This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Iraq and weapons of mass destruction: IMPROVEMENTS FOR FA STATUS
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/ritter000427.html, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqAtoZ.html, http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#compo https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html Priority 5
|
|
||
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was copied or moved into WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
According to the New York Times.--v/r - T P 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This article could do a better job explaining the condition and context of recovered weapons. We know from earlier reporting that Iraq destroyed illicit weapons unilaterally, without proper supervision. Acting on intelligence from detainees, destruction pits were identified and excavated after the 2003 invasion. ISG found corroded-but-intact rounds lying adjacent destroyed munitions. Other chemical weapons were discovered in the desert, along old Iran-Iraq battle lines (abandoned in haste and concealed by sand and wind). Also included in the figures are 2,500 chemical rounds, previously accounted for and placed under lock and key by UNSCOM, held at the Muthanna State Establishment. I say 'previously accounted for' because the same weapons were later stolen by terrorists. [1] — TPX 16:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not clear sir! Akremi yassin ( talk) 18:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Much of the filtered and buried information the general media did not report on regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by the Hussien government can be viewed in this article published by the New York Times HERE and HERE. In retrospect, it was highly unfair to the current US President ( George W. Bush ) during the 2003 Iraq war to ignore this pertinent information for political purposes. The page in Wikipedia regarding, "Iraq and weapons of mass destruction" must be updated to reflect the information in the New York Times October 14, 2014 article. Drummer58 ( talk) 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm just putting it out there, but there weren't WMD's in Iraq except the discarded ones the iraqis tossed out at our order. Also, even if saddam had WMDs, does that justify us attacking iraq and killing 1 million iraqis? After all, we have thousands of nuclear warheads (much more deadly than chemical bombs) and we've used them two times, kiling over 100000 people.
There was an international conference of intelligence officials in which the claim was made that Ukranian intelligence showed Iraqi WMDs were, with Russian assistance, relocated to Syria before the 2003 war. The conference is online at [2], the relevant portion beginning about 2:10:00. Secondary sources have commented on it [3] [4] [5] [6] I wouldn't say its conclusive, but I think it bears mentioning in the article. Rhoark ( talk) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
“Anyone claiming it is an absolute fact there were no WMD in Iraq before the war, is lying.” Lying? But is not anyone giving the (false) impression that there were WMD in Iraq before the war, willfully misleading people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.51.102 ( talk) 20:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Weapons of Mass Dis-information - claim two
“…if we had not invaded, Saddam would not now today be able to threaten his neighbors in the region with attack by WMD?”
You neo-cons really should not believe everything you read in Blair’s Dodgy Dossier. For did not his sexed-up report claim that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Distraction? WMD that could he could fire off - within 45 mins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.236.6 ( talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Dis-information - claim three
“Saddam was a significant and prolific state sponsor of international terrorism”
For, as you neo-cons must be aware, intelligence reports have shown that Saddam feared terror groups - and kept the country free of them. Now, thanks to the involvement of Uncle Sam, Iraq is a land fit for terrorists. For the terrorists in Iraq have killed more Americans and harmed more US interests than Saddam. And yet neo-cons continued to maintain the impression that Revisionist History is a left-wing interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.236.6 ( talk) 18:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's stay Neutral here This discussion makes me want to invoke WP:NPOV and remind everyone that this article is not meant to be politically charged one way or the other. Encyclopedias, however, have to biased based on observable facts. At the moment, we don't have observable facts to indicate that the weapons used by Bashar Al-Assad in Syria (Chlorine) and by ISIS in Iraq (Mustard Gas) were WMDs developed and used by Saddam against his own people. Still, this debate reminds me a lot of the debates I have seen regarding climate change. As soon as anyone suggests that there's a possibility that a minor rise in global temperatures might NOT be solely due to anthropogenic causes (or at least not solely carbon dioxide), he is automatically given the label "climate skeptic" and his opinion is immediately disregarded. I'd like to not see this happen here, on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia an online encyclopedia? Or a liberal progressive mouthpiece? Please, let's check our political beliefs at the DOOR and judge new additions to this page based on their MERIT, not on whether or not you like the idea that those WMDs may actually have been shifted from Saddam to Bashar. Krakaet ( talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Click to expand
|
---|
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging the relevant information regarding the operation here into Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. — TPX 12:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Administrator requested to review and close the merge proposal two sections above this one. It has been open for seven weeks, and there haven't been any new edits for over two weeks (since April 19). Thank you very much. — BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Now that the articles have been merged, it raises the question of undue weight. This seems like a relatively minor incident that may deserve a paragraph or two. When last I checked, it seemed there was really only one substantive source, a New York Times article. The other sources seemed to rely entirely on that article. Welcome thoughts of other editors. NPguy ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
" Iraq's nuclear weapons program suffered a serious setback in 1981 when the Osiraq reactor, which would have been capable of breeding weapons-usable nuclear material, was bombed by Israel before it could be commissioned"
Yet on /info/en/?search=Operation_Opera we see this:
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard University who visually inspected the partially damaged reactor in December 1982, said that "to collect enough plutonium [for a nuclear weapon] using Osirak would've taken decades, not years".[36] In 2005, Wilson further commented in The Atlantic:
the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit.
Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards.
In an interview in 2012, Wilson again emphasised: "The Iraqis couldn't have been developing a nuclear weapon at Osirak. I challenge any scientist in the world to show me how they could have done so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.70.187 ( talk) 02:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It's sad to see the article in such a state. No, there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the accusations, as explained by Brian Glyn Williams. There shouldn't even be a lead-up to this clarification. Some of this material concerns a clear fringe view that has been outdated since the October 2004 report by the CIA that said Saddam "did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them." Someone even added a 2015 claim that the WMD claim was proved because reports surfaced that the CIA had bought weapons from a sketchy Iraqi; this follows a trend in some small conservative circles that still appear to make this seem like it's unresolved. It's not. The Iraq Survey Group said: "Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes." Prinsgezinde ( talk) 00:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
My explanation for reverting the edit is only half right. Osirak is indeed referenced later on in the article. Sorry about that. But the addition to the lede is still misleading because it implies that the bombing of Osirak kept Iraq off the path to nuclear weapons, which is at best debatable. In fact, the article on Operation Opera quotes the view that before the Osirak bombing Iraq's program was peaceful and only afterwards did Iraq pursue nuclear weapons. NPguy ( talk) 17:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, Saddam was not dumb enough to admit that the reactor was for nukes any not energy; that would have pitted the whole world against him.
However, his hatred of Israel was widely known
[1] and Iraq contributed in the 1948 & '67 wars against the Israelis, which means they had reason to belive the reactor was built for destructive purposes.
Also, it's a known fact that Iraq's nuclear program suffered a great hit from operation opera and it was one of the (if not the main) reasons they never got nukes, as explained in the scources I listed in my edit of the lead.
Conclusion: It is only logical for this to be briefly mentioned in the lead, because it was a huge turning point in Iraq's WMD program and because it's written about more extensively in the other section.
Dank Chicken (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not original research. As I've told you already, it's backed by the sources I listed.
"In the 1980s, Saddam pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built after the reactor Osirak was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in Operation Opera. [1] [2]"
... 1982, by which point intelligence assessments were that the nuclear reactor would go online.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Dank Chicken ( talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit
Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards.
Those quotes are from private persons. Here's another source who relies on Israeli intelligence gathering:
Israeli experts realized that the French proposal was no more than a smokescreen: firstly, because the development of the "Caramel" fuel was expected to be completed only in a few years' time, after the reactors have already been delivered to Iraq and fueled with the original fuel; and secondly, because the option of utilizing Tammuz-1 to produce plutonium remained valid. In any case, the "Caramel" plan wasmet with outright Iraqi rejection.
As time passed, Israeli intelligence acquired additional evidence of the military aspects of the Iraqi nuclear program. Nahum Admoni, who served as deputy head of Israel's Mossad during the relevant period, revealed in an interview to the Walla Internet portal (Yossi Melman, August 15, 2012) some of the details about the preparations of the Israeli intelligence community for the attack against Osirak.
Dank Chicken ( talk) 13:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is clear evidence to suggest that Israel massively delayed Iraq's path to a nuclear weapon, and we don't know the reason they launched yet another uranium enrichment program after the bombing, but it's most likely because the Saddam regime got pissed at Israel for destroying the reactor.
Can we at least agree on the following formulation?
"In the 1980s, the
Saddam regime pursued an extensive
biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though the latter was delayed after the
reactor Osirak was destroyed by the
Israeli Air Force in
Operation Opera.
[1]
[2] The nuclear program was officially suspended in 1990, after the
Iran–Iraq War."
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Dank Chicken ( talk) 14:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
In my last proposal, I actually wrote "delayed" and not "prevented". It is simply impossible to dispute the fact that a unilateral destruction of a nuclear reactor didn't delay the potential creation of nuclear weapons. Dank Chicken ( talk) 23:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Delay" doesn't work either if the premise is contested. If the reactor was never intended to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, then destroying it did nothing to delay Iraq's nuclear weapons program. That is the basis for the claim that the bombing actually spurred that program. NPguy ( talk) 04:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting to suspect you're deliberately misunderstanding me. It doesn't matter what the reactor was officially "intended" for. If you bomb a country's reactor, it sets said country further from obtaining nuclear weapons. 2+2=4, not 5... Dank Chicken ( talk) 07:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You would like to state that Iraq "pursued ... a nuclear weapons program," which "was delayed after the reactor Osirak was destroyed." This is asserting both that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons before Osirak was bombed and that the bombing delayed it. Both claims are disputed. Now you are claiming that it's not about intent, but if that's the case you would need different text. Maybe the thing to say is that Israeli bombed the reactor with the intent of delaying Iraq's nuclear weapons program, and afterwards Iraq pursued a broad-based clandestine nuclear weapons program. But I'm not sure we should try to sum this up tidily in the intro, since that might lead the reader to draw unintended and unwarranted inferences. NPguy ( talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead already states "Saddam pursued [...] a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built." If no explanation of why no nuclear bomb was built, it most likely leaves the reader more confused after they read it than they were before. Dank Chicken ( talk) 12:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not confusing. Lots of countries pursued nuclear weapons but never built them. In fact, more countries started down the path than completed it. Better to leave it to the rest of the article to explain. There's also the obvious alternative explanation: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait led to a disastrous military defeat. NPguy ( talk) 19:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
USA's invasion of Vietnam also led to a disastrous military defeat. You know what more they have in common? Neither event had anything to do with Iraq's nuclear program. Dank Chicken ( talk) 21:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The UN Security Council resolutions ending the 1990-1991 war agains Iraq - particularly UNSCR 687 - required the elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This presumably would not have happened if Iraq had not invaded Kuwait. Hence the causal connection. NPguy ( talk) 22:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The resolutions can be seen contributing factors in ending of Iraq's nuke program; hence my reference to the Iran-Iraq war in my proposed lead. I could also add the Kuwait invasion's part in the resolutions if you so please. Dank Chicken ( talk) 23:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The UN resolutions were not "contributing factors." They were the death knell. The Iran-Iraq war had little to do with it, at least not in any negative sense. Iraq did use chemical weapons and ballistic missiles against Iran, with muted international reaction. From all this discussion I still see no reason to change the lead. NPguy ( talk) 02:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Then don't mention their nuclear program in the lead! Either you do it right or you don't do it at all... Dank Chicken ( talk) 10:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Of course you have to mention the nuclear program in the intro. But the current mention is fine. NPguy ( talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
To Dank Chicken and NPguy (and I guess to User:TheTimesAreAChanging, who reverted me but will probably not want to discuss it again): I'll partly revive this discussion precisely because I was already planning a large rewrite. I originally wanted to do this a month ago but I was building a new PC and was kept busy otherwise. The problem with the article now is that it's outdated and does not reflect the near-total consensus that Iraq stopped its WMD program in the early 90's (1991 according to the Iraq Survey Group, and repeated by the CIA). TTAAC is promoting (see here, here, and here) a misunderstood/misleading narrative where a certain New York Times article is used by some conservatives in the US to claim that Bush was actually right. This has been debunked by several newspapers. The very same NYT article says this:
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
It was noted (and here) that the article literally stated the arms were from before 1991, and that Bush's claim had been that Iraq had an active WMD program with such weapons ready to use. Even the insignificant number of ones that were found as reported by the NYT article were not hidden by Saddam himself, but rather abandoned. Perhaps The Intercept explains it best here:
Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA’s definitive post-war investigation of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, explained that “Saddam didn’t know he had it … This is stuff Iraqi leaders did not know was left lying around. It was not a militarily significant capability that they were, as a matter of national policy, hiding.”
As such, I wanted to rewrite the article to detail its program before 1991. That paragraph about the NYT article at least has to be rewritten to reflect its actual significance, rather than how it is currently misrepresented. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 18:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Iraq and weapons of mass destruction: IMPROVEMENTS FOR FA STATUS
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/ritter000427.html, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqAtoZ.html, http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#compo https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html Priority 5
|
|
||
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was copied or moved into WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
According to the New York Times.--v/r - T P 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This article could do a better job explaining the condition and context of recovered weapons. We know from earlier reporting that Iraq destroyed illicit weapons unilaterally, without proper supervision. Acting on intelligence from detainees, destruction pits were identified and excavated after the 2003 invasion. ISG found corroded-but-intact rounds lying adjacent destroyed munitions. Other chemical weapons were discovered in the desert, along old Iran-Iraq battle lines (abandoned in haste and concealed by sand and wind). Also included in the figures are 2,500 chemical rounds, previously accounted for and placed under lock and key by UNSCOM, held at the Muthanna State Establishment. I say 'previously accounted for' because the same weapons were later stolen by terrorists. [1] — TPX 16:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not clear sir! Akremi yassin ( talk) 18:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Much of the filtered and buried information the general media did not report on regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by the Hussien government can be viewed in this article published by the New York Times HERE and HERE. In retrospect, it was highly unfair to the current US President ( George W. Bush ) during the 2003 Iraq war to ignore this pertinent information for political purposes. The page in Wikipedia regarding, "Iraq and weapons of mass destruction" must be updated to reflect the information in the New York Times October 14, 2014 article. Drummer58 ( talk) 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm just putting it out there, but there weren't WMD's in Iraq except the discarded ones the iraqis tossed out at our order. Also, even if saddam had WMDs, does that justify us attacking iraq and killing 1 million iraqis? After all, we have thousands of nuclear warheads (much more deadly than chemical bombs) and we've used them two times, kiling over 100000 people.
There was an international conference of intelligence officials in which the claim was made that Ukranian intelligence showed Iraqi WMDs were, with Russian assistance, relocated to Syria before the 2003 war. The conference is online at [2], the relevant portion beginning about 2:10:00. Secondary sources have commented on it [3] [4] [5] [6] I wouldn't say its conclusive, but I think it bears mentioning in the article. Rhoark ( talk) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
“Anyone claiming it is an absolute fact there were no WMD in Iraq before the war, is lying.” Lying? But is not anyone giving the (false) impression that there were WMD in Iraq before the war, willfully misleading people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.51.102 ( talk) 20:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Weapons of Mass Dis-information - claim two
“…if we had not invaded, Saddam would not now today be able to threaten his neighbors in the region with attack by WMD?”
You neo-cons really should not believe everything you read in Blair’s Dodgy Dossier. For did not his sexed-up report claim that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Distraction? WMD that could he could fire off - within 45 mins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.236.6 ( talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Dis-information - claim three
“Saddam was a significant and prolific state sponsor of international terrorism”
For, as you neo-cons must be aware, intelligence reports have shown that Saddam feared terror groups - and kept the country free of them. Now, thanks to the involvement of Uncle Sam, Iraq is a land fit for terrorists. For the terrorists in Iraq have killed more Americans and harmed more US interests than Saddam. And yet neo-cons continued to maintain the impression that Revisionist History is a left-wing interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.236.6 ( talk) 18:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's stay Neutral here This discussion makes me want to invoke WP:NPOV and remind everyone that this article is not meant to be politically charged one way or the other. Encyclopedias, however, have to biased based on observable facts. At the moment, we don't have observable facts to indicate that the weapons used by Bashar Al-Assad in Syria (Chlorine) and by ISIS in Iraq (Mustard Gas) were WMDs developed and used by Saddam against his own people. Still, this debate reminds me a lot of the debates I have seen regarding climate change. As soon as anyone suggests that there's a possibility that a minor rise in global temperatures might NOT be solely due to anthropogenic causes (or at least not solely carbon dioxide), he is automatically given the label "climate skeptic" and his opinion is immediately disregarded. I'd like to not see this happen here, on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia an online encyclopedia? Or a liberal progressive mouthpiece? Please, let's check our political beliefs at the DOOR and judge new additions to this page based on their MERIT, not on whether or not you like the idea that those WMDs may actually have been shifted from Saddam to Bashar. Krakaet ( talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Click to expand
|
---|
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging the relevant information regarding the operation here into Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. — TPX 12:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Administrator requested to review and close the merge proposal two sections above this one. It has been open for seven weeks, and there haven't been any new edits for over two weeks (since April 19). Thank you very much. — BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Now that the articles have been merged, it raises the question of undue weight. This seems like a relatively minor incident that may deserve a paragraph or two. When last I checked, it seemed there was really only one substantive source, a New York Times article. The other sources seemed to rely entirely on that article. Welcome thoughts of other editors. NPguy ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
" Iraq's nuclear weapons program suffered a serious setback in 1981 when the Osiraq reactor, which would have been capable of breeding weapons-usable nuclear material, was bombed by Israel before it could be commissioned"
Yet on /info/en/?search=Operation_Opera we see this:
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard University who visually inspected the partially damaged reactor in December 1982, said that "to collect enough plutonium [for a nuclear weapon] using Osirak would've taken decades, not years".[36] In 2005, Wilson further commented in The Atlantic:
the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit.
Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards.
In an interview in 2012, Wilson again emphasised: "The Iraqis couldn't have been developing a nuclear weapon at Osirak. I challenge any scientist in the world to show me how they could have done so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.70.187 ( talk) 02:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It's sad to see the article in such a state. No, there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the accusations, as explained by Brian Glyn Williams. There shouldn't even be a lead-up to this clarification. Some of this material concerns a clear fringe view that has been outdated since the October 2004 report by the CIA that said Saddam "did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them." Someone even added a 2015 claim that the WMD claim was proved because reports surfaced that the CIA had bought weapons from a sketchy Iraqi; this follows a trend in some small conservative circles that still appear to make this seem like it's unresolved. It's not. The Iraq Survey Group said: "Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes." Prinsgezinde ( talk) 00:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
My explanation for reverting the edit is only half right. Osirak is indeed referenced later on in the article. Sorry about that. But the addition to the lede is still misleading because it implies that the bombing of Osirak kept Iraq off the path to nuclear weapons, which is at best debatable. In fact, the article on Operation Opera quotes the view that before the Osirak bombing Iraq's program was peaceful and only afterwards did Iraq pursue nuclear weapons. NPguy ( talk) 17:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, Saddam was not dumb enough to admit that the reactor was for nukes any not energy; that would have pitted the whole world against him.
However, his hatred of Israel was widely known
[1] and Iraq contributed in the 1948 & '67 wars against the Israelis, which means they had reason to belive the reactor was built for destructive purposes.
Also, it's a known fact that Iraq's nuclear program suffered a great hit from operation opera and it was one of the (if not the main) reasons they never got nukes, as explained in the scources I listed in my edit of the lead.
Conclusion: It is only logical for this to be briefly mentioned in the lead, because it was a huge turning point in Iraq's WMD program and because it's written about more extensively in the other section.
Dank Chicken (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not original research. As I've told you already, it's backed by the sources I listed.
"In the 1980s, Saddam pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built after the reactor Osirak was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in Operation Opera. [1] [2]"
... 1982, by which point intelligence assessments were that the nuclear reactor would go online.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Dank Chicken ( talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit
Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards.
Those quotes are from private persons. Here's another source who relies on Israeli intelligence gathering:
Israeli experts realized that the French proposal was no more than a smokescreen: firstly, because the development of the "Caramel" fuel was expected to be completed only in a few years' time, after the reactors have already been delivered to Iraq and fueled with the original fuel; and secondly, because the option of utilizing Tammuz-1 to produce plutonium remained valid. In any case, the "Caramel" plan wasmet with outright Iraqi rejection.
As time passed, Israeli intelligence acquired additional evidence of the military aspects of the Iraqi nuclear program. Nahum Admoni, who served as deputy head of Israel's Mossad during the relevant period, revealed in an interview to the Walla Internet portal (Yossi Melman, August 15, 2012) some of the details about the preparations of the Israeli intelligence community for the attack against Osirak.
Dank Chicken ( talk) 13:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is clear evidence to suggest that Israel massively delayed Iraq's path to a nuclear weapon, and we don't know the reason they launched yet another uranium enrichment program after the bombing, but it's most likely because the Saddam regime got pissed at Israel for destroying the reactor.
Can we at least agree on the following formulation?
"In the 1980s, the
Saddam regime pursued an extensive
biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though the latter was delayed after the
reactor Osirak was destroyed by the
Israeli Air Force in
Operation Opera.
[1]
[2] The nuclear program was officially suspended in 1990, after the
Iran–Iraq War."
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Dank Chicken ( talk) 14:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
In my last proposal, I actually wrote "delayed" and not "prevented". It is simply impossible to dispute the fact that a unilateral destruction of a nuclear reactor didn't delay the potential creation of nuclear weapons. Dank Chicken ( talk) 23:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Delay" doesn't work either if the premise is contested. If the reactor was never intended to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, then destroying it did nothing to delay Iraq's nuclear weapons program. That is the basis for the claim that the bombing actually spurred that program. NPguy ( talk) 04:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting to suspect you're deliberately misunderstanding me. It doesn't matter what the reactor was officially "intended" for. If you bomb a country's reactor, it sets said country further from obtaining nuclear weapons. 2+2=4, not 5... Dank Chicken ( talk) 07:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You would like to state that Iraq "pursued ... a nuclear weapons program," which "was delayed after the reactor Osirak was destroyed." This is asserting both that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons before Osirak was bombed and that the bombing delayed it. Both claims are disputed. Now you are claiming that it's not about intent, but if that's the case you would need different text. Maybe the thing to say is that Israeli bombed the reactor with the intent of delaying Iraq's nuclear weapons program, and afterwards Iraq pursued a broad-based clandestine nuclear weapons program. But I'm not sure we should try to sum this up tidily in the intro, since that might lead the reader to draw unintended and unwarranted inferences. NPguy ( talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead already states "Saddam pursued [...] a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built." If no explanation of why no nuclear bomb was built, it most likely leaves the reader more confused after they read it than they were before. Dank Chicken ( talk) 12:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not confusing. Lots of countries pursued nuclear weapons but never built them. In fact, more countries started down the path than completed it. Better to leave it to the rest of the article to explain. There's also the obvious alternative explanation: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait led to a disastrous military defeat. NPguy ( talk) 19:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
USA's invasion of Vietnam also led to a disastrous military defeat. You know what more they have in common? Neither event had anything to do with Iraq's nuclear program. Dank Chicken ( talk) 21:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The UN Security Council resolutions ending the 1990-1991 war agains Iraq - particularly UNSCR 687 - required the elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This presumably would not have happened if Iraq had not invaded Kuwait. Hence the causal connection. NPguy ( talk) 22:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The resolutions can be seen contributing factors in ending of Iraq's nuke program; hence my reference to the Iran-Iraq war in my proposed lead. I could also add the Kuwait invasion's part in the resolutions if you so please. Dank Chicken ( talk) 23:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The UN resolutions were not "contributing factors." They were the death knell. The Iran-Iraq war had little to do with it, at least not in any negative sense. Iraq did use chemical weapons and ballistic missiles against Iran, with muted international reaction. From all this discussion I still see no reason to change the lead. NPguy ( talk) 02:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Then don't mention their nuclear program in the lead! Either you do it right or you don't do it at all... Dank Chicken ( talk) 10:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Of course you have to mention the nuclear program in the intro. But the current mention is fine. NPguy ( talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
To Dank Chicken and NPguy (and I guess to User:TheTimesAreAChanging, who reverted me but will probably not want to discuss it again): I'll partly revive this discussion precisely because I was already planning a large rewrite. I originally wanted to do this a month ago but I was building a new PC and was kept busy otherwise. The problem with the article now is that it's outdated and does not reflect the near-total consensus that Iraq stopped its WMD program in the early 90's (1991 according to the Iraq Survey Group, and repeated by the CIA). TTAAC is promoting (see here, here, and here) a misunderstood/misleading narrative where a certain New York Times article is used by some conservatives in the US to claim that Bush was actually right. This has been debunked by several newspapers. The very same NYT article says this:
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
It was noted (and here) that the article literally stated the arms were from before 1991, and that Bush's claim had been that Iraq had an active WMD program with such weapons ready to use. Even the insignificant number of ones that were found as reported by the NYT article were not hidden by Saddam himself, but rather abandoned. Perhaps The Intercept explains it best here:
Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA’s definitive post-war investigation of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, explained that “Saddam didn’t know he had it … This is stuff Iraqi leaders did not know was left lying around. It was not a militarily significant capability that they were, as a matter of national policy, hiding.”
As such, I wanted to rewrite the article to detail its program before 1991. That paragraph about the NYT article at least has to be rewritten to reflect its actual significance, rather than how it is currently misrepresented. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 18:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)