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

Paul J. Adam wrote:
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.


I'm not familiar with the fuel used by either the Scud or the SA-2,
so I can't comment on whether the fuel is common to both types or
not. Kay did state in his report, however, that the fuel is
usable only by the Scud. He could possibly be mistaken, or the
source for his information could be wrong, but I've not seen a
definitive refutation. His report may be found at the following
link (by the way, this was the only CIA search result from the
search string "Scud fuel." Later in the report he details the
claims that Scud fuel and oxidizer was manufactured in a factory
in or near Al Tariq, which apparently was their main
production source for concentrated Nitric Acid, along with other
conventional explosives and munitions. The reports of this
production have not been confirmed yet, being currently based
solely on witness testimony.

http://www.cia.gov/search?NS-search-...S-doc-number=1


Boy, that's a long URL. It might be easier to just go to www.cia.gov
and do the search yourself. The portion dealing with the fuel
production is located alongside the 'supporting images.' Nearby
are a few tidbits about Korea and technology transfers as well.
Most of the report is classified, so there likely isn't going to
be a lot of 'meat' in the unclassified report.

Hope this was at least somewhat helpful Paul. Take care

Mike

In message , Michael Williamson
writes
Paul J. Adam wrote:
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)

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

I'm not familiar with the fuel used by either the Scud or the SA-2,
so I can't comment on whether the fuel is common to both types or
not. Kay did state in his report, however, that the fuel is
usable only by the Scud.

Reading his report, he refers only to red fuming nitric acid in the
unclassified public part. A search for "hydrazine" (the fuel, as opposed
to the oxidiser, for the Scud family) came up blank. So he's got Scud
_oxidiser_. (A small technical quibble, but us engineers are pedantic)

RFNA is indeed usable to power Scuds and derivatives... but it's also
used as oxidiser in Styx/Silkworm antiship missiles, which Iraq was
allowed to retain, and for SA-2 Guideline SAMs which again were
permitted - both use kerosene fuel with RFNA oxidiser. (Easy to forget
that Iraq wasn't being completely disarmed, just stripped of long-range
offensive weapons)

RFNA is one of those awkward "precursor" chemicals, like ammonium
nitrate; it's useful for a lot of tasks, one of which is powering Scuds;
but it can be used in other missiles, and it's necessary for a lot of
manufacturing tasks too.

If you find a stash of ammonium nitrate, the owner might intend to use
it to fertilise his fields. Or he might be quarrying for gravel. Or he
might be a terrorist about to build a huge truck bomb. All are
_possible_, only one is blatantly illegal. RFNA is crudely similar.


Doesn't prove Saddam was an angel of sweetness and light, but it's not
convincing that he was busy building ICBMs either. He'd need RFNA just
to make Kalashnikov ammunition, and he was allowed _that_ (and needed
it... Iraq still has hostile neighbours)

Hope this was at least somewhat helpful Paul. Take care

You too.

--
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