Weapons of Mass Destruction
In one of his blog entries, Mannion brought up a really good issue that I think bears further inspection. Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMD has been at the fore front of media coverage recently. So recently that many wonder why weren’t we worrying about it earlier if it was such a big deal. The truth is, we were. Just nobody wanted to hear it. Since this blog is really my only contact with those not in the national security/foreign policy fields, I thought I’d take the time to write of primer of sorts in the efforts of achieving greater understanding and finding common ground.
WMD is a very specific term. I don’t like the term because it has such emotion attached to it but it’s the one that stuck so we’re stuck with it. It specifically applies to Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons. NBC in military parlance. In broad strokes, it refers to a weapon that does damage in great disproportion to its size. For our current purposes in the War on Terror (another silly term in my opinion), we are only concern with the covert use of such weapons. Covert action refers to an activity that cannot be precisely attributed to a specific entity. It differs from clandestine which refers to an activity that wasn’t discovered. The only way Iraq can use WMD is covertly and through 3rd parties such as Al Qaeda. It hasn’t the technology to threaten us directly. It barely has the technology to threaten Israel, which would then respond by turning Iraq to smoldering glass, possibly with our assistance.
It’s clear Hussein has WMD. This UN inspector gambit is a stall and a pretty good one. He has used chemical weapons on his own people. We have no reason to assume he got rid of those weapons. We have tracked the sale of milling machines and other equipment necessary for biological weapons. He has repeated shown his desire to possess nuclear weapons. Because we have made it difficult, if not impossible, for him to buy them, he has to resort to making them, a long a laborious process. So let’s get into the meat of it.
It is unlikely that Hussein possess plutonium or can manufacture it so he’s relagated to low-yield atomic gun rail-type devices. This is the type of weapon used on Hiroshima. Thermonuclear devices require plutonium and a much more sophisticated implosion device. In order to create an atomic device, Hussein has to have enriched uranium. As it is a controlled substance, it’s much more feasible for him to manufacture it than to buy it. Enriching uranium require a centrifuge and time. Lots of time. Low yield weapons aren’t particularly effective in full scale war so he’s limited to assymetrical warfare to maximize its effectiveness. Covert action is his only choice. He has absolutely no other reason for obtaining such devices.
Biological weapons are living organism designed to degrade an army’s ability to fight. This sounds much more dangerous than it actually is. Statistically, 30% of any given population are immune to any given disease. Genetic engineering can decrease the immune population by some but not much. Strategically, these are more “hostage” weapons than military weapons because one cannot be sure how the biological agent will spread. There are many types and categories of biological weapons, but I won’t get into them right now. These are an ideal terrorist weapon because and illness or an epidemic can be naturally occuring. Genetic manipulation rules nature out but by that time, lots of damage has been done. This is particularly terrifying because you can see it and it’s mysterious. Not to mention American are completely neurotic about health.
Chemical weapons are the 3rd type. The are not and have nothing to do with biological weapons. The most common of these is nerve gas. It’s called nerve gas because it causes your body to shut down by preventing the firing of your nerves. VX and Sarin(GB) are both examples of nerve gas. Because of their high lethality, they are usually binary agents requiring mixing before they become active. Again, the scientific standards of lethality don’t translate directly to real life because of weather conditions, buildings, etc.
Of these three types of weapons, 1 is relatively easy to manufacture in secret, another is problematic and another is difficult. But in a country as large as Iraq, most of those issues mean nothing. Iraq has had 11 years to think about the dominace of our air power. Throwing a missle or a bomb at something designed to withstand it doesn’t achieve anything. You have to put a guy on the ground to make sure the job is done. Remember, the Russians manufactured 10 MEGAton weapons to destroy our missiles in our silos. 10 megatons are significantly more than anything we have in our nuclear arsenal, much less conventional.
Okay I recognize that this isn’t the most cogent of memos but I lack the perspicacity to be brief and clear when it comes to this topic. I was writing about WMD as it applies to the War on Terror and Iraq. Not about WMD as a topic ipso facto. I will try to answer any reasonable questions. If I don’t have an answer to something, I’ll have access to someone who does.
I know it’s late, real late, but I am procrastinating going to bed so my work week can start later. Anyway, thanks for writing this. It’s a helpful start. I’m headed to bed right now, but I thought I’d kick the questions off with this…(answer anytime)
I understand what you’ve written here, and I have heard some of it before from you directly, and from CNN or whoever. You are clear to define these in terms of the weapons usefulness to terrorists, and terrorists’ roles as the obvious delivery mechanisms.
Could you elaborate on which weapons we believe have the highest likelihood of use, which are in the hands of terrorists, and what the actual (non-terror) damages, threats, rate of spreading, overall impact, etc. might be for each? I think this is important for people trying to have an informed opinion of how to react to these threats, level “orange” homeland securty status, and what they should really be worrying about.
Also, as a follow-up, or maybe another post, what your opinion is of what the real-world impact will be of a real regime change in Iraq?
I really think the answers to (or discussions of) these two issues might lead to some changed opinions about the Bush administration’s approach to the “war on terror.”
Thanks for the breakdown.
My issue is not the belief or disbelief of Saddam’s ownership of WMD. I think it’s been clear that he’s always had them.
I just was wondering why the issue came to the front burner so suddenly this past summer. Was is that Bush was feeling complacent and wanted to correct our past inactions? Did they discover something new that warranted the rhetoric of war? Does he want to appear active in the ‘war on terror”?
I’m not pissed so much that he’s talking invasion, overthrow, eradication, etc. I’m more upset that if such a massive problem has existed for so long, why has he taken so long to address it? he can’t blame Clinton now, because he’s been gone for almost 2 years.
I’d have more respect for him if he just came out and said that we’ve slacked onthis guy, let him linger too long, and we need to take him out. But he’s using the media to suggest that he suddenly has some new kind of info that gives him a ticket he didn’t already possess.. I’m not buying that. He now lacks credibility, and I hate that now so many people lose sight of the fact that Saddam is a very bad guy to have around, and instead believe we’re (again) doing this just for oil…But Bush has brought that criticism on himself.
Pat- I totally get where you’re coming from now. For the last 5-8 years, people in my field have been screaming about the possible covert use of WMD. SCREAMING. Prior to 9/11, I couldn’t get a person to take my calls regarding this topic. Nobody took it seriously. It was considered a military pork barrel. It was extremely frustrating for us. I’m sure President Bush himself was unaware of how serious the subject is. Did you think about the covert use of WMD prior to 9/11? Nobody in the administration took it seriously because they had other more pressing concerns. The election still had its taste on everything… Consensus was hard to build.
It’s not an issue of blaming Clinton but he has to bear a great deal of the responsibility. Enriching uranium takes years, years which Hussein had under Clinton. President Clinton had unbelieveable consensus. He just had so many personal problems, he didn’t want to rock the boat by engaging in a war, particularly when the economy was doing so well.
You have to remember that a few people have the President’s ear and access to him or them is very very limited. I’m sure that when President Bush learned the severity of the issue, he got motivated to do something about it. But what we learned from Vietnam is that you can’t engage in a foreign war without support at home. All this takes time.
So the quick answer to your question is that if the President knew about covert use of WMD prior to 9/11, he didn’t (like EVERYBODY else) take it very seriously. Now he does and is doing something about it.
Likelihood of use depends on access to a weapon, not the nature of the weapon itself. Bio and chem weapons would be easier to transport but how much you could actually carry and not attract attention would limit the effect of the use of your weapons. A nuclear device is much more devastating and a smaller package to boot. After a weapon has been used, you have to look at how long the area is denied. Depending of the type of nuclear weapons, an area could be unsafe for humans for years. For chemical weapons, it would be days. Biological weapons are much harder to track and predict which is why nations have been hesistant to use them, though they been around for thousands of years. Basically, when it comes to this stuff, there is nothing you can do against the covert use of it. By all means, report what you think in suspicious, but in NYC, where people are so concerned with being “enlightened”, righteous indignation will send most people scurrying. Orange, red, whatever really means nothing. It’s my opinion that the whole ranking thing for the country is more to do with Law Enforcement than the every day guy. As for specifics on contagion, etc. That’s a whole BOOK unto itself. There’s really no need to understand that at this point.
Any chance our latest cruise ship issues have anything to do with bio attacks? I was in the camp of believing “mass hysteria”, but then again, a lot of people reported very real symptoms. The fact that a disease spread across several different crusie ships makes me not believe that a passenger(s) or crewmembers spread this.
We may have been attacked and never even known about it.
Interesting idea Pat. I hadn’t heard anyone before you even mention that possibility. One thing I might point to regarding it being a little far fetched is that it seems like these terrorist groups usually take credit right away. I haven’t heard of anyone stepping forward on this one, even if it was a lie (I think they do that too sometimes, so that they look more powerful than they are). Anyway, it’s an interesting idea, but I can’t put much weight to it unless there’s some real evidence.
Pat- it’s unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility. Terrorist are going to be limited to a pretty unsophisticated set of bioweapons for the interim. We know what those are. The USG has already considered that this could have been an attack and the relevant parties have investigated and are investigating. Unless there is hard medical evidence that it was a bioweapon (which is relatively easy to confirm) we have to assume that it was a naturally occuring event. It’s not that far fetched that it would be. These ships usually share similar ports and are resupplied by the same equipment if not the same suppliers. In a high density vessel such as a cruise ship, it’s possible that something like this would happen. It’s actually surprising that it hasn’t happened before.
Al Quaeda uses fairly crude methods for their attacks. They might plan fairly well, but I also doubt that this was terrorism. I also find it unlikely that the CDC will identify this problem as bacteria or a virus, I think it will be a well documented case of mass hysteria that stemmed from a singe case of the flu. The effects of stress on the mental health of large masses of people is very overlooked, in my opinion.
A good friend of mine works in the cruise ship industry (on borad a royal caribbean ship). She mentioned that these ships were fairly well isolated from each other, and the only real common element was the ocean they are in. They all de-sal their own water, have seperate supply chains, and share little except for the ports they visit. Note that the populations of these ports have had no outbreaks. Each ship endlessly cleans and sanitizes (even without the outbreaks). They are (arguably) the cleanest things afloat.
Rich,
I had a question. For those in the military (or intelligence fields) “in the know” on issues such as Iraq’s WMD, are they permitted to lobby the Prez’s oval office advisors at lower levels of contact, or is everything done strictly through the top of the chain of command?
IE, does a ‘mere’ Army Lieutenant, with direct specific knowledge of a bad situation, ever get a crack at advising the White House directly, or does he just have to pray that his superiors choose to share the information with Bush himself? I’m frankly amazed any important info makes its way up to the top.
-Patrick
You cannot break the chain of command so the answer to your question is no. A lieutenant or anybody who doesn’t have direct access to POTUS cannot approach him.