I didn't get to it yesterday, but a new book is coming out from David Albright, a former UN Weapon Inspector, on nuclear weapons smuggling. The book, called "Peddling Peril: How the Secret Nuclear Trade Arms America's Enemies," is due to release this week.

In it, Albright has discovered memos from the AQ Khan Pakistani network that provide, for the first time, evidence that Khan had offered to sell technology to Iraq in 1990.

From the WaPo article:

As troops massed on his border near the start of the Persian Gulf War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein weighed the purchase of a $150 million nuclear "package" deal that included not only weapons designs but also production plants and foreign experts to supervise the building of a nuclear bomb, according to documents uncovered by a former U.N. weapons inspector.

The offer, made in 1990 by an agent linked to disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, guaranteed Iraq a weapons-assembly line capable of producing nuclear warheads in as little as three years. But Iraq lost the chance to capitalize when, months later, a multinational force crushed the Iraqi army and forced Hussein to abandon his nuclear ambitions, according to nuclear weapons expert David Albright, who describes the proposed deal in a new book.

and the quote from one of the memos:

"Pakistan had to spend a period of 10 years and an amount of 300 million U.S. dollars to get it," begins one of the memos. "Now, with the practical experience and worldwide contacts Pakistan has developed, you could have A.B. in about three years' time and by spending about $150 million." "A.B." was understood to mean "atomic bomb,"

The book, which I'll read later next week, highlights two things: 1. The depth and reach of the AQ Khan proliferation network, which had its hands in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. 2. How close Saddam came to the bomb in 1990-91 and we did not even know it. Imagine the what if if Saddam had held off on invasion of Kuwait and had actually had a basic weapons design.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030903775.html

if Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb...then there would be over 4000 American serviceman still alive today.

I figured those would cost more.

Footwedge wrote: if Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb...then there would be over 4000 American serviceman still alive today.

If Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb a lot worse things could have happened.

Post came out with another story today where they obtained documents from AQ Khan about his cooperation with Iran. Guy is shady, very shady. It is a great thing we caught him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/13/AR2010031302258_pf.html

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote: if Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb...then there would be over 4000 American serviceman still alive today.

If Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb a lot worse things could have happened.

Nothing would have happened at all. There are no logical explanations for any state using nukes in preemptive strikes. None.

Sad to say....but if every country had retaliatory nukes, the world would be a far safer place...and little shit countries with douchebag leaderships wouldn't cause civil countries to go apeship and spend trillions to control these despots.

Footwedge wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote: if Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb...then there would be over 4000 American serviceman still alive today.

If Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb a lot worse things could have happened.

Nothing would have happened at all. There are no logical explanations for any state using nukes in preemptive strikes. None.

Sad to say....but if every country had retaliatory nukes, the world would be a far safer place...and little shit countries with douchebag leaderships wouldn't cause civil countries to go apeship and spend trillions to control these despots.

Interesting theory. But, it has one flaw, that the theory of deterrence would hold under most, all types of governments. Truth be told, it is still unclear whether nuclear deterrence can hold in a multipolar world. It holds in a bi polar world, just barely, but if you add more actors, it is unclear what will happen.

There is also the Israeli factor, as we have no idea what Israel would have or will do in the region if another state obtains the bomb. The notion of Israel accepting deterrence is, even then, a real stretch.

What would have Saddam done with the bomb is unknown. Would he have adopted a deterrence with the west? Unknown, or he could have used the history of the Iran/ Iraq war and could have used them to recapture territory that he couldn't obtain during the long war, or to coerce Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to cede more oil fields. It is unclear.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote: if Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb...then there would be over 4000 American serviceman still alive today.

If Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb a lot worse things could have happened.

Nothing would have happened at all. There are no logical explanations for any state using nukes in preemptive strikes. None.

Sad to say....but if every country had retaliatory nukes, the world would be a far safer place...and little shit countries with douchebag leaderships wouldn't cause civil countries to go apeship and spend trillions to control these despots.

Interesting theory. But, it has one flaw, that the theory of deterrence would hold under most, all types of governments. Truth be told, it is still unclear whether nuclear deterrence can hold in a multipolar world. It holds in a bi polar world, just barely, but if you add more actors, it is unclear what will happen.

What would have Saddam done with the bomb is unknown. Would he have adopted a deterrence with the west? Unknown, or he could have used the history of the Iran/ Iraq war and could have used them to recapture territory that he couldn't obtain during the long war, or to coerce Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to cede more oil fields. It is unclear.

PTowne...if you really believe that a rogue leader such as Saddam would have used an atomic weapon, then I fail to see a real purpose in prolonging the human race.

Once Israel, Pakistan, or whoever starts a nuclear war, then it's time to to contort down, and kiss your ass good bye.

There is no such thing as tactical nuclear war.

Footwedge wrote: Nothing would have happened at all. There are no logical explanations for any state using nukes in preemptive strikes. None.

This world has quite a history of illogical explanations for killing people.

Footwedge wrote: Sad to say....but if every country had retaliatory nukes, the world would be a far safer place...and little shit countries with douchebag leaderships wouldn't cause civil countries to go apeship and spend trillions to control these despots.

Nukes are only 65 yrs old. Given enough time and enough of those douchebag leaders possessing nukes and you will find your non-logical nuclear explosion.

Footwedge wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote: if Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb...then there would be over 4000 American serviceman still alive today.

If Saddam would have gotten the A-Bomb a lot worse things could have happened.

Nothing would have happened at all. There are no logical explanations for any state using nukes in preemptive strikes. None.

Sad to say....but if every country had retaliatory nukes, the world would be a far safer place...and little shit countries with douchebag leaderships wouldn't cause civil countries to go apeship and spend trillions to control these despots.

Interesting theory. But, it has one flaw, that the theory of deterrence would hold under most, all types of governments. Truth be told, it is still unclear whether nuclear deterrence can hold in a multipolar world. It holds in a bi polar world, just barely, but if you add more actors, it is unclear what will happen.

What would have Saddam done with the bomb is unknown. Would he have adopted a deterrence with the west? Unknown, or he could have used the history of the Iran/ Iraq war and could have used them to recapture territory that he couldn't obtain during the long war, or to coerce Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to cede more oil fields. It is unclear.

PTowne...if you really believe that a rogue leader such as Saddam would have used an atomic weapon, then I fail to see a real purpose in prolonging the human race.

Once Israel, Pakistan, or whoever starts a nuclear war, then it's time to to contort down, and kiss your ass good bye.

There is no such thing as tactical nuclear war.

No, chief. I said it was unclear. Deterrence has only existed in a bi polar basis. It is unclear what would have happened if Saddam would have obtained the bomb, would he have adopted deterrence between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S.?

We cannot rule out the possibility that Saddam would not have used them, remember he used chemical weapons on his own people during that time. Plus, he had just suffered a draw to Iran, and wanted the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If he was stupid enough to invade Kuwait, then why would we not think he would have been stupid enough to launch a strike against one of his neighbors? It is unclear, we just can't rule it out.

We also can't rule out the Israelis would not have struck first, just as they did in 1982, nuclear or conventional.

I'm not arguing for a tactical nuclear war, only that deterrence has only existed in a bi polar world, and that it is unclear what would happen. International Relations theory still has yet to really did into that. Deterrence theory is still based, at its core to two states.

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iraqis...but not his "own people". The Kurds were pretty much alligned with the Iranians. But much more than that....it's one thing to use chemical weapans inside of one's own borders, versus preemptively using nukes across state lines.

One is a horrendous crime against humanity, the other is a guaranteed countrywide disintegration/mass suicide.

Like I said, if you think that any foreign despot would ever actually use nukes, then it's time to say bye bye to the human race.

There may someday be a WWIII...but there will never be a WWIV.

Exactly my point. He did use chemical weapons, so we cannot totally rule out he would use nuclear if push came to shove. It would be hell, I'm not sure if the world would go nuclear, but it would have been awful.

I don't understand your logic of everyone having nukes if you fear for World War III. I don't want to live in a world were every country has the bomb and could be swayed to use it if they think their neighbor or neighbors are going to attack. Again, deterrence is a relatively new idea and only example is two states. If three states in a region obtain them, we have no idea how the power game will be played. More nukes do not grant more safety, it is the rational and strategic thought behind them that leads to it. The evidence of other states accepting bi polar deterrence is minimal and weak at best. Therefor, saying that other states should have nukes brings the world closer, not further away from destruction.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Exactly my point. He did use chemical weapons, so we cannot totally rule out he would use nuclear if push came to shove. It would be hell, I'm not sure if the world would go nuclear, but it would have been awful.

I don't understand your logic of everyone having nukes if you fear for World War III. I don't want to live in a world were every country has the bomb and could be swayed to use it if they think their neighbor or neighbors are going to attack. Again, deterrence is a relatively new idea and only example is two states. If three states in a region obtain them, we have no idea how the power game will be played. More nukes do not grant more safety, it is the rational and strategic thought behind them that leads to it. The evidence of other states accepting bi polar deterrence is minimal and weak at best. Therefor, saying that other states should have nukes brings the world closer, not further away from destruction.

You "don't understang my logic"? Saddam did not fear the consequences of using chemical weapons on enemy factions...because the enemy factions had no recourse. To suggest that he would strike with nukes is another form of fearmongering that led us into that ridiculous war.

Again...using chemicals inside of one's borders is nowhere in the neighborhood of preemptively striking with nuclear force.

You continue to cite a bipolar argument in reference to nuclear deterrence. Well, doesn't China count? What about France? GB? Pakistan.....India.

It seems to me that the only country that snubs it's nose at the "nuclear defense only" mantra is Israel. (Until recently, when we campaigned in expanding our empire). If Iran or even Iraq had an equal military potential in that part of the world, there wouldn't be all this expansionary nonsense driven by the bellicose Zionists running Israel.

Saddam Hussein turned yellow belly once the neocons ratcheted up the invasion talk in September/October of 2002. He did everything in his power to save his own ass at that time. My logic centers on the premise that Saddam Hussein would never have used his nukes if he had them. The same premise applies to the Iranians.

I would love for the world to be void of nuclear weapanry....but it will never happen. Never. Because once a country voids themselves of nukes, the bullies of the world will take whatever they want. It's been going on for millenium...and will never, ever change.

I said, one cannot rule the possibility that he would use them. I don't think he would have, but one cannot completely have ruled it out.

As far as deterrence, U.S. deterrence never really factored in China to the USSR equation, since the states weren't allies after 1964. U.S. deterrence was still based on bipolar equations and strategies, U.S./ USSR deterrence and U.S./ Chinese deterrence.

Also, the Chinese had/ has an established no first use policy on weapons, making a strategy of deterrence completely different than one in relation to the USSR.

The UK had close cooperation with the U.S. and a member of NATO and France the same, although until recently just had informal status in NATO.

Pakistan and India are an example of bipolar deterrence policy.

The idea I'm referring to that is not really at all studied is what happens when three or four states in a region that are not allies obtain nuclear weapons. Take Saudi Arabia as an example. Israel has the bomb, then maybe Iran and perhaps Turkey. Those are three regional states that are not allies that would have to factor in their strategic equation on deterrence. It is unknown how the Saudis would really put forth a policy of deterrence, would it be three different sets of bipolar deterrence or a regional based deterrent? What would happen if a missile is launched from one country to another? Would the Saudis retaliate against all three states? I don't know. It is unknown.

I agree on the statement on Israel. It seems the Israelis would not or are not going to accept deterrence. It would have been a hard sell back then.

Finally, again, I don't think you can completely rule out the notion that Saddam would have used them in some sort of fashion. Given his crazy history, one cannot discount it. I highly doubt he would have, but the odds aren't zero.

Now, is that an excuse for war. I actually don't think so, not unless the weapons were on the pad fueling ready to fire. So, I am not part of the neocon crowd, and I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Pakistan and India are an example of bipolar deterrence policy.

Exactly. And the same would hold true if Iran held nukes over Israel head. You would not see Israel and their expansionary activities.

The idea I'm referring to that is not really at all studied is what happens when three or four states in a region that are not allies obtain nuclear weapons. Take Saudi Arabia as an example. Israel has the bomb, then maybe Iran and perhaps Turkey. Those are three regional states that are not allies that would have to factor in their strategic equation on deterrence. It is unknown how the Saudis would really put forth a policy of deterrence, would it be three different sets of bipolar deterrence or a regional based deterrent? What would happen if a missile is launched from one country to another? Would the Saudis retaliate against all three states? I don't know. It is unknown.

People do not have to sign any deterrent agreements regarding nukes. the retaliation concept is pretty much crystal clear.

As for your hypothetical situation, if any country is under nuclear attack, that country will most likely retaliate with anybody and everybody.

My opinion is that if and whenever any country initiates a nuclear attack, the chain reaction will wipe us all out. This is pretty much how Einstein viewed it. I agree with Einstein.

On a side note...isn't it interesting that no country has ever been invaded...that is holding nukes?

Had Saddam Hussein had a nuclear arsenal. no way would the US have invaded him. Same with Afghanistan.

I agree on the statement on Israel. It seems the Israelis would not or are not going to accept deterrence. It would have been a hard sell back then.

Now, is that an excuse for war. I actually don't think so, not unless the weapons were on the pad fueling ready to fire. So, I am not part of the neocon crowd, and I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

I never said that you are a member of the neocon crowd.

No problem Footwedge, I just saw no reason to include the term.

Moving back to the book, "Peddling Peril: How the Secret Nuclear Trade Arms America's Enemies"
I just picked up a copy and have started to read it. Good stuff so far.

What is also great is the author's center ISIS is publishing the supporting documents to the book.
http://isis-online.org/peddlingperil

For anyone that wants to really read into the shady world of nuclear arms smuggling and trading, the site is going to provide some great 1st hand documents on AQ Khan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and elsewhere.

Foreign Policy posted an excerpt from the book today: Chapter Eight: Al-Qaeda's Bomb
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/peddling_peril?page=full