US mulls how Iraq may use chemical-biological arms

Reuters AlertNet ^ | 2/23/03 | Will Dunham

[Heartlander2]

U.S. officials are trying to assess how Iraq would use chemical and biological weapons in the case of war, with experts saying targeting civilians in a nearby state may be deadlier than attacking invading troops.

Iraq denies possessing such weapons, and U.N. weapons inspectors have come up empty-handed in their search for them.

But U.S. defense and intelligence officials and independent experts say they are confident Iraq not only has a hidden stockpile of chemical and biological agents but numerous ways to deliver them to their target.

Amy Smithson, a leading expert on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, said there could be no doubt Saddam Hussein maintains an extensive arsenal. But she noted that even with a large chemical and biological arms stockpile in 1991, the Iraqi president elected not to use them in the Gulf War.

Smithson said Saddam might be more inclined to use them in a war meant not to eject his troops from a neighboring state, as in 1991, but to topple him from power and disarm Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein's calculus has got to be somewhat different here," said Smithson, who heads the Henry Stimson Center's Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project.

U.S. officials are trying to figure out what Iraq plans.

"We do not know Saddam Hussein's doctrine for WMD usage," Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in recent testimony before a Senate committee.

"We assess, however, based on his past patterns and availability of weapons in his inventory, that he will, in fact, employ them. And the assessment is that he will employ them when he makes the decision that the regime is in jeopardy," he said.

"The real hard part about that is to identify when he might make that judgment, and, of course, that resides with one individual, his perceptions and the information that's available to him at the time to make such a call."

EXTENSIVE ARSENAL

Biological warfare agents include bacteria and viruses, as well as certain toxins. Iraq is thought to have anthrax, smallpox, ricin, botulinum and perhaps other agents in weaponized form, analysts said.

Chemical weapons are deadly poisons. Analysts said Iraq is believed to have VX and sarin nerve gas, mustard gas, phosgene, chlorine and cyanide. Saddam used chemical agents against Iran in the 1980-88 war and against Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88.

John Pike, director of the GlobalSecurity.org think tank, said Iraq likely has a stockpile of hundreds of tons of chemical and biological agents. To put that in perspective, North Korea is widely estimated to have a stockpile of thousands of tons, and the United States had 31,000 tons and the Soviets declared 40,000 tons at their respective peaks.

Iraq has several methods to deliver the weapons to targets, analysts said, including putting them into artillery shells, rockets and ballistic missiles and releasing them from manned airplanes with spray tanks or from unmanned aircraft.

CIA Director George Tenet expressed concern about unmanned aircraft delivering "such weapons to Iraq's neighbors, or, if transported, to other countries including the United States."

Experts said perhaps the most effective way for Iraq to produce casualties with these arms may be an attack using missiles or unmanned aircraft on a densely populated urban area in a neighboring state before U.S. and British forces invade.

"You go after urban targets in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia because you cause mass panic, much more so than with soldiers who all have gas masks and gear. That's actually easier than to hit U.S. forces," said military analyst Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute.

'IRRESISTIBLE PRESSURE'

Pike raised the possibility of Saddam hitting Israel with missiles carrying chemical or biological weapons, prompting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to weigh a nuclear retaliation.

"Could a single Scud warhead spew forth so much poison gas or deadly germs into Tel Aviv that it would kill thousands of Israeli citizens, placing Sharon under irresistible pressure to retaliate 50-fold? I think that's something you'd have to worry about," Pike said.

Goure questioned whether the Iraqi military would be able to use chemical or biological weapons effectively against invading troops. He said a direct hit on U.S. or British forces could produce deaths numbering "anywhere from a hundred to several thousand -- probably not higher," partly because troops in the field are relatively scattered and moving quickly.

Goure said several factors could prevent such an attack from being effective.

These include U.S. forces disrupting the Iraqi command and control system to the point that an order fails to reach field commanders, and pressure from invading forces preventing the Iraqis from transporting hidden or buried stockpiles of agents to their delivery systems.

Other variables he cited include U.S. forces shooting down any Iraqi aircraft loaded with agents, or a commander refusing to carry out an order to use weapons of mass destruction.

Goure said one way for Iraq to attack troops would be to use crop dusters flying at night at low level, spraying large amounts of agents from 50 miles away (80 km) or more, as the wind blew toward invading soldiers.

"That's the kind of thing you would worry about. Lord, is it nasty," Goure said.

[aristeides]

The old Avalon Hill board game Tactics II used to have a nuclear option, where each side had one or two nukes. They totally changed the tactics to be used -- instead of on concentrating one's forces, the premium was on dispersing them.