Iraq near nuclear capability by 2005: defector

The Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, listens to Tommy Franks, chief of the US Central Command, at a meeting of the Senate armed services committee. General Franks, who oversees the war in Afghanistan, would command any invasion of Iraq. Photo: AFP/ Tim Sloan

President Saddam Hussein will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005, a former Iraqi nuclear engineer has told United States senators as Congress held hearings on whether to go to war.

Beginning what it called a national discussion amid frequent reports that the Bush Administration is honing its plans for an assault on Iraq, the Senate foreign relations committee was also warned by an expert on the Iraqi military not to underestimate the strength of Saddam's army and air defences.

A succession of expert witnesses argued that the danger posed by Saddam to the US and the rest of the world was constantly increasing as the Iraqi dictator tried to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Khidir Hamza, who played a leading role in Iraq's nuclear weapons program before defecting in 1994, cited German intelligence in saying: "With more than 10 tonnes of uranium and one tonne of slightly enriched uranium ... in its possession, Iraq has enough to generate the needed bomb-grade uranium for three nuclear weapons by 2005."

He also said: "Iraq is using corporations in India and other countries to import the needed equipment for its program and channel it through countries like Malaysia for shipment to Iraq."

Dr Hamza said the chemical and biological weapons programs were making strides and Baghdad was "gearing up to extend the range of its missiles to easily reach Israel".

His pessimistic assessment was echoed by other witnesses, including the former UN chief weapons inspector Richard Butler.

However, experts with dissenting views, such as Scott Ritter, another former UN inspector, had not been invited.

There were also calls for caution amid reports the US might be considering a lightning assault on Baghdad and other command centres using fewer than 80,000 troops.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and the author of a new assessment of Iraqi military strength, lambasted hawks in the Administration who portrayed the 400,000-strong Iraqi Army as an easy opponent.

"[Iraq is] potentially a very serious military opponent indeed, and, to be perfectly blunt, I think only fools would bet the lives of other men's sons and daughters on their own arrogance and call this force a 'cakewalk' or a 'speed-bump'."

Although Iraqi regular army units had less than 70per cent manning levels, the country still had 2200 battle tanks, 3700 other armoured vehicles and 2400 significant artillery weapons, he said. He warned that US aircraft attacking Iraqi cities would fly into a blizzard of anti-aircraft fire from "one of the most dense air defence networks around urban and populated areas in the world".

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, insists no final decision has been taken, but says other initiatives, such as renewed UN weapons inspections, would not work because Iraq would not agree to a "thoroughly intrusive inspection regime".

In talks in Vienna last month Iraq and the UN failed to agree on terms for the return of inspectors, and Baghdad has remained defiant.

The chairman of the committee hearings, Senator Joseph Biden, urged the Administration to put more thought into how to deal with the aftermath of Saddam's fall if a military operation succeeded. "If we participate in Saddam's departure, what are our responsibilities the day after?"

Does anybody know the approximate destructive power of these three hypothetical bombs? Further, what type of bomb are they likely to make? A Hiroshima-style weapon, or a more sophisticated fission/fusion bomb? I think it will help to understand what we're talking about here in terms of destructive power. A 10 kiloton bomb is not on the scale of a 0.5 megaton bomb.

While I don't think we should lightly talk of an invasion of Iraq, neither should we base our estimates of how strong their army is by counting equipment.

Does anybody know the approximate destructive power of these three hypothetical bombs?

If you are near the blast point, it makes no difference. The problem is that he is making them, the size is irrelevant (unless you think that his taking out only 1/2 of Tel Aviv is acceptable, rather than the whole city).

This is all part of the coalition building machinations. Laying the groundwork, getting public opinion behind you, bringing on allies, and finally - convincing most of the Arab nations that this is a must.

Personally, I believe the Bush administration is doing a masterful job. I believe that WHEN we strike, all ducks will be in a row.

I believe that WHEN we strike, all ducks will be in a row.

Probably true. However, it begs the question of IF we should attack.

I was just listening to NPR and Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector, made a compelling case for re-introducing weapons inspectors as, BY FAR, the best approach to achieving our goals.

Well, unfortunately, it does make a difference. Americans didn't get nearly as outraged over OKC as they did over 9/11. More people died. And damage done is damage done. If he can destroy Tel Aviv and kill a million people, I'd have to call that worse than destroying 20% of it, and fifty thousand.

For the record, I think we should invade Iraq as soon as possible. I just wanted to know exactly what the threat level was. The wording 'enough for three bombs' tells very little. A suitcase nuke is 'a bomb', but they don't do all that much damage, from what I've read here at FR.

Scott Ritter is hardly an impartial voice.

That said, I believe that the we will play the "inspector game" with the UN before invading, though we know it's a waste of time.

Like Lucy with the football, Iraq will say "inspectors can come in anytime." So dutifully, we'll come running along and start to kick just before Lucy pulls the ball away.

But this time Lucy's beat, because we're not aiming for the ball, we're going to kick her in her friggin' head.

My guess would be that they are building a "nagasaki type" implosion device, only because it would require less fissionable material per bomb. The Hiroshima bomb merely shoved together the 2 halves of a critical mass and was not nearly as efficient as the Nagasaki device.

A U-235 gun is far more reliable. Fat Man involves clever timing and explosive lenses which take brains.

Little Boy was so straightforward, they didn't bother testing it. They knew it would go.

With a neutron trigger, a washing machine sized device should be able to get up to 60-70 ktons.....

Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector, made a compelling case for re-introducing weapons inspectors as, BY FAR, the best approach to achieving our goals.

They didn't find jack squat up to this point, why should we believe that they can do anything more now? Sorry, Ritter's ideas are about as useful as wings on a frog.

We need to invade, sooner rather than later. Problem is we've telegraphed our punch so far in advance, that Iraq has more than enough time to hide the bad stuff in some kind of hardened bunker of some sort somewhere where we can't find or get to.

And to go one better, who's to say that the 'bad stuff' will even be in Iraq when we go in (provided we're looking at a January timeframe as most of the experts insist)?

Scott Ritter is hardly an impartial voice.

Agreed. But I was not taking his word for anything. He just makes more sense to me than anyone I've heard on the other side.

But this time Lucy's beat, because we're not aiming for the ball, we're going to kick her in her friggin' head.

I appreciate this comment. Of those on the side of attack, I am much more persuaded by the raw self interest argument. In fact, I (and Ritter) oppose attack on the basis of raw self interest. Those who argue from a self righteous, moralistic perspective sound too much like Osama for my taste.

A U-235 gun is far more reliable. Fat Man involves clever timing and explosive lenses which take brains.

Prior to his defection, according to Hamza's book, Iraq was working on a near-clone of the Fat Man implosion device, except with a levitated core to improve its efficiency. Yields would probably have been between 10 and 30 kT.

With a neutron trigger, a washing machine sized device should be able to get up to 60-70 ktons.....

Huh? What? Little Boy was wayyy larger than a washing machine, and had a 12 kT yield. A "neutron trigger" (? you mean initiator?) is not necessary for a gun design, but it will help insure against a fizzle. To improve the yield of a gun bomb, what you need is a good neutron shield made of beryllium. But 60-70 kt in a washing-machine-sized device is not gonna happen with a gun design AFAIK. That kind of yield/weight ratio requires a two-stage ("h-bomb") design.

We heard this time and again pre-Gulf War. "The Iraqi army is a threat and we will have thousands of US Soldiers come home in body bags." As someone who has served in the Army, as a Tank Platoon Leader, I can tell you it takes more than a tank, even with a full crew, to make a formidable weapons system. An old tank, poorly maintained and with a poorly trained crew is called a target. While I don't think we should lightly talk of an invasion of Iraq, neither should we base our estimates of how strong their army is by counting equipment.

As a former armor officer myself, I disagree with you. A full-scale invasion of Iraq will require at least 250,000 US troops to be successful. While, I harbor no misgivings about the effectiveness of the Iraqi SAM/AAA network, I think there are several reasons why our ground casualties would in all likelihood be greater this time around. For one thing, another invasion of Iraq would likely be a testing ground for the Army's Interim Force thin-skinned Stryker IAV death traps. These 50 cal MG armed vehicles cannot defeat tanks successfully, even second line Iraqi T-55s. What's worse, they can't even take 14.5mm HMG fire from Iraqi BTRs!

The latest reports show that they are even vulnerable to 7.62mm automatic rifle fire in the lower hull area! Our fleeting victory in Afghanistan against a ragtag group of 47,000 light infantry has done the Army and the nation a severe disservice. It has convinced our leaders that major wars like Iraq can be won with the same ease as small wars in Kosovo and Afganistan with only minimal ground contingents and no armor or artillery. The failure of our leaders to have a historical memory beyond the last war is, of course, going to get a lot of good soldiers killed some day in the not too distant future.

For the record, I think we should invade Iraq as soon as possible. I just wanted to know
exactly what the threat level was. The wording 'enough for three bombs' tells very little.

When Hazma ("Sadaam's Bombmaker") appeared on PBS's FrontLine episode "Gunning For Sadaam",
he said that Sadaam always told him that the goal was to get three bombs, one for each of
three major cities in Israel (Tel Aviv, Haifa?, and I can't remember the third).

However, in his testimony yesterday, Hazma thinks the goal is to never use the bombs,
but to simply threaten use...allowing Sadaam and his troops to move throughout
the region with relative impunity.

Even with all the uncertainty, I get the feeling that Richard Butler had the best approach.
He said to make the last ditch "let our inspectors in, at any time and place" and that
if Sadaam doesn't meet all the demands...let him have it.
The longer we wait, the more dangerous this snake (and the apparatus he controls) will be,
not just to the USA and Israel, but to the Kurds, Iranians, and other targets of
opportunities.

Heard that too. This is odd. It implies they are having difficulty gettting U-235. I would have thought this was available on the black market.

Minus the trigger you rely upon spontaneous fast neutrons for ignition. The trigger can inject them when the u-235 is at max. density improving yield.

They didn't find jack squat up to this point, why should we believe that they can do anything more now?

According to Ritter, they found 90% and know what 10% is unaccounted for.

We need to invade, sooner rather than later.

Assuming Iraq is lying when it says that the unaccounted for 10% no longer exists, there is STILL no reason to believe your "sooner rather than later" assessment is in our best interests.

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.