Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleIraq 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 3, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

4,990 chemical weapons found in Iraq[edit]

According to the New York Times.--v/r - TP 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting info, important. Thanks for sharing it here. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a follow on story from CBS. Apparently American soldiers were injured by chemical weapons in Iraq but that fact was concealed. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times story on the chem weapons and troops exposed. Capitalismojo (talk)
This was not a secret stockpile of chemical weapons. It was a relatively small number of abandoned and decaying weapons from an abandoned program. Their existence is not news. NPguy (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's not clear sir! Akremi yassin (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Iraq and weapons of mass destruction page with updated article from New York Times October 14, 2014[edit]

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)[reply]

Sound familiar? The US House Armed Services Committee convened a hearing to discuss this topic some years ago, after it was revealed that several hundred chemical munitions had been recovered. Some of the weapons had been excavated from destruction pits (similar to the "murky lake" mentioned in the NYT piece). Scores of other shells had been looted from previously UNSCOM-sealed bunkers (insurgents were using them as IEDs). Additional talking points from the earlier hearing:
  • These weapons were produced in the 1980s and are of the type used during the Iran-Iraq war
  • Projectiles are badly corroded in most cases and can no longer be discharged as designed
  • They were found in a variety of locations: some had been improperly dismantled and/or destroyed, others were found abandoned on the battlefield and other unmarked munitions had been misplaced in conventional storage bunkers
  • Most munitions are empty but many are not
  • They cannot be reconditioned
David Kay explained during the committee meeting that "Iraqi sarin has been analysed many times in laboratories all around the world" and
"that sarin was of such poor quality, it lacked any stabilization agent, and quite frankly, if I can respond to an earlier question you had, Congressman Weldon, it does not in any way look like Russian sarin. The Russians, as a matter of fact, as you know, the Russians produced most of their sarin with a stolen German process and then quickly moved on to more advanced nerve agents, some of which are truly frightening and very stable. While [Iraqi sarin is] not something I would like to rub up next to, it was not going to be a major concern. [...] The Iraqi chemical weapons were very effective if it was fresh agent. And that's why they devised this system of rapid fill, because they had to produce it and had to use it relatively quickly or it became bad."
Kay stressed a number of times during the hearing how, in terms of persistence, "the Iraqi stuff went bad very quickly". Local hazards that can make people ill, and possibly even kill somebody: yes. Weapons of mass destruction: not any longer. — TPX 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the necessary time to read the NYT article.
"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin."
Comment: Since when is there an expiration date on a weapon of mass destruction? Is a mustard gas bomb made in 1980 any less lethal than one made in 2014? Your basis for putting an expiration date on ordinances that Hussein was hiding is comical. Drummer58 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is Yes, chemical and biological agents certainly do degrade over time. There are a number of factors to consider regarding quality of process, storage conditions, etc. Numerous weapons specialists, including David Kay and Charles Duelfer, have said that Iraq's aging stockpiles -- local hazards if mishandled, causing injury and possible death -- are considerably less potent than they once were. These guys aren't in the comedy business. — TPX 00:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Drummer58 is right: "With this discovery, the American military had found more than 3,000 pieces of chemical ordnance and knew that many were still dangerous. The military did not disclose this as the Senate worked; instead, it stood by data from the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center that it had declassified in late June, leading the Senate to publish an inaccurate report." John26razor (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance does that have? The report was inaccurate only insofar as it misreported the number of discoveries, as further finds were not disclosed to the committee. Nonetheless, referring directly to these additional discoveries, the NYT piece itself says: ""All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin." There was no active wmd program. And these weapons could no longer be discharged as designed. Our article ought to mention this important detail. — TPX 16:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam and WMDs[edit]

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.

Alleged movement of WMDs to Syria[edit]

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)[reply]

Yeah, it falls far short of conclusive. I'd say somewhere between laughable and extravagantly humorous. See: WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. — TPX 18:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-cons and their Weapons of Mass Dis-information – part one[edit]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click to expand

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Operation Avarice into Iraq and weapons of mass destruction[edit]

Consensus is to merge Operation Avarice into this article. Katietalk 11:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Much of the information on Operation Avarice does not speak to the military operation directly. None of the sources, bar a February 2016 New York Times piece written by Eric Schmitt and C. J. Chivers, even mention Operation Avarice. Other sections are poorly citied, with sources that predate the operation, or references that do not support the text.

I propose merging the relevant information regarding the operation here into Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. — TPX 12:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extreme take on the page. Its a very notable, and significant event. Its notable and distinct enough to have its own article. The take that it is "poorly sources" is not accurate. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more notable than any of the other endeavours to keep hazardous munitions off the black market. This article already mentions that Polish troops were buying rockets from Iraqis for $5,000 apiece in 2004. Why should we have a separate article for US purchases made in 2005-2006? How can you justify splitting off the information to a separate page based on a single report by the New York Times? The same source is cited repeatedly, over and over, 16 times. No other reference on Operation Avarice even mentions Operation Avarice. Some of them predate the military operation by over 20 years. It poorly sourced, without doubt.
The same information can easily be accommodated on this page. There's already some overlap between the operation and the 2006 House Armed Services Committee meeting that discussed the ongoing effort to keep dangerous weapons from falling into enemy hands. — TPX 19:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this merge, if the proposer is willing to carry it out. Operation Avarice, in its present state, is a combination of material borrowed from this article with a summary of an NYT investigative report. That report is a very good source, and Operation Avarice is independently notable, but it would be best contextualized as part of this page. A merge would also avoid the problem of making an article that is just a summary of a single NYT report, which is not a good thing for articles to be. A2soup (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If users agree, I will seek feedback from editors on what the main points from the military operation they think should be retained. But there's no hurry. Plenty more time for discussion. — TPX 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other sources, and the original story was picked up by dozens of other newspapers. That aside, a reliable source is a reliable source. There are declassified military documents with additional details that can't be used since they are primary sources. The page describes all that it can about the mission, and even then, it remains interesting. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single other source mentions Operation Avarice. You have literally created a whole page based on the New York Times piece. — TPX 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its perfectly notable for its own page. Saying that the existence of a similar Polish operation without its own standalone article negates the worthiness of this article doesn't apply. In fact, I would even offer to create a separate article for that operation. The Iraq and weapons of mass destruction page (which I'm gonna start calling IWMD page for short since it will be annoying for us all to repeat that over and over) does not adequately cover the individual operations to control weapons in Iraq. IWMD could not give the proper attribution and mission description. Its both notable and interesting enough for its own article. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Its perfectly notable for its own page." Yes, so you keep asserting. Yet when we carefully examine the 21 Operation Avarice references, we discover that 20 of them don't even mention Operation Avarice! Therefore, as A2soup says, while Operation Avarice is notable, it is best contextualized here on this page. There is also wp:synth issues to discuss because the article, as it currently stands, is framed in a rather crude "Bush was right" manner. — TPX 01:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, you removed many of the sources from the page, then created this post. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only removed sources that parroted the New York Times piece (e.g. TheBlaze, Breitbart, Russia Today). These sources had the same defining characteristics: 1) they all cited or quoted the NYT report extensively 2) none of them had any new information to offer. As NPguy remarked, "There's only one independent source here. All the others are derivative." (diff). — TPX 11:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who all considered the operation important noteworthy enough to do so. When newspapers republish like that its their way of saying "we should have been investigating that too". At the very least it opines the story's significance. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have already established that the countless operations launched by allied forces to locate and obtain 1980s era chemical munitions is noteworthy. The question is, is this one report notable enough to justify a whole page or is the operation best described--in context--in this article. We need to access all criteria, and in this case, the lack of sources is a strong indication that the information belongs here. There have been hundreds of operations to acquire dangerous munitions in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Thousands of weapons have been recovered in total. It would be a better use of your time if you helped to develop this page instead of starting poorly sourced, new ones. — TPX 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of, if not the, largest recoveries. The entire operation was stringent on the cooperation of a single Iraqi who had come into their possession. That same person threatened to sell them to insurgents if U.S. military intelligence did not buy them. Thanks for telling me how to spend my time. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The single biggest recovery occurred in 2008, not in dribs and drabs in 2005 and 2006. Your unhelpful attitude, and disregard for Wikipedia policy, is noted. — TPX 23:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HA! Laughable. You are welcome to reread the above conversations and note that you began the snark. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I do not understand what the vitriol is about. Half the article is not about Op Avarice; can be upmerged without trouble!! @DaltonCastle:, please remain WP:CIVIL (first warning). You may also like to review WP:OWN. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to merge any of the content of the article on Operation Avarice into this article, which already says more than enough about that operation. To me, the question is whether that separate article is needed at all. It hardly seems noteworthy except (arguably) as part of this article. NPguy (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before we close, I will ask the article creator what story elements he would like to see copied or expanded upon here. — TPX 14:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of the operation is not in question, because it satisfies GNG very comfortably. Therefore, the real question is; can the content of the "Operation Avarice" article be merged into this one, without raising any issues? The relevant guideline in this case is WP:TOOBIG, which states that articles larger than 50kb "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)," and that articles larger than 60kb "Probably should be divided." Given these guidelines, I would oppose this merger, because merging even just the unique content would make this article a little too large and unwieldy. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: since the WP:TOOBIG guideline is based on prose size, and this article is currently 52679 prose characters, merging in fewer than 3200 characters from a 7004 prose character Operation Avarice article will result in a 56k article, well below "Probably should be divided" mark. Contra Vanamonde93, I don't see size as a germane issue here; clearly germane is the fact that most of the article is duplication and not related to Avarice itself; only the "Operation" section has potential material for merging, and it's all from a single source. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Operation Avarice is independently notable enough to merit its own article and is reliably sourced. It has been among the most noteworthy clandestine operations to unearth WMDs. While I agree that it'll be important to maintain context and continuity between the two articles, merging Operation Avarice and Iraq and Weapons of mass destruction would create too long of an article and do a disservice to the content that a standalone Operation Avarice article might contain - content explicitly within the scope of the specific operation itself. By keeping them separate, we won't be forced to trim the article of important details in order to put together one single (slightly) more ungainly one. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that, of the the 21 references on Operation Avarice, only 1 mentions Operation Avarice? This page already describes the operation in historical context, so no information need be lost. — TPX 12:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, everything not in the NYT report seems to be paraphrased from this article. A2soup (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were far more sources and there still are more out there. Arguing the background section should be trimmed is a separate issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the background section should be trimmed - it's a complex issue and I would actually love to see the background section expanded. By making this whole article act as the background section. A2soup (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources quote the New York Times in an extensive manner. None of them have information to add with regard to the operation other than what the NYT piece has reported. As NPguy remarked at the time, "There's only one independent source here. All the others are derivative." — TPX 20:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree There appears to be only a single source - the NYT - that names Operation Avarice. On that basis it is difficult to sustain the claim that the subject is notable enough to merit its own article. If, as DaltonCastle claims, there are more sources (by which I mean more independent sources, not more quotes of the NYT, that actually name Operation Avarice) the burden is on him to find them. To me, that would be the only basis for an separate article on this topic - or any mention beyond the brief one already in this article. NPguy (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the criteria? Because most sources are at least going to mention something like "the New York Times investigation found..." since it was their investigative journalism that uncovered the story in the first place. Hate to drag other article into this, but as in the case of the alleged CIA involvement of Contra cocaine sold in the United States, almost all the sources used on related articles make mention of Gary Webb's investigations, since he was the first to uncover it. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether the reference or incorporate info from the NYT investigation - that's to be expected. The important thing is whether any other sources give any original, different information not from the NYT investigation. Everything I have seen so far just summarizes the NYT investigation, sometimes with some original background/contextualization, but none seem to have any information about Avarice not gleaned from the NYT report. A2soup (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Its a shame to see any article deleted but I think a merge is a good compromise. The article is thorough but unfortunately there just isn't enough information out there about this one US operation. To have only 1 source which addresses the whole subject is just not adequate - there needs to be more coverage. A good job has been done by the editor on this and maybe in the future this Operation will have been cited in more places (independently of the NYT investigation); but as it stands it needs to be a section in this article. ツStacey (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

External links modified[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed to close merge discussion on this page[edit]

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)[reply]

We have the backlog of RFC closure requests listed at WP:AN. We'll get to this one in due course; it's not necessary to call our attention to it. :-) Katietalk 10:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Katie, this isn't an RFC, and I don't believe this is listed at WP:AN—at least, I didn't see a section for merge request closures, and merge requests can linger for months. If you can point me to its listing at AN, or to where it should be added, I'm happy to drop this here; otherwise, I don't see that it will ever be handled without an active request somewhere. Please let me know the best next step: we have had a DYK nomination on the Operation Avarice article that has been proposed to be merged here that is over three months old and has been stalled for over two months waiting for the merge discussion to close. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I looked at WP:PM and it's not listed there. An admin doesn't have to close a merge discussion unless it's really contentious, and this one isn't. That said, I'm going to be occupied elsewhere most of Friday but I did take a cursory look just now, and I'll do my best to get it closed in the next day or so. Sorry for the confusion. :-) Katietalk 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Katie. The next day or so will be great. Much appreciated. (Good to know about WP:PM; I hadn't known it existed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Avarice[edit]

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)[reply]

We already have a paragraph that touches on this topic. Among other talking points, a House Armed Services Committee hearing in 2006 (transcript,video) discusses an ongoing operation to obtain munitions that, if not rounded up, could end up on the black market. Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples tells committee members that he cannot go into detail in open session, but he can provide more details in a private hearing. He is basically describing Operation Avarice without identifying or naming the operation in open session. I omitted reference to the operation because, at the time, no reliable source mentioned the 2006 hearing and the operation in the same article, so it would be a wp:synth violation to include it. But the gist is captured in our paragraph: i.e. 1980s-produced weapons are showing up and military leaders express concern that they could end up in the hands of insurgents.
I do agree that we are placing too much weight on this one operation. If you revisit an earlier 2014 NYT piece by the same author, C. J. Chivers (here) we discover that hundreds of hazardous munitions have been used as improvised explosive devices. The story provides a map where these weapons were discovered and/or detonated, causing burns to US solders. Weapons have been found misplaced in conventional storage bunkers; excavated from old destruction pits; uncovered in the desert along old Iran-Iraq battle lines; and looted from UN monitored weapons depots. Yet our section on Operation Avarice makes it sound as though the Iraqi government possessed these weapons the whole time ("It was confirmed that these weapons were remnants of the Iraqi weapons program first developed during the Iran-Iraq war and confirmed that the Hussein government had failed to dismantle and dispose WMDs in its possession."). This is especially misleading because the Chivers piece explicity says the US government was never able to determine where this particular cache came from.
What this article needs is a better description of situation today, covering a range of discoveries and commentary on their condition, without placing too much emphasis on a single operation. — TPX 20:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...which would have been capable of breeding weapons-usable nuclear material..."[edit]

" 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

The cited source (FAS) supports this phrase. Richard Wilson's quote may reflect an incomplete analysis. He is right that reprocessing of the reactor's HEU fuel would not produce much plutonium. But a 40 MW research reactor would seem to be capable of of producing significant quantities of plutonium through irradiation of natural uranium targets. Whether that is actually possible may depend on the reactor design. In any case, the inconsistency between the two articles should probably be reconciled in some way. NPguy (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated article promoting fringe theories[edit]

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)[reply]

Note: I've read the Operation Avarice section above. This is fine for a minor section, but as it stood it seemed to promote a fringe view regarding Iraq's WMD stockpiles. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Osirak in lede[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/saddam-gave-orders-to-fire-chemical-weapons-at-tel-aviv-if-he-was-toppled-in-first-gulf-war/


This is your opinion. It is not backed by a cited source and as such is original research. The alternative view is that Osirak was not well-suited to plutonium production and its destruction set Iraq on the path to a genuine nuclear weapons program. That viewpoint is not my own, but is expressed in the article on Operation Opera. NPguy (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  1. ^ "35 years on, IAF pilots recall daring mission to bomb Saddam's nuke reactor". Times of Israel. Retrieved 2017-11-18. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ "Iraqi Nuclear Weapons". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2017-11-18. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Dank Chicken (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not say that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program before Osirak was bombed, that Osirak was part of such a program, or that the bombing set back that program. Those are your inferences. Relying on such inferences is what Wikipedia means by original research. By contrast, the article on Operation Opera highlights the following two key quotes:

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

and

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 claims are open to debate, but they show that the claim you are making is disputed. NPguy (talk)

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)[reply]

My point is that the claim that bombing Osirak stopped Iraq's nuclear weapons program is disputed. The fact that Iraq then launched a multifaceted uranium enrichment program is further reason to doubt it. NPguy (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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."

  1. ^ "35 years on, IAF pilots recall daring mission to bomb Saddam's nuke reactor". Times of Israel. Retrieved 2017-11-18. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ "Iraqi Nuclear Weapons". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2017-11-18. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Dank Chicken (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No because you are cherry picking citations to support your belief that Osirak was suitable for a nuclear weapons program, when there are credible assessments that says it was not. Could the work that was carried out at Osirak have one day informed a nuclear weapons program? Possibly but that's not the same thing as saying the destruction of Osirak delayed or prevented Iraq from obtaining a nuclear weapon. — Niche-gamer 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

The paragraph in the lead section relating to Operation Avarice certainly needs re-examination ([7]). I do agree with you. UN inspectors concluded a long time ago that not all material had been account for. They could not determine if Iraq was continuing to actively hide material or if Iraq had lost track of their unilateral destruction operations. The paragraph reads like a straw man. The full body of knowledge concerning these discoveries needs to be summarised. The current We found the weapons-esque declaration in the lead is insufficient. — Niche-gamer 12:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, we should re-examine with extreme scrutiny the many references from 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. These sources were mostly conjecture and claims, most of which have later been disproved. History-oriented Wikipedia articles are often abandoned a bit but in the case of this subject—one where sources have changed from divisive to unanimous towards the opposite side—this would be a big mistake. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please review my lead overhaul. I think it might lack a bit on the historical side (how it started, what phases etc.) and it could do with some more details regarding that, but at least the whole Iraq War thing is manageable and concise now. I'll address the article too, of course (though that doesn't even need that much work-save for the "avarice" section). People have been inserting 15-20 year old sources like "Iraq Watch" and statements by politicians or pre-war findings that are obviously outdated and superseded by recent sources. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&oldid=1220616808"