No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

In message , Michael Williamson
writes
Also, in some cases there is still reason to believe that the
weapons existed up until at least just prior to the war. Kay
reportedly has
received testimony that Iraq was still producing Scud fuel, which is
not used by any Iraqi equipment except Scuds (none that we know of,
anyway).

I could be wrong, but aren't Scuds powered by a mix of hydrazine and
nitric acid? Which, again subject to error, powers the booster for the
SA-2 missile in widespread use in Iraq? (I'm sure both use red fuming
nitric acid as oxidiser - kerosene is hardly a classified agent and
hydrazine is widely used too)

As Kay asked in one interview, what do you need to produce
rocket fuel for if you don't have a rocket to use it in?

The Iraqis were still allowed to use rocket-powered weapons, just with
limitations.

While we
await confirmation or refutation of the testimony, we can't rule out
Scud missiles still being in the inventory 12 years after Iraq agreed
to destroy them under the ceasefire agreement.

They're not small or inconspicuous, and they need regular maintenance -
should be easy enough to find. (Liquid-fuelled rockets take a lot of
care and feeding if they're ready to use, or else a big effort to
prepare and fuel if stored dry - exactly the reason the US rapidly
abandoned them)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk