Wednesday, August 28, 2002

[5:05 PM] Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Institute admonishes some “well-meaning political figures” who are getting ahead of themselves in assessing Iraq’s WMD capabilities. Senator James Inhofe said on Meet the Press recently “Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen.”

Cirincione counters:

In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies do not believe that Iraq has a nuclear weapon, or that the country is near developing either a nuclear weapon or a long-range missile.

Effective policy must be governed by facts, not fears. Step one is to disaggregate the now over-used catch phrase "weapons of mass destruction" that includes nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. All are not equal in threat. The possession or use of a chemical weapon that could kill dozens is not as dangerous as the possession or use of a nuclear weapon that could kill millions.

Iraq almost certainly does not have nuclear weapons; but it almost certainly does have large numbers of chemical weapons and some biological weapons or agents. It does not have any missiles or planes that could strike the United States from its territory and it has very few that could deliver these weapons more than a few miles outside its borders.

Read the rest here.

# posted 5:07 PM