Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Yama" wrote:
Actually, Libyans began reconcilation with West after 1993, when UN
sanctions ruined shaky Libyan economy. That culminated to turning over
Lockerbie suspects in 1999. USA has kept the sanctions in effect.

...and *nothing* else has happened. Years and years of sanctions, and
they gave up a couple of guys (one of whom is in a "prison" better than
the place most people call home).

On the other hand, one little invasion of a country a thousand miles
away, and Libya gives up their WMD programs. And not to "the
international community," but to Britain and the US.

Perhaps in some weird parallel universe. In reality, Libyans have been
trying to re-estabilish with West since 1986, when US oil companies pulled
out (resulting to considerable loss of oil revenue, made worse by UN embargo
1992). Turning over Lockerbie suspects (of course, only REAL suspect is
Gaddafi himself, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone NOW, funny how that
goes, huh?) was only part of that process. UN sanctions were not ended in
1999, only suspended on the condition that Libyans continue the
"anti-terrorization" process. USA of course had kept it's own embargo, which
continues to hurt Libyan economic prospects. Negotiations have been going on
for *years*. Funny part is that process actually began during Clinton era...

See for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3338713.stm

It seems that difference between Saddam and Gaddafi is that Gaddafi actually
seems to learn from the past that illusions of grandeur have a poor pay-off
rate. Or perhaps he is just a better and more cunning diplomat, who knows.

If anything, this whole episode shows how ridiculous and overdone entire
"WMD hysteria" is. Libya has had signifant WMD program for years, without
anyone caring much. Ditto Syria. Yet it was Iraq, with it's supposedly
dangerous WMD capability (in reality, zero or near it) was the country which
had to be invaded...

David


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!


The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
Chemical &
Biological weapons.


In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have stopped
the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that the
US was above suspicison! It is of note that the only state on earth
publically funding advanced "war fighting" nuclear weapons (with the passage
of the recent bill through congress) is the US, with the specific aim of
using them against states that have not used nuclear weapons against the US.

(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

You really don't expect a pat on the back do you? You guys never needed
nuclear
weapons anyway, all you needed were a few dozen white police officers with
battons, a ghetto and several hundred of your fellow (darker) countrymen.


South Africa was facing in Angola some 50,000 Cuban troops (plus Russian
advisors) by 1989. While there was never a military "defeat" of South
African troops the problem was a threat of a major power getting involved.
(For those who believe otherwise the South African combat deaths in the last
year of the Angolan war was ~35, of whom 22 died when a Cuban bomb missed
its target (a dam) and hit an undetected military position). Under those
conditions the presence of a nuclear capability would have probably
"detered" such an intevention by a major power. If Saddam Hussein had
detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
(delivered by container ship?).

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

David Nicholls wrote:

snip If Saddam Hussein had
detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
(delivered by container ship?).

I think Israel would have had no compunction and would have wasted no
time in pre-empting any Iraqi action by any means they thought
necessary, just as they had when they hit the reactor construction at
Osiraq in 1981. There would have been no coalition that included other
Arab states, but Iraq would likely have withdrawn from Kuwait.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

It is of note that the only state on earth
publically funding advanced "war fighting" nuclear weapons (with the passage
of the recent bill through congress) is the US, with the specific aim of
using them against states that have not used nuclear weapons against the US.

Interesting in that you, from South Africa, know for a fact what the United
States Department of Defense is planning for future use of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile I, a member of US DoD, having spent my whole career with exposure to
nuclear war plans, could only speculate on the future plans. Boy are you
gifted.

Face it, you're clueless.

The recent bill passed through Congress funds the resumption of sub-critical
testing. This testing is useful in the design and testing of new warhead
designs. Why would we want new warheads? Because some of the older ones are
approaching 30 years old. Nothing more, nothing less.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:



If Saddam Hussein had
detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
(delivered by container ship?).

Oh really ? Leaving out the fact that the israelis had jets loaded with
special weapons on QRA as a response to incoming scuds being tipped with
CBW.

One can pretty much guarantee that approximately 30 mins after the
denotation of this 'test nuclear device' Jerichos would have turned iraq
into a radioactive car park.

You ignore the *very* public warning given to the iraqi regime w.r.t the
consequences of using CBW on coalition forces.



greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"David Nicholls" wrote in message ...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK, Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.





"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
in dealing with terrorist states?

In article ,
"Yama" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Yama" wrote:
Actually, Libyans began reconcilation with West after 1993, when UN
sanctions ruined shaky Libyan economy. That culminated to turning over
Lockerbie suspects in 1999. USA has kept the sanctions in effect.

...and *nothing* else has happened. Years and years of sanctions, and
they gave up a couple of guys (one of whom is in a "prison" better than
the place most people call home).

On the other hand, one little invasion of a country a thousand miles
away, and Libya gives up their WMD programs. And not to "the
international community," but to Britain and the US.

Perhaps in some weird parallel universe.

No, in this one. In the parallele universe, Libya paid attention to the
international community, and stopped back in 1990 or so. In this one,
they kep up their programs, with zero interference (and, apparently,
zero knowledge) on the part of the rest of the world, until March of
this year. Guess what else was happening in March 2003...

There's a sudden rush by the rest of the world to take credit for
fifteen years of diplomatic failures, and a similar rush to *not* notice
a direct correspondence with the US kicking the crap out of another
dictator.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:



David


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!


The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
Chemical &
Biological weapons.


In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have stopped
the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that the
US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.


Bottom of this page

http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=CB20011219104


It also mentions production facilities


Also this one

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1996/msg00296.html

This is interesting:

"Table 1. LOCATIONS WITH KNOWN OR POSSIBLE BURIED CHEMICAL WARFARE
MATERIEL1"

Possible???? The document is from the US Army.

the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced
the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that
the
US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

I don't believe that the US has an active offensive chemical weapons
program. The issue was that the facilities to create pesticides and
chemical weapons are VERY similar (or even the same). The US view was that
it was totally presumptious for the rest of the world to SUSPECT that the US
might have such a plan, and that the inspection of US commercial chemical
production facilities was going to only be "industrial espionage".

This is similar to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, where there are no IAEA
inspections of any US nuclear facilities (comercial or military), and
ceratinly no snap inspections without warning. It is interesting to see the
US say that the Iranian's have no credible need of a commercial nuclear
power industry because they have natural gas and oil reserves, and
particularly no need of uranium enrichment facilities. If this logic is
applied to UK, Russia and USA (but not France and Japan) then the same
applies because of large fossil fuel reserves in those countries (oil,
natuaral gas, and coal). This is also an interesting position in light of
the US proposals to use commercial nuclear power to limit CO2 emmissions.

It is of note that the US has just embarked on a new large commercial
uranium centrifuge enrichment program (using EU technology) to repace its
old gaseous diffusion plants that date from the 1950s & 1960s. Under
current international agreements there will be no need for IAEA safeguards
on the new facilities.

The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that the
US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds new
development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now) it
should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
weapons for a deterent program.

David

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:



If Saddam Hussein had
detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
(delivered by container ship?).

Oh really ? Leaving out the fact that the israelis had jets loaded with
special weapons on QRA as a response to incoming scuds being tipped with
CBW.

One can pretty much guarantee that approximately 30 mins after the
denotation of this 'test nuclear device' Jerichos would have turned iraq
into a radioactive car park.

You ignore the *very* public warning given to the iraqi regime w.r.t the
consequences of using CBW on coalition forces.



greg





That was actually one of my fears in the latest conflict. If Saddam
decided to commit suicide in a blaze of nuclear smoke. He fires a few
scuds loaded with anthrax into a few Israeli city and waits for an
Allied response.



--
The rich and the poor want the same thing, money.

21st saying of Bernard