1.1 | UK
Iraq strategy 1990 to 2000
and those
“responsible for any breach of international law relating to the
use of
such
weapons” would be “held personally accountable”.
•
Defending
against use. Possession of an effective range of
defensive
capabilities
was required to enhance the other three pillars “by helping to
make
clear to a
potential aggressor that the threatened, or actual, use of
biological
or chemical
weapons” would “not limit our political options, or determine
the
outcome of
a conflict”.
724.
The paper
stated that the UK’s military posture comprised three
elements:
•
the
“ability to remove or reduce the threat by taking direct
action”;
•
measures to
minimise vulnerability to the weapons; and
•
capabilities,
training and equipment which protected British forces and
allowed
them to
manage battlefield risks.
725.
Eliminating or
reducing a threat before an aggressor was able to use
biological
or chemical
weapons was “preferable to having to manage the consequences of
their
use”.
Action to reduce the threat would “take a variety of forms”. The UK
would, “In
broad
terms, where legally justified”, take “whatever action” was
“required to reduce
an
opponent’s capability to use biological and chemical weapons
against the UK,
our
interests, or British and coalition forces”. The possibilities
included “Attacks on
production
facilities, storage sites, logistics chain and delivery
systems”.
726.
The paper also
emphasised the importance of “accurate and timely
intelligence”
on which
direct action was “heavily” dependent, “both to alert us to the
threat and …
provide
vital targeting information”.
727.
The paper
stated that the threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons
was
“well
known”, but biological and chemical weapons had a longer history
and posed
“the
greater potential threat” in the current operational environment.
The foundation
for
managing the risks was diplomatic, but a “balanced range of
military capabilities”
was also
needed, including defensive and protective measures “and the
ability to take
action
where necessary to remove or reduce a specific threat”. The UK had
an important
dialogue
with the US on biological and chemical defence issues and the UK
would
“continue
to pursue close consultations with them and with other
allies”.
728.
In relation to
Iraq, the paper stated that it had:
“… made
significant efforts to develop a wide range of biological agents
and their
delivery
means, including missile warheads. The programme has included
the
development
and production of anthrax and botulinum toxin, and other
agents,
including
ones that can attack plants and animals.
“We also
know that Iraq has a programme to convert L29 trainer aircraft for
use as
Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). We assess that, if equipped with spray
tanks
159