Reddit reviews The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind
We found 9 Reddit comments about The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
We found 9 Reddit comments about The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
You've overlooked some important facts in your analysis.
So, now Iraq is a federal democracy with minority rights, elections, redistribution of it's oil wealth among all it's citizens (it was previously the personal property of Saddam and his mafia). Yes many lives were lost in the process and the war could have been prosecuted more competently than it was, but we do not live in a fairy tale world. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were justified, and if they hadn't taken place the Middle East would be a much more dangerous place.
Objectively speaking, there is more evidence of Saddam's attempted nuclear ambitions than of al-Assad's chemical warfare. https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272
Ok so let me boil down your questions.
I did my dissertation a little while ago back in 2012, I put together a portfolio of analytical tools for identifying and analysing risks around nuclear terrorism (including a full critical path from idea to detonation, which I wouldn't want to publish!)
There is a question over whether Iran is a rational actor. Personally I think that whilst there may be individuals who are not rational, that the regime as a whole is a rational actor, and that most if not all policy makers who matter don't think that mutually assured destruction is a great idea.
I'm concerned for Israel - whatever people think of it it's the only properly functioning democracy in the region and whatever people think of Netanyahu he's about the only leader in the region that the people can get rid of when they've had enough. I don't at the moment think that Iran with nukes would go for a first strike on Jerusalem, but it's hard to take that off the table given their actions and rhetoric. The bigger risk is the impact on the regime's wider behaviour - bearing in mind what Tehran is like now, are they going to be a better neighbour with a nuclear weapon? I think not, and I think this will embolden them to ramp up the conventional aggression.
The other risk as you allude Rufus is that other countries will follow suit. Iran is squared off against Saudi in a Sunni-Shiah conflict, so if Iran gets nukes, Saudi will want them. Qatar is in a stand off with the GCC - maybe they then seek nukes to break the deadlock. Egypt likes to think of itself as the leader of the Sunni Arab world - maybe it decides to keep up with the Joneses and proliferate and so on and so on. I don't buy into Kenneth Waltz's 'nuclear dance partners' theory, I think allowing cascading proliferation is just stoking the powder keg. We know that Iran's nuclear programme so far wouldn't have been possible without help from the AQ Khan network, which had at least partial Pakistani state knowledge, permission, and facilitation, if not full blown cooperation. We also know that Iran has transferred numerous arms to Hezbollah. So far to our knowledge Islamabad hasn't been reckless enough to transfer nukes to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba or similar, and they've taken countermeasures such as storing weapons de-mated in order to head off that risk. All the same, taking the above into account means there is at the very least a risk of Iran transferring nuclear technology to non-state actors or other allied governments (Syria? Qatar? Iraq?) - a risk not currently present which I'd like to keep the way!
Firstly we need to settle down regional players who may seek to rush to proliferate when that window closes, we need to be putting that work in now to offer assurances and build confidence. Personally I wonder if there is value in Israel abandoning its nuclear opacity and bringing Saudi and Egypt under its own nuclear umbrella - an idea which would have seemed unthinkable not that long ago.
Personally I disagreed with the lifting of sanctions as part of the deal, but since we have lifted them I think we need to push hard on this, really open up Iran commercially. This will give Iran something to lose (we need to have credible threats of reinstating embargos and sanctions on the table should they pursue a bomb after the sunset clause) and it would also show them that they do better for themselves by working with the international community than against it.
I suspect Iran actually 'only' has a breakout capacity in mind, rather than a full bomb, as this offers all the power and clout of a nuclear arsenal, without quite putting a bullseye on Tehran. This will be for three concurrent and equally valid reasons - firstly it shields their current aggression with an in-house nuclear umbrella, allowing them to continue with their vassalisation of neighbours and projection of power into the region. Secondly it brings Iran into the nuclear club - the Persians, like the Russians are a proud people who feel they are undervalued and currently want the world (esp the West) to give them recognition and status, which they are largely doing through aggression, rather than trade or diplomacy. Thirdly there is an abiding insecurity - the regime has felt its powerbase domestically erode, its economy shrink, and its opponents flex their muscles. Whilst I would argue this is mostly self-inflicted by the brutality of the regime and its refusal to work with regional and global partners, this insecurity is nevertheless a fact.
With all that in mind, the best way to maintain stability, short of regime change, which I think we can all agree isn't possible, and might not even be desirable, is to establish a balance of power. Iran has partnerships and relationships with Pakistan, Syria, Hezbollah, China, Russia, Turkey, Bahrain, Iraq, and others. Whilst this doesn't amount to a coherent axis - in fact many of these compete with each other - there is a broad alignment here. In order to maintain this balance of power there needs to be an opposing coalition. At the moment this opposing nebulous alignment consists of Israel, India, Saudi, the bulk of the GCC (except obviously Qatar), Egypt, Jordan, the Kurds, with piecemeal help from the West. This needs to be fleshed out into a proper strategy.
There are a few examples of where nuclear proliferation has been prevented or reversed.
Firstly is South Africa - the only nuclear country so far to willing give up its own nuclear weapons. I'm no expert on this particular issue, but I recommend reading this enlightening piece in the Atlantic (a favourite publication of mine, besides Encyclopedia Geopolitica, which I hear is a very good blog ran by very handsome and intelligent people) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/north-korea-south-africa/539265/
Israel has been very successful thus far in avoiding allowing its neighbours to proliferate nuclear weapons. It bombed Iraq's nascent nuclear reactor at Osirak in Operation Opera, and Syria's alleged site in Deir-ez-Zour in Operation Orchard. These bombing raids were the result of excellent intelligence fieldcraft. Thus far, despite both having extensive biological and chemical programmes, neither Syria nor Iraq have developed nukes so this is a success. Slightly controversially, I'd remind readers that despite no nuclear weapons being found after the Invasion of Iraq - in fact all they found were degraded Sarin reserves - that there was a nuclear centrifuge dug up in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's top nuclear scientist. Obeidi claims that Saddam had given him instructions to reconstitute a nuclear programme once Hans Blix completed his investigation, which of course he never got the chance to do - would recommend you read his book here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272
Israel has obviously tried to play Iran using the Iraq and Syria playbook, using magnetic bombs to blow up scientists' cars, and unleashing (with the likely assistance of the US) the Stuxnet, Flame, Wiper, and other pieces of malware in order to spy on Iran and sabotage their programme. This has only been met with limited success because Iran's conventional defences are stronger, and they have built numerous facilities underground, such as at Natanz and Fordow.
There is also the interesting case of Libya, who failed to proliferate, despite paying the AQ Khan network for a bespoke nuclear programme. Whilst the situation isn't quite so straight forward (what is?) as X action caused Y outcome, a large part of Libya's disarmament was Qaddafi's desire to normalise relations with the US and the West. There have been speculated reasons why - after 9/11 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm sure Qaddafi didn't want Libya to be on that list, and the Libyan economy had been hit very hard by Western sanctions (Libya is arguably the best case study for sanctions being successful - albeit over a very very long period of time). For further reading I massively recommend Unclear Physics - Why Iraq and Libya Failed to Get Nuclear Weapons by Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer. He outline his basic ideas on a blog post for War on the Rocks here.
Happy to discuss any and all of this further!
I've just sent you a link that there were ample reasons to go to Iraq way before 9/11.
About WMDs:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bomb-My-Garden-Mastermind/dp/0471741272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
On your second point, Saddam did sponsor international terrorism, but his connections to al.qaeda aren't well established, as far as I know.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513
I'm not trying to be a smart ass but I suggest you do some more reading and research. I hope that doesn't come across as being arrogant. Let me explain.
>1) "Slobodan Milosevic tried to annex Bosnia into Serbia." -- What? Bosnia and Serbia were part of Yugoslavia. There was no need to annex anything. Yugoslavia was in a war to prevent the nation from breaking apart. Now, we get to enjoy the brewing Islamic extremism coming from Bosnia.
Hitchens is right. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=aQHzCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=milosevic+tried+to+annex+bosnia&source=bl&ots=k-CifmT6Fj&sig=C4zGTlO9LlVzJOfps4xbgKLYOg8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb8ovu2ojPAhVGOT4KHbweD7MQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&q=milosevic%20tried%20to%20annex%20bosnia&f=false
> 2) "Saddam was going to build 'the bomb' before or after he invated Kuwait." Patently false. Just absolutely wrong. There were ZERO efforts uncovered by all forms of UN and NATO intelligence that pointed to Saddam making any nuclear weapons.
That's wrong. Read The Bomb in my Garden. https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272
Dr. Mahdi Obeidi hid a nuclear centrifuge in his garden. Hitchens talked about this at length. He wrote about it as well. Here's his commentary on it: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/10/the_buried_truth.html
> Killing your own population is frowned upon, but it does not invalidate your claim to statehood in the UN
Genocide, plus transnational crime and terrorism can invalidate statehood in the UN's eyes, it's certainly enough to make you a rogue state.
>Saddam was a very nasty man but there are plenty of others around.
Hell of an understatement, but yes. And morally, if we're in a position to make the other tyrants and maniacs lives' difficult, we should. This doesn't invalidate the reasons for ousting Saddam, or repudiate the progress that has been made since in any way. It's just a wake-up call that democracies should be doing more on the world stage with regards to this sort of thing.
>The problem is that from 2001 Bush was looking for a way to link Iraq with 9/11 or to show they were a clear and present danger. Of course, there was no link, but he could still use WMD and a linkage to Al Quaeda
Whatever the reasons Blair and Bush gave, the end of the means is clear; Iraq is better than it was under Saddam.
>(Forgetting Middle East 101, the one thing that Sunnis hate more than Israelis are Shia Muslims and secularists.
And the one thing they hate more than each other is Western progressive democracy. Whether or not you can explicitly link Saddam to Al Qaedea - you can link him to international crime, terrorism and gangsterism. He was trying to buy chemical weapons and nuclear materials off the shelf from North Korea for one example.
>Says who?
Scientists involved in the program. Whether or not he was actually ready to deploy nuclear weapons or not seems irrelevant to me. He was going after them, eventually he would have developed them, or bought them off the shelf.
>The truth didn't matter, he believed and at least 100K Iraqis died
How many died in Halabjah? How many Marsh Arabs? How many people for expressing dissenting opinions? How many when he annexed Kuwait? How many more from other countries when he felt ready to be the aggressor in the region again? Would an internal Iraqi civil war have killed any less?
>The truth didn't matter, he believed...because of his and GWB's unwavering beliefs.
It's not their beliefs I support; it's the end result of the war - democracy in a place once blighted by tyranny and oppression. It's progress however you cut it.
>There's no actual evidence this is true. Powell's report to the UN (which he threw across his office calling "horseshit" before delivering like a good soldier) was not accurate. We never found any evidence of an ongoing WMD program in Iraq post-invasion. Bush even mocked this very fact in a White House Press Dinner comedy video. Despite revisionist claims to the contrary, the WMD claims were false.
There is a book called The Bomb in My Garden which is the story of one Iraqi Scientist who was tasked with hiding components and blueprints for a nuclear plan by burying it on his property. When the invasion came he told the US Military where it was and it was extracted. Saddam also tried to bribe nuclear inspectors and when that didn't work he tried to kill them.
>LOL, no. An absurd conspiracy theory spun by right-wing lunatics. And why would such a bribe matter for Canada? Or Germany? Or any of the 190 other countries that refused to participate?
How is it a conspiracy? Has it been debunked? Not as far as I can see.
>So? Plenty of non-military people called what would happen exactly right. You didn't need to be a military man to not trust the U.S. and U.K. to manage the invasion with an degree of competence. We had ample examples from history--and not un-recent!--of how and why such occupations would go horribly wrong. Hitchens was alive during Vietnam, for heaven's sake.
Saying that wars have gone badly before is not relevant. Especially Vietnam. I do not see how the Vietnam War at all compares with Iraq when it comes to management at all. Vietnam was a newly released colony that was facing a revolt, Iraq was an eroding regional power with a madman at the helm.
>The insurgency was 100% predictable to any student of history.
And it would have been worse if we hadn't gone in. The regime was collapsing before the invasion was launched.
>So liberated that the current regime in power is gunning down hundreds protesters in the streets for daring to want basic necessities and a non-corrupt government.
Iraq is by no means perfect, but it is a lot better off today than it was in 2002.
>I'm sure the 800,000-2,000,000 (depending on who's counting) dead Iraqis due to the war and their loved ones would disagree they're better off
Those numbers are wildly off. I have no idea where you got them. The total number of deaths, as far as I can determine, is closer to 300,000.
>He wasn't, after all, calling for deposing any number of other regimes in non-Muslim parts of the world who were as bad or worse than Saddam.
At the end of his life he strongly cautioned about the Iranian regime getting it's hold on nuclear weapons, he strongly hated the Arabians, he was for the invasion of Afghanistan, he spoke out strongly against the Pakistani Government, and celebrated the liberation of East Timor from Indonesia.
>"Islamophobia" is not a bullshit word. Of course Wahibbism is awful, a very pernicious and dangerous ideology. But it is readily apparent in places where it is no way a threat, lots of Westerners are horribly bigoted towards Muslims who are not in any way beholding to that particular ideology. U.S. politicians have made very successful careers on bashing all Muslims.
I am not saying that anti-Muslim prejudice isn't a thing, of course it is. Although I have no witnessed it myself, I know there are people who do all kinds of despicable things to normal Muslim people up to and including Christchurch. My problem is I have often been accused of Islamophobia when I say something such as "The Quran and Hadith encourage people to do violent things" even though that is demonstrably true.
Just coming onto this now by chance. His views of WMD's in Iraq are largely due to the information eventually released in "The Bomb in my garden". He, and others, have talked about this and why the administration never paraded this all over the media.
http://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448993498&sr=1-1&keywords=the+bomb+in+my+garden
Yellowcake procurement intelligence is not false. It wasn't a 'reason' for war because most people believed the physical procurement could not be made. It was just further evidence.
Have you read "The Bomb in My Garden"? That is the reason for war. Oil had nothing to do with it, despite the allegations by Moore, etc.
The 911 commission said there was no connection between Saddam and 911. And the administration never claimed there was. However, there was clearly cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war, and the details of that cooperation are becoming increasingly clear. Also, you may recollect that Saddam paid bonuses to the families of terrorists? And that he maintained facilities to train terrorists, including a jet fuselage for practicing takeovers? That he generally supported terrorism? That Zarkawi moved to Iraq before the war? That Abu Nidal was sheltered in Iraq?
I'll give you the aluminum tubes. The implication was that they were to be used for centerfuges. I don't know enough about the design of those things to form an opinion, but Powell's remarks to the UN seemed weak to me at the time. Note, though, that Powell had vetted his information carefully with the CIA and was pretty aggravated when it proved flimsy.
So I suppose the Whitehouse could remove the paragraph on the aluminum tubes, but I'd rather they didn't edit the material they post. Since most of the document is correct, it should stand as is.