Regards, Ivan
Posted on 09/06/2002 5:25:25 AM PDT by MadIvan
While the British Government prepares its dossier outlining Iraq's efforts to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction, other published information is ambiguous about the extent to which Iraq has managed to overcome years of sanctions and destruction by UN weapons inspectors.
That it is trying is not in doubt.
Under UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq is not permitted to have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and missiles with a range greater than 150km.
It faces a dual problem if it seeks to defy the UN. One is to develop the weapons. The other is to deliver them.
From a variety of sources, these are the general assessments of the state of play:
Nuclear weapons
Iraq's biggest problem is in getting hold of the fissile material needed to make a nuclear bomb. This would probably have to come from the black market or a rogue government. The British Government published a document in 1998 saying that had it not been for the Gulf War Saddam Hussein would have had the bomb by 1993. It said he could build a "crude air-delivered nuclear device in about five years" if he got the right equipment and material from abroad.
The US Defense Department said in 2001 that "Iraq would need five or more years and key foreign assistance" to enrich enough uranium for a device. German intelligence said in 2001 that it could take between three and six years.
However, a new assessment from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington concludes: "If Iraq were to acquire material from another country, it is possible that it could assemble a nuclear weapon in months."
I believe the naysayers on the war should now kindly take a seat way in the back of the room - Ivan
Charles Duelfer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington and former deputy executive chairman of the UN weapons commission Unscom told a US Senate Committee in February: "While precise estimates of the Iraqi nuclear programme are impossible, what is certain is that Baghdad has the desire, the talent and the resources to build a nuclear weapon given the time to do so."
Chemical
Iraq has used chemical weapons in battle, both against Iranian troops and against its own population in Halabja. Huge numbers of chemical weapons were destroyed by the UN after the Gulf War. But not all, it seems.
The Carnegie report suggests: "Rough estimates conclude that Iraq may have retained up to 600 metric tonnes of agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin. Approximately 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents also remain unaccounted for."
The 1998 British report said that 31,000 munitions and 4000 metric tonnes of precursor chemicals had not been properly accounted for.
As there has been no UN monitoring since 1998, it is impossible to determine exactly how much effort Iraq has put into the further development of chemical weapons but it clearly has the ability to produce them.
Biological
In 1996, Unscom destroyed a factory designed to make up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulin toxin and other agents a year.
The Institute of International Studies at Monterey in California estimates that Iraq retains the ability to resume production but it is unclear as to whether this has happened.
Until 1995, Saddam Hussein even denied that he had a biological weapons programme but the British government report says that Iraqi production of BW agents had been "clearly understated." Iraq has the ability to produce BW again.
However, some sources question whether Iraq really intended using BW in battle. Charles Duelfer of the CSIS suggested that it might have been keeping them to use secretly against an enemy city "that would be near impossible to connect to Baghdad as the responsible actor."
Delivery systems
By 1997, 817 of the 819 Scud rockets Saddam Hussein was known to have had were accounted for. The former UN inspector Scott Ritter has said that Iraq might have salvaged and manufactured enough components to build up a store of between five and 25 missiles.
Overall, it should be added, Mr Ritter does not believe that Saddam Hussein has the ability to rebuild his weapons programme to any significant degree.
The Carnegie assessment quoted an unclassified CIA report to Congress that Iraq "probably retains a small covert force of Scud type missiles."
Charles Duelfer told the Senate that in his view the number could be about 12 to 14.
Iraq has developed, as it is allowed to, two shorter range missiles - the al-Samoud and the Ababil which have ranges below 150 km. The technology involved could later be used to develop longer range rockets.
It is unclear, though, whether Iraq has solved the problems of using such missiles to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
It seems to have been working on developing shorter range means of delivery. The Washington Post has reported that in Operation Desert Fox in 1998, an RAF Tornado blew the roof off an Iraqi hanger to reveal a number of Czech made L-29 training jets which had been converted into pilot less drones.
There are also reports that Iraq still has chemical "drop tanks" to be used by its Mirage F-1 jets. Four of these were found and destroyed by Unscom. Eight others were never found.
Regards, Ivan
Does a beat s**t in the woods?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Is Jerry Nadler fat?
Has Al Gore gone off his chump?
The Israeli Air Force needs a workout, anyway. It's not like an L-29 on autopilot is going to be much of a challenge.
Get series.
Saddam is such a darned fool going off 3 years before his main weapon was ready. That's how it is with dictators though, they have to act sooner rather than later; got to dance with the one that brung 'em.
It was impossible to determine even with UN monitoring. Monitoring can disrupt and delay, but will never exert the level of force necessary over the entire landscape and populace of Iraq to eliminate the threat. The UN seeks-out the potential of overt agression forgetting that Saddam works mainly by covert means.
Hmmmmmmm, what about all the others? The ones we didn't know about. Hmmmmm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.