Previous page | Contents | Next page
4.2  |  Iraq WMD assessments, July to September 2002
495.  In an email to Mr Campbell and Mr Scarlett on the afternoon of 19 September,
Mr Powell wrote that he agreed with Mr Campbell that the Conclusion should
be dropped.246
496.  Mr Powell also:
asked what headline “we want” in the Standard on the day of publication; and
pointed out that the statement that Saddam Hussein was “prepared to use
chemical and biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat is a
bit of a problem”, because it backed up the argument that there was “no CBW
threat and we will only create one if we attack him”.
497.  Mr Powell added:
“My memory of the intelligence is that he has set up plans to use CBW on western
forces and that these weapons are integrated into his military planning.”
498.  In further comments later on 19 September, Mr Campbell raised three further
points in relation to nuclear weapons.247
499.  In relation to the time required to produce a nuclear weapon, the draft text
on nuclear timelines (paragraph 23) stated:
“In early 2002, the JIC assessed that UN sanctions on Iraq were hindering the import
of crucial goods for the production of fissile material. The JIC judged that while
sanctions remain effective, Iraq would not be able indigenously to produce a nuclear
weapon. If they were removed or proved ineffective, it would take Iraq at least five
years to produce a weapon. But we know that Iraq retains expertise and design data
relating to nuclear weapons. We therefore judge that if Iraq obtained fissile material
and other essential components from foreign sources, the timeline for production
of a nuclear weapon would be shortened and Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon
in between one and two years.”248
500.  Apologising for not having spotted the point earlier, Mr Campbell wrote:
“If we are saying that it would take between one and 2 years for them to build a
nuclear weapon by illegal means, why would it take 5 years with no sanctions? A lay
reader may assume that no sanctions would mean he could do what he wanted and
therefore, presumably, what he needed between 1 and 2 years
“If the answer is that it would take 5 years to go from planning to reality, whereas he
could purchase ready-made material from overseas, and so cut the timelines, I think
that should be made explicitly clear”.
246  Email Powell to Campbell, 19 September 2002, ‘RE: [untitled]’
247  Email Blackshaw to Scarlett, 19 September 2002, ‘Re final points for your 5pm meeting’.
248  Paper Assessments Staff, 19 September 2002, ‘Iraq’s Programme for Weapons of Mass Destruction:
The Assessment of the British Government’.
207
Previous page | Contents | Next page