Bookmark www.milnet.com     Contact milnet@milnet.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Now as the final days of the Taliban seem to be close, major U.S. media are turning their attention to what is next in the war on terror.  With U.S. and co-alition forces poised in the region, it is clear that the costs to move the War on Terrorism to another nation is relatively low in comparison to bringing deployed troops home and then redeploying at another time.  What are the rational choices and who could be the next targets?

Good Morning, Saddam, We're Back!

In full defiance of the terms of the surrender in 1991, Iraq has flaunted its arrogance and belligerence to the civilized world, first denying access and finally disputing the rights of arms inspectors seeking to ensure the treaty guarantees that Iraq would never again threaten neighboring Islamic countries.

And for a decade Arab nations have supported the U.S. and British as they worked to keep Iraq's forces in check.

But today, respondents to mail in and street surveys will tell you the known truth throughout the non-Islamic world.  Which is the nation most likely to foster or induce the use of weapons of mass destruction?  Iraq is the answer on most lips, with nations such as Iran, Syria, Sudan, or even the old threatener, Libya.

All five nations are thought to have the capabilities, however, Iraq stands out as the most menacing.  This is due to the chain of events created by Suddam Hussein as his tyranny continues a decade after the end of the Gulf War.  U.N. inspectors, upon leaving Iraq for the last time, all noted that Iraq would be able to recreate its biological warfare program in six months.  With help they might also have a nuclear program well underway in that time, and it is well known that a properly funded and technologically capable nuclear program can yield nuclear weapons in two to five years.  On the ground inspections ceased over five years ago.

Another wrinkle in the weapons field is the now public exposure of non-nuclear radiation weapons.  These consist of two types an EMP weapon and a radioactive waste spreader device.

The first is a weapon that generated intense electromagnetic pulses that disable, over large distances, electronic devices such as computers in autos, laptops, servers and network routers.  This weapon, while fairly complex to get to work just right, is simple enough to explain to the layman and in fact has been shown on the cover of Popular Science magazine!  It is a 50-50 chance that Iraq has this capability.

The radioactive waste distribution device is loaded with waste material from a nuclear power plant and while detonated conventionaly (not a nuclear chain reaction like an atomic or hydrogen bomb) explosively throws this dangerous material around exposing its victims to its deadly radiation.  Any nation with a nuclear reactor online has the means to build the readioactive waste device, and it is clear that Iraq could have a reactor online today, and was known to have nuclear waste material some time ago.

Thus we have the possibility -- if not a credible liklihood that Iraq has NBC capabilities today.  Is this a nation the civilized world can trust to a mature, measured program outlining the limited (prohibition) for use of such weapons?  Hardly.  Few in the Islamic world let alone the rest of the world would trust Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime with the decision over nuclear weapons.  Clearly, any terrorist with the right targets in mind (for instance the U.S. or Britain) would find a welcome host in Saddam Hussein.  Can that be said of the other four on our list of likely nations.  No, or least not with as much certainty.

Therefore, the next pressing threat in the War on Terrorism is the nation which clearly has no compunction against arming terrorists with Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons.  That nation is Iraq.

Is there evidence.  Yes.  Several nations have compiled the correct evidence in clandestine operations.  It is time for these nations to make that information public, name the sites, the people involved and make the case for Phase 2 of the War on Terror, Iraq.
 

© Copyright 2001, Michael Crawford - MILNET

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

distributed worldwide by AFI Research afi@supanet.com