Monday, October 25, 2004
380 tons = From the story, Tons of Explosives Missing in Iraq : (emp add) "On Oct. 10, the IAEA received a declaration from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology informing us that approximately 350 (metric) tons of high explosive material had gone missing," [UN spokeswoman] Fleming said.
Nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives that could be used to build large conventional bombs are missing from the former Al Qaqaa military installation, The New York Times reported Monday. The 380 tons is the U.S. equivalent of the figure of 350 metric tons mentioned by the Iraqis, the IAEA said.
The explosives included HMX and RDX, which can be used to demolish buildings, down jetliners, produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weapons. HMX and RDX are key ingredients in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex — substances so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people. 380 tons * 2000 pounds/ton = 760,000 pounds
posted by Quiddity at 10/25/2004 09:42:00 AM
9 comments
The incompetence on display here simply stuns the mind. 380 _tons_?? Someone needs to be stood up against a wall.
Charles Roten
croten@serv.net
Oh, I think we're overreacting here. At most they could only use it to blow up 760,000 airplanes then, right? And we'd probably catch some of them before they even did it.
No, I suspect they'll probably just use it like anyone else would: loosening pickle jar lids, getting rid of tree stumps, Fourth of July novelties, etc.
Isn't the obvious answer to "where" that the insurgents have been using these explosives regularly for the last
1 1/2 years, and particularly over the last 6 months in Iraq?
Let's say that 5 pounds of explosives make an adequate carbomb or suicide bomb, just to be on the safe side.
That means that the 380 tons of missing RDX could supply the Iraqi insurgency with 152,000 car and/or suicide bombs.
152,000 bombs.
If the Iraqi insurgency used three of these bombs a day against our troops and the Iraqi people, that means they have enough explosives to keep bombing for over 400 years.
416.4 years, to be precise.
And all because somebody in the Bush Administration decided not to guard a site that the IAEA warned us about specifically before the war began.
How exactly is Bush making us safer? Explain this to me again...
How is this different than just being part of all the looting of nuclear plants and weapon caches? How is this new news, except that corporate media is finally aware?Please explain, what am I missing?
Did anyone else read that as Al Qaeda at first?......
The Bush campaign is now claiming that this 400 ton cache pales
in comparison to the 400,000 tons of "munitions, including explosives"
which have been "seized or destroyed" by the military.
Presumably, this latter figure includes such weighy items as tanks and
aircraft. To put it into perspective, it might be useful to know how
much a tank weighs. Unfortunately, I have no idea. Anyone?
Bush today said Kerry would have kept Saddam in power, with the ability to share those explosives with our enemies. So that's the choice the Republicans offer you: Explosives in Saddam's hands, or explosives to the forewinds.
Personally I would choose a more nuanced: If you ARE gonna invade because you're all worried about the stuff that goes boom, then at least gain CONTROL of the stuff that goes boom.
Hudson wrote ...
NBC News is now reporting that the explosives were missing when U.S. troops arrived in Iraq. Why did the entire American political left, Kerry campaign and all, jump to a dramatic "PROOF of inCOMpetence!" conclusion before all the facts were known? After all, acting before knowing is basically what they accuse Bush of doing.
Why? Because they're getting desperate, and venally angry that some folks, a small plurality if you believe the polls, actually support the President.The PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of a group of embedded reporters from KSTP, collected at the al-Qaqaa facility on April 18, 2003, refutes this spin job.
Read the first story, about the explosives and the second story, about the IAEA seals. David Kay has already been asked about the authenticity of the IAEA seals in the photos, and he has gone on record as pronouncing them identical to the ones he has seen for the last 15 years.
You didn't do your homework.
Hear the sirens?
Consider this a virtual bust.
Charles Roten
croten@serv.net
|
