A team of UN weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad this week to jumpstart the search for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, we find ourselves at a desert crossroads: the inspections’ outcome will determine whether the U.S. will commit $80+ billion and up to 250,000 troops to forcibly disarm Iraq.

Most security and weapons experts believe that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons. And they concur that if Hussein is cornered by an invasion, he is likely to unleash his arsenal on U.S. troops.

Despite technological advances since the Gulf War, analysts and veterans alike wonder if we’re ready:

• Nearly two-thirds of the Army’s gas masks and up to 90% of its chemical weapons detection equipment may be defective, audits reveal.
  
  
• Iraq has imported an unknown quantity of Aerosil, a powder that enables chemical weapons including nerve gas to penetrate military protective clothing. At the same time, Iraq has secured large quantities of Atropine, a heart drug used to counter the effects of nerve gas.
  
  

A growing cadre of Gulf War veterans say the Pentagon has not done enough to find the causes of Gulf War illnesses before deploying thousands more to the region. By 1999, the Pentagon admitted as many as 140,000 troops were exposed to the nerve gas sarin during post-war munitions destruction.

Experts project 48,000 to 260,000 combined U.S. and Iraqi military and civilian deaths in just the first three months of conflict without use of weapons of mass destruction.

Are our soldiers adequately prepared for CBW warfare? How can we effectively eliminate weapons of mass destruction not just in Iraq, but in this country and worldwide? Is it best done by force of one nation or by a rigorous inspection and disarmament regime applied to all nations possessing such weapons?