the components for chemical weapons to devastating effect without much difficulty, whereas even turning enriched uranium into a bomb is an incredible undertaking.

Well the danger is not so much them having it as them selling it to someone who does have the capabilities to make it.

[Scotty]

I would be shocked and appalled (for multiple reasons) if any sort of nuclear infrastructure or materials was in Iraq.  The US has had over a decade to dismantle, move, and disappear anything that could possibly have been used for such nefarious purposes, and doing so would be a very high priority (even leaving aside the stated reason for invading).

[karajorma]

To be honest, I'd be very surprised if there was any enriched uranium at all. Sure the "we don't want terrorists to get hold of it" excuse might work while it was still in Iraq but unless they've done something massively illegal with it, the Bush administration had 5 years to get the damn stuff back to the West and you'd have thought they might have said something about it once it was safely disposed of.

[jr2]

Sure, sure, but would you want to be stuck holding the bag if there actually was some enriched uranium left, you came out and said there wasn't, and now there is, and terrorist group xyz got their hands on it?  Easier to just keep it quiet.  Iraq isn't exactly a small country, and Sadaam had how long to hide his already clandestine operations before we invaded?