A BBC video from 2003 documenting Israel's secret nuclear program and WMD capabilities and how the US gouvernment keeps using a double standard when it comes to treating Israel as the rest of the Middle East.


rapidshare: http://rapidshare.de/files/25115768/BBC-ISW.part1.rar.html

rapidshare: http://rapidshare.de/files/25119433/BBC-ISW.part2.rar.html


Since Rapidshare limits uploads in size to 100 MB, the file is split in 2 encrypted RAR files. Just download the 2 files to the same directory and decompress.

Password : roguesci.org

Size: 136 MB

Darn, due to the fact I have a 56Kbps dial up internet it is unlikely that I will download it. However, it would not surprise me at all if the US government was giving them special treatment stuff like this has been going on for year.

It was an interesting show to watch.

I especially liked the comparison of Israel to Soviet Russia/North Korea/Saddam's Iraq. The comparison was not lost. :)

'Course, they've got hundreds of nuclear weapons, but they can't use them. To use them would be self-destructive, as the arabs would either already be IN israel (thus jews would have to nuke themselves), or they'd have to nuke the arabs outside of israel (becoming world-pariahs).

Either way, they lose.

It's like the US and USSR.

Both sides invested huge sums of money into weapons they could never use.

A weapon never used is useless.

They'd be far better off investing in more conventional arms, of higher quality, and more training.

A weapon never used is useless.


Sorry but wrong. Nuclear weapons buy the room for a country to maneuver. Otherwise, such country (in this case, Israel, which was heavily isolated by her neighbors, i.e. Arab countries) shall be isolated and cannot achieve anything for supplying necessary wealth and freedom to her own people. Imagine an Israel minus nuclear weapons striking various facilities (e.g. Iraqi research nuclear reactor) located in various neighbor countries. It's impossible. Regards

Nuclear weapons are bargaining chips. The concept of MAD, Mutually Assured
Destruction, has worked - so far. Using large tactical or strategic nukes is
out of the question. Neutron bombs limit damage but an already irate U.N
would go apeshit if Israel ever used one. The U.N. is largely pro-Palestinian
and anti-Israel, anti-U.K., anti-U.S..

There have been reports, that North Korea's long range ICBM failed after only
42 seconds of flight. Some Japanese and U.S. military sources claimed that
the observed trajectory readings put the flight path in the direction of Hawaii.
If that's the case then Kim Jong-Il is asking to get his pecker cutoff !

Akinrog, nukes only buy manuevering room as long as only ONE side has them.

And, once one side has them, the other sides then become compelled to aquire them too, to maintain parity.

Once both sides have them, you return to zero, as no one dares use them.

Thus, they become useless weapons, for using one ensures your own destruction.

Imagine a magical weapon that was guaranteed to kill your enemy, but killed you in the process. Would you use it?

If you're a jew, likely not, because you want to live to spend your profits.

If you're a raghead, maybe you would, because you've got some fucked up belief in an eternity with 72 virgins.

The US got away with using nukes because we had created them first, and no one else had any. We had plans of using them in a pre-emptive war against Stalinist Russia but, once they set off their own, it became a MAD game that no one could win.

There's a lot more to nuclear brinksmanship than simple "I've got one, you don't! Nya, nya, nya!! :p"

In the case of the Nork's, they may be able to build a missile capable of reaching CONUS, but it'd be national suicide to ever fire it at the US.

They're trying to use it as a bargaining chip, and it'll work...for the moment.

Their possession of an ICBM will further support US development of an effective ABM.

Nork's will develop countermeasures, or sneak a nuke into the US by other means.

US will put SRBM nukes on the border to threaten Pyongyang.

Nork's will...

US will...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Does any of this contribute to stability?

How long until someone, somewhere, fucks up and triggers WW3? Too many interlocking factors are depending on nobody disrupting the balance, like a game of global pick-up sticks.

The flipside to that, of course, is that to not have nukes is now a national suicide for anyone who wants to be a bit different - i.e. toe the line that the US insists it must draw in the sand.

If Iraq really had WMDs, the US probably wouldn't have attacked/invaded, since Scuds can reach Israel and southern Europe. This is why the Patriot systems, which don't actually work well, but look good, were deployed, as a PR exercise. They weren't really needed after 10 years of sanctions.

Once the teething issues are out the way for the North Koreans, they will simply be immune to an attack by US conventional forces. If Bush did go in, the only way would be to have a system to defend and shoot down the missiles, as well as several commando teams to pre-strike the launch sites.

Followed up with precision carpet bombing of the area, just in case, most likely, since Bush will happily argue that it's in the world's best interest for the nukes to go off over there, rather than over here. Of course, China, India and Pakistan aren't going to see it that way, and nor is Russia or any of the other new states that were USSR. So that would be interesting.

Or else it simply won't happen, unless NK do something really silly, and I don't mean simply invading South Korea, US troops in the way or not. I predict those troops will be pulled out fairly soon, just in case. (In fact, I decided to look for the numbers, and found http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3970979.stm which tells us that it actually has already happened! There were 37,000 troops prior to 2004, but they have pulled a lot of them out, droping numbers down to 24,000, all of whom are well within range of the huge number of NK missiles and artillery pointed over the border.)

"The number one objective of the regime is survival, not suicide - they're not building missiles to attack the US," says Donald Gregg, a former US ambassador in Seoul, the South Korean capital.

And that is what everyone needs to realise - if you want to avoid being beaten into submission by the USA foriegn policy, you want nukes* and platforms as fast as you can.

Of course, once the SDI thing gets going some more, the USA will start to feel it can throw it's weight around again. But then the NK (or whoever) will simply send a nuke over via another method, and leave it in a port or a city, as insurance, since the odds that widespread plutonium pollution will be enough to scare off an invasion are rather small I feel.

And that's not "terrorism" as much as it is self-defence, since it will be the only way to get past the US vitriol and bluster and massively expensive defence shield, and provide enough leverage to stop the US invading.

We all know it will be MAD to use it, and it will be hard to hint to the USA clearly that they have a big problem if they do attack, and that hint might draw a terrible disaster almost immediately, but NK will have to.

However, I'm quite sure that if I can come up with 20 ways to wipe out a city with huge death tolls, a well funded, highly motivated government that is about to fight for it's life will have little trouble.

If the North Koreans state clearly and calmly that they have the ability to strike back at the USA regardless and immediately, in the event of invasion, and that they should not invade, how would the US people feel? It's all down to spin. If Bush and others were crazy enough to spin it as blackmail or somesuch, then things would go badly. Cooler heads would not prevail. If Bush simply didn't do anything, then who knows?

It's a fantastic debate.
--
*Why a nuke? Well, if you are going to massive expense and trouble to beat an SDI system, doing it with a few Molatov cocktails or a ton of HE would be really silly, and you are likely to only get one shot (or rather, once the first shot goes off, you won't get change to aim more, only to trigger further devices already in place.) The other options include 40,000 tons of ANFO in a ship, a huge FAE on top of a tall building, blowing up bridges, you know, all the usual ideas we have seen and heard recently.

This isn't totally on-topic, but why is it that NOBODY, not even the most paranoid websites, mention that the US has a functioning chemical-powered laser designed to shoot down ascending missiles as they get out of the atmosphere. It is mounted in a 747 and was in Popular Science half a year ago.

It is used when the missile is above the atmosphere, but still going slowly - say about 40 seconds after launch, which is about when the Long Dong II blew up. Lasers do not show up on radar, and they have a long range above the atmosphere.

Frankly, I doubt it, but I think somebody should mention this, so I am.

Whoops, closed the tab by mistake!

Right, the COIL isn't very good - yet.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm tells lots, but http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/ is more up-to-date.

The US would have had to know exactly when and where the missile was going to be fired from. Any 747 would certainly show up on radar at the 400km maximum range of the laser, and the odds of them being there at exactly the right time is small. Plus, if they had, I have little doubt they would have shot the other missiles as well.

The COIL also uses three different frequencies of IR. High speed footage of the failure would most likely show blooming and thermal effects, especially on a thermal imager or near-IR high resolution B&W camera. I suspect that the NKs would have had every camera they had pointing at it - but then would they have told anyone?

For a real conspiracy, how about the fact that the failure of the Space Shuttle booster would look exactly like a hit from the COIL on the way up? Of course, that happened too long ago for anyone to make that connection. I'm not sure what it would look like on the way back down, but a laser that powerful would certainly frag a few heat resistant tiles after a few seconds.

(I've seen a Class IV CO2 laser melt a firebrick in fractions of a second - fast enough that the tech. wrote his initials in white hot glass in real time by picking up the brick and moving it in the static beam!)

I did think this at the time, but I dis-regarded it.

As an aside, that COIL beam would be a remarkably nasty anti-personel weapon for taking out people on the ground. Think back to the start of "Real Genius".

I was thinking the same thing, about using the 747 laser as an AP weapon.

Imagine some jihadi leader coming out of a meeting at night, walking towards his car when, suddenly, a flash of light and a sound like thunder! When everyone recovers their senses, they see that the leader is now a exploded pile of steaming flash-boiled meat. :D

He has been struck down by the Hand of GOD!!! PWNED!

That'd get their attention, I think. ;)

"The US would have had to know exactly when and where the missile was going to be fired from."

The US would need to know the launch location only within the 400 km range of the laser. The launch is quickly detected by satellites, which could then inform the laser-packing 747.

"I suspect that the NKs would have had every camera they had pointing at it – but then would they have told anyone?"

North Korea is so primitive that they use liquid-fueled military missiles, a technology abandoned by the West about 1970, and NK may forego IR-imaging cameras and invest the money saved into Nukes.

"…the failure of the Space Shuttle booster would look exactly like a hit from the COIL on the way up?"

On a solid-fuel missile, heating by laser could appear like hot gas leaking from a failing motor. However, a laser heating a liquid-fuel tank would be an anomaly that an IR camera could detect. So perhaps the laser was fired at the solid-fuel stages of the missile.

"I was thinking the same thing, about using the 747 laser as an AP weapon."

Atmosphere absorbs laser energy and also increases the minimum diameter of the beam, resulting in a maximum range of a few miles, even using frequencies most compatible with the atmosphere. In Baghdad, they are supposed to have a laser capable of exploding mortar shells in mid-air.

No doubt that the COIL has the ability to vaporize the towel right off of one’s head, but it may not offer much more lethality than a 30mm chain gun at a mile or two. And besides, the spoil-sports in the UN, the courts and the Times would declare it a violation of the Geneva Convention.

But the main point of this post is to again assert that the Long Dong II could have failed due to laser.

400km isn't that far, and to be that close you would be a big radar target, as it is line of sight. Considering it was in the air for only 40 seconds or so, it would be damned tricky to pull off.

Lots of places use liquid fueled motors for rockets, especially the big stuff, because it is far more controllable. You can turn it on and off, to adjust the trajectory.

I don't doubt the atmospheric absorption would be high, but if it will go 400km through air at altitude, it will go perhaps 50km at lower altitudes (8 times the atmospheric pressure) and the beam is rapidly adjusted by the deformable mirror so as to minimise the distortion due to the atmosphere and thermal blooming, as well as to reduce diffraction effects. Then factor in the energy needed to kill a person, compared to a missile. An IR flash-burn would certainly occur, and the target would be blinded for life, along with the bodygaurds, etc. around them. At higher energies, you will find that flesh and soft tissue explodes as the water boils in fractions of a second, clothing ignites, body armour and all, whilst the beam is on, and won't go out until the beam stops. If the shot was timed for as the target was breathing in, smoke and flame inhalation would occur, increasing lethality.

Of course, after that, a swift airstrike or ground op would finish the job, since the otherwise fit target would be likely to survive if death wasn't instant.

As regards the chaingun, the laser is instant and leaves no holes, so the laser is far more easily misdirected.

Jacks Complete - I don't profess to be a master of physics or even near, but I have a funny feeling that if it has to do with light (lasers) then the 1/r2 relationship would possibly apply.

If that is so, then at 8 atmospheres it would be reduced to 1/64th of its range. Ill go have a look at my Giancoli, but correct me if I'm wrong in the mean time.

Inverse Square rears its ugly head yet again! :(

I've read that the missile was in the air for more than 2 minutes, according to some military sources, as quoted at http://www.defensetech.org/

Yes, it would reduce the range dramatically, but I think we can assume that the 747 would still be as high as possible, and the missile would be climbing.

If it was in the air for a full two minutes, then it would have been way up high, and an easy target for the laser system, if it was within range. But the odds of it being in range are tiny.

Absorption isn't an 1/R^2 thing, btw, it's non-linear at the kind of energy densities we are talking about, but lower than a squared relationship. Gain & absorption is a nasty subject, the equations are generally nasty.

For a bit more, look at Beer-Lambert's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer-Lambert_law) and scroll down to the "Atmospheric absorption" part. You will, of course, note that for a laser you are only concerned about a single wavelength, which makes things easier, unless you have those pesky non-linear effects such as frequency shifting and doubling due to the high intensity. Which with a laser weapon system you certainly do. Scattering is a big issue, but you choose a laser frequency which reduces this to the lowest possible, and you use corrective adaptive optics to keep your difraction and lensing effects to the minimum.

1/R^2 is more the beam spread with distance. It's a real bitch when you want to use radar or even a flashlight to detect something, since there and back becomes 1/R^4!

Anyway, I could write more, but I won't. In summary, it is possible, especially if it was airbourne for that long, but unlikely, unless the US knew ahead of time. It is just about possible if they were tipped on the direction of firing. 2 minutes would also have allowed the missile to get far enough from NK that the 747 wouldn't be found by NK radar systems, unless the US didn't care, in which case, who knows?

The one thing that makes MAD work is that both side fear destruction.

If what I hear about the Iranian Gov't is true, (IE that they are 12th Imman cultists) they may WANT to die, and take everyone else with them.

To a lesser extant, Kim Il Jung is not the world's most stable personality, and may be crazy enough to think he's beyond retaliation.

Though I find it interesting the overwhelming interests these Gov'ts have in easily tracked missile systems. You might not be able to stop them, but you know where they were launched from. It would make a heck of a lot more sense to make nukes that could be ground delivered, making it hard to figure out who just blew up Chicago.

It just appeals to their egos, I guess. One more syptom of craziness.

(edit for bad typing)

..Imagine some jihadi leader coming out of a meeting at night, walking towards his car when, suddenly, a flash of light and a sound like thunder! ...

I think that this would be an excellent method if used with psywar propaganda backup.

"God has abandoned you, and works for West now. Kill yourselves to cleanse the shame." type things.

I doubt the Israeli Nuclear weapon program came to a screeching halt with the development of the 'Popeye' slbm and Jericho II. I espied this article lately, and it is worth considering.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/conrad01.html

Kim Jong-Il may not fear retaliation, but his military advisers and generals might.

We have less to fear from the current NK government than we do the post Kim Jong-Il regime. Eventually the North Korean government will collapse from within, either from a coup d’etat, or a popular uprising. The coup is the more likely scenario. At such a time the state of affairs will be ripe for plunder and opportunity for generals, minor officers, technicians, and anyone else with a key card to the nuke bunker. They will auction off their nuclear materials to the highest bidder like a fire sale.

Who wants to go in on a group buy? We will need a $million in stake money…

If I contribute $10, does that mean I get 1/100000th of the blame for blowing up [insert name of appropriate target here]? :p
But it would make a lovely addition to the video archive...

Whilst NK's nuclear capability is a serious threat, it's interesting to wonder how a military strike could actually be pulled off without massive collateral damage. Seoul is in artillery range, and the South Koreans wouldn't be all that happy about being the subject of sarin-fuelled-genocide. :(

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/conrad01.html

This is a military web site!... And how about the following excerpt from the above link?


Russian weapons designers (and, presumably, their counterparts in other countries) have been for years developing new classes of nuclear weapons, with yields as low as a few tens of tons and one hundred to one thousand times "cleaner" than the current generation of weapons. (This will be because they achieve fusion without a fission primary, which means that no radioactive fissile material is used, and that there is no need to achieve critical mass, so that very small nuclear explosions are possible.) Further, the Russian government is reportedly initiating a buildup of ten thousand tactical nuclear weapons, with yields of one tenth of a kiloton or less, to achieve a "pinpoint" nuclear capability (the ability to use small nuclear weapons the same way in which the United States uses smart bombs and cruise missiles), making "limited nuclear war" theoretically possible.

I know there are developments in this field (i.e. fusion explosions without a need for primary (i.e. a fission bomb). And this is actually related to Pure Fusion Explosions thread I believe. Maybe mods decideto move this to that thread. Regards.

Yes, It's a military website, is that a no-no? If so, why is it publicly available. I don't understand much of what they are referring to, but anyways, the article looked well written. They apparently put out a monthly e-zine. Probably lots of good readin'. That other thread seems to be talking about what a kid did in his back yard.:p

Who else had realised the under reaction in Kim Jong-Il's nuclear testing compared to the war on terror fuelled events?

Sadam suspected of possessing WMD's gets invaded, Kim Jong-Il carries out nuclear tests and is known to have made nuclear weapons gets a little place in the news.

Of course NK doesn’t have any oil, terrorists, or use for America what so ever if invaded.

I could be wrong, let time tell.

Yes, It's a military website, is that a no-no? If so, why is it publicly available. I don't understand much of what they are referring to, but anyways, the article looked well written. They apparently put out a monthly e-zine. Probably lots of good readin'. That other thread seems to be talking about what a kid did in his back yard.:p

What I'm referring to is off-topic for this thread (i.e. hints about possibility of doing a pure fusion explosion can only be relevant to other thread about the same), nor I'm objecting it. However, the link you gave is another hint about the possibility of this device.

And web searches gives mostly that type of information emphasizing that "research for fourth generation weapons are still ongoing with no success" or some other ambigious information.

Anyway those who are interested might check this out: http://whyfiles.org/167new_nukes/3.html. Regards.

No country has ever invaded a nuclear armed country (yet).

The US is calling for UN sanctions :rolleyes: against the Norks, because they have a nuclear bomb and a missile that can deliver it...something neither Iraq or Iran has.

There's no way the US will invade NK now. :)

At least NK gives the US government something to occupy themselves. Otherwise the fedgov would turn against the people and we would have even more crazy oppressive laws than we do now.

I think fedgov will just use a nuclear armed NK as an excuse for further oppressive laws to [GWB Slur]prevent nuclear terror[/slurring].

Oh yes, there will be ever more restrictive laws, but they are rather hard to enforce when the bulk of your army is on the other half of the world. Soon enough Johnny will come marching home... to occupy your home, to search your home, and to seize your home.

Hard to say, but I think the one thing that could/would stop the US Army would be a fight in their own yard. Most Americans wouldn't feel happy snipeing another American, or bombing their schools and homes.

Wait untill they get the robot war machines working really well, then that goes away... There won't even be a need for people anymore. That's when things will get really interesting.

As for the whole WMD thing, if Iraq had actually had any (that were viable, and not ideas like using a crop duster or a radio controlled plane with sarin, or the half dozen empty shells the UK sold to Iraq over 20 years ago), the US wouldn't have invaded them!

The percentage of people in the USA who are *absolutely sure* that WMDs were found is scary. Those are the people "sheeple" was coined for.

.....As for the whole WMD thing, if Iraq had actually had any (that were viable, and not ideas like using a crop duster or a radio controlled plane with sarin, or the half dozen empty shells the UK sold to Iraq over 20 years ago), the US wouldn't have invaded them!.....

Then I suppose those 900,000 Kurds and Iranian soliders gassed themselves?

The actual question is not did WMD exist in Iraq, even the UN certified that!
It's what happened to them?

My guess is that he gave them away, like he gave his airforce to Iran ( a deadly enemy) in the opening days of the '86 war, rather than let us get them.

And I think this discussion belongs in the water cooler section, not here.

BeerWolf, the Iraq war was an unprovoked attack by Bush who didn’t invade them for WMD's, that was the excuse. Bush doesn’t give a shit if other countries have WMD's just watch and see what they do about North Korea.

What did Bush do when Sadam gassed the Kurds? Nothing, now his invading them under suspicion of possession of WMD’s with no real evidence to support it, just the propaganda campaign to gain peoples support in the wars.

I suggest EVERYBODY should watch this, even if you don’t believe in it, just take a look, try to prove it wrong. I would love to hear the opposing arguments against this because I’m searching for the truth not propaganda and lies.

Theories behind the Iraq war.
http://rapidshare.de/files/36671909/Theories_behind_the_Iraq_war.wmv

Beerwolf IIRC it is US who sold Saddam the blueprints for the factories of WMD, and Germany build it following those instructions, so...did US need UN to certify that Iraq had WMD? Country administation can't allow itself to look like it has very little attention time span. Many countries sold Iraq a weapons and some of those were CW charged (well customer is always right ;)).

Once upon a time US diplomat allow itself to address to other foreign diplomat and said this "you can't lead a politics like you are a world power, and you aren't because : 1. your country has a population under 50 million; 2. you don't have your own oil supplies; 3. you don't have nuclear weapon". Now I really wonder what trigered small countries nuclear armament race...

While I'm reluctant to speak on this topic, since it's a very touchy subject which mostly leads to flamewars by and between neo-cons and liberals, I'd like to make a few comments thereupon.

What did Bush do when Sadam gassed the Kurds? Nothing, now his invading them under suspicion of possession of WMD’s with no real evidence to support it, just the propaganda campaign to gain peoples support in the wars.

A little detail about the gassing of Kurds is: When they were gassed, US was prime ally of Iraq (read Saddam) since Iraq was fighting against Iran. So it's pointless to state that Saddam gassed the Kurds for blaming him since it shall entail the fact that if it's a crime to gas people, then their allies must also be responsible therefor.

In addition, Saddam did not gas the Kurds for the sake of gassing Kurds. Saddam gassed a city called Halabja. Halabja had been, was and is still a stronghold of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, harboring an organization which is called Ansar-al-Islam (but its name was different back then).

(An important note: Iraq was one of the most secular Arab country where you can go to bars, night clubs, buy booze, which may entail your beheading in other Islamic Arab countries. He did not like Islamic fundamentalists and crushed them whenever he finds them.)

The Kurds took advantage of this event for furtherment of their cause, i.e. establishment of Independent Kurdistan and claimed that Saddam was gassing them, which is not a total lie but rather a twisting of a fact.

In addition, Halabja was one of the priority targets hit even by coalition forces too when the second gulf war started, since the city contains al-Qaeda like factions.

And statements like "Saddam was killing 100,000 people per year (which amounts to 2,700,000 people since he was in power for almost 27 years and now it seems by the virtue of Corporate Media the number diminished to a moderate amount of 900,000 in total) apparently a hoax, since the country in question is quite small with respect to population. Regards.

c.tech and futi :
I didn't say a word about the causes or justifications for or against the war, or who sold what to whom before, during or after. Or even if I'm for or against it.
You seem to have assumed what my politics are.

I simply pointed out that the statement that "WMD's have NEVER existed in Iraq" , while popular nowadays, is incorrect.

If someone is going to argue about history, I think he should at least get the basic facts right.

If you use assumptions, rather than fact, in chemistry, bad things can happen. History is no different.

BeerWolf, apologies for making assumptions in your views.

What did you think of the video if you saw it? I should tell everyone to download it (or any other Rapidshare file) whilst they can, the time that Rapidshare links are being kept active are getting shorter and shorter.

Beerwolf I reacted only because you pulled line out of Jack's post neglecting what he tried to state.

It was questionable did Iraq has WMD after first Gulf War because I can't imagine that US didn't force Saddam to get it dismantled in a series of "closed for public" negotiations. Hell seeing this WMD thing becoming a routine US war propaganda tactics more and more countries are abandoning those weapons anyway. That is how I understood Jack's post. Jack only stated that US failed to find any WMD in Iraq after war ended and that number of people who fail to recognise propaganda tricks that government "pushed" media are trying to plant in their heads is disturbing. Iraq destroyed or dislocated its WMD...so what?

US political decisions were responsible for Iraq obtaining WMD in the first place (during their Iran mess-up), and for transformation of Iraq (after this war) in fertile ground for extremistic muslims. If US don't understand people and culture of that region they should stay out of it. This way even if they try to do some good they wreak havoc...and turn world public opinion against them.

Cheers FUTI.

The first and only NBC bits found were, iirc, a few empty chemical shells that the British supplied to Saddam in the late 70's. If anyone can quote me anything more than that, please do.

Beerwolf, I know full well that the Kurds were gassed. But where could those weapons have gone? We (the West) sold them to him, and some people got gassed. Not being flippant about the deaths of a lot of people, but I think I know why they couldn't be found any more - they had been used, many years before.

I've seen the inside gen on the Iraqi airforce project to make a chemical weapons drone. They basically bought a large radio controlled plane and tried to fit a sprayer onto it after smuggling it into the country in parts. Some of it was cobbled together from bike parts. Even with something like Sarin they couldn't have done much, as it could barely fly, and they only had ONE! It also would have likely been fatal to all involved since the sprayer was a commercial one, and the radio controller was a hobby grade device, so the controllers would have died before it took off.

If the USA/UK had even thought it 50% possible that Saddam could have hit Isreal or US/UK troops with a few tonnes of well dispersed Sarin, from a few dozen missiles, the invasion would never have taken place.

Never forget that Iraq was targetted only because Afghanistan fell so quickly, and the desire for a real threat to be seen was there. No one would accept the removal of freedoms due to a war in Afghanistan that lasted three and a half days. An endless war in Iraq, however, that's ideal.