Which countries
a) possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction, AND
b) are currently in violation of one or more U.N. resolutions?

I am concerned only with resolutions aimed at specific countries and
relating to issues of war, peace and basic human rights; thus, I don't
care (in this context!) about violations of environmentally oriented
resolutions, for example.  And while I don't need to know the exact
resolution numbers, I do want to know the basic nature of the
resolutions (e.g., Israel is violating resolutions relating to the
occupation of Palestine, Iraq is violating resolutions pertaining to
the settlement of the Gulf War).

I am aware of the list on this page, and it would be acceptable if you
can't find anything better:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

I am also aware of this story, but it doesn't seem very complete:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020921-99664032.htm

Any comments about the threat these countries pose to their own people
or to other nations would also be welcome.

Thank you!

---

Request for Question Clarification by easterangel-ga on 02 Oct 2002 11:07 PDT

Hi! Thanks for visiting us. Just to make it clear. The UN violations
for each country should be really current or just violations in the
past would count as a sufficient answer. Just let me know. :)

---

Request for Question Clarification by shananigans-ga on 05 Oct 2002 04:34 PDT

Hi,

I recently completed an essay for my International Relations class
about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and a couple of the
websites I looked at may provide the answer you are looking for.

Have a look at

www.cns.miis.edu (includes timelines of 'WMD developments' for a
variety of countries, and a table of WMD capabilities within the
Middle East)

www.un.org/Overview/Organs/sc.html (the website of the UN security
council)


Hope these have helped you out

---

Clarification of Question by wantstoknow-ga on 07 Oct 2002 07:40 PDT

Easterangel -- I'm looking for current violations. I don't care too
much about apartheid in South Africa, for example, at least in this
context.

Shananigans -- That Monterey site is informative and interesting. 
Thank you!

---

Clarification of Question by wantstoknow-ga on 11 Oct 2002 09:33 PDT

Since nobody has come up with an answer (perhaps because I'm a
cheapskate, but that's because I'm asking only out of my own curiosity
and not because I have anything to gain by an answer), I'll ask an
alternate question. You can answer either the original two-part
question or the following question to claim the admittedly meager
prize:

U.S. President George W. Bush in a recent speech made a big deal out
of the fact that if Iraq could obtain the fissile material it could
make a nuclear bomb within one year.  Of which other countries could
the same claim be accurately made?

Thank you.

Hi! Thanks for your question. I will answer your second question.

------------
Question: U.S. President George W. Bush in a recent speech made a big
deal out of the fact that if Iraq could obtain the fissile material it
could make a nuclear bomb within one year.  Of which other countries
could the same claim be accurately made?
----------

I will present here only current sources since other reports on the
Internet are about 2 to 4 years old.

According to the latest 2002 data from Infoplease and Factmonster,
Iran and Iraq are countries which are deemed as in the level of
“Seeking Nuclear Weapons Capability” while Israel has “unacknowledged
nuclear weapons capability”.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html 
www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762462.html 

In another fairly recent article, Syria is also being considered by
the US as a matter of concern when it comes to nuclear weapons
capability.

“US says concerned at Syrian nuclear program”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09391276 

In this report, which has a table of nuclear weapons capabilities of
different countries which would be helpful to your inquiry, North
Korea is discussed as another suspect of possessing nuclear weapons,
but is generally believed by experts as having no warhead or missile
to use in such an attack.

“Proliferation Threats to the U.S.” 
http://www.clw.org/nmd/threatanalysis.html 

Search terms used: 
countries "nuclear weapons capability" 2002

I hope these links would help you in your research. Before rating this
answer, please ask for a clarification if you have a question or if
you would need further information.

Thanks for visiting us at Google Answers.

Regards,
Easterangel-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by wantstoknow-ga on 11 Oct 2002 11:24 PDT

That doesn't answer the question completely; I wasn't limiting the
question merely to countries that are a current threat to the U.S.  My
suspicion (and maybe I should have stated so in my question) is that
there are dozens of countries that would have the capability of
producing a nuclear weapon within a year if they had the nuclear
materials.  My understanding is that making a nuclear weapon is fairly
simple once you have the nuclear material.  Does anyone doubt that
Canada or Germany, for example, could create nuclear weapons within a
year if they chose to do so?  (I'm not saying they would, but they
probably could.)  Could Brazil, which is about to elect a left-wing
president?  (I don't know the answer to this question, which I am
asking for rhetorical purposes.)  I suspect (but I don't know for
certain) that Bush's statement about Iraq's nuclear capabilities makes
that country sound much, much more unusual in that respect than it in
fact is.

---

Clarification of Answer by easterangel-ga on 11 Oct 2002 12:48 PDT

In reply to your clarification I found this article from the US
Department of State which mentions that Iraq indeed has the capability
to make nuclear weapons within a year. It also mentions Iran, North
Korea, Libya and Syria in the report but does not mention them as
having that one year capability. What then can we infer from this
article? It seems that the US only has entensive knowledge on Iraq
activities and not on the other countries. This quote could give us a
clue why.

"Among these regimes flow dangerous weapons and dangerous technology.
A growing concern is that cooperation among proliferators is
increasing, recipients have become suppliers, and this "onward
proliferation" presents yet another difficult problem. These are the
critical areas of concern for those of us in the export control
business, and it is on these rogue regimes in particular that we
should focus a watchful eye. States such as these rely heavily on
front companies and illicit arms traders to seek out arms, equipment,
sensitive technology and dual-use goods for the benefit of their WMD
programs. These front companies are experts at concealing the actual
end-use of an item and in finding the path of least resistance for
shipping an illicit commodity. If there is a loophole in a law or a
weak border point, these companies will try to exploit it. All too
often they succeed."

"In an effort to plug the holes in this system, we are encouraging
countries around the world to adopt export controls that conform to
international standards, to put in place effective licensing
procedures and practices, and to back them up with capable enforcement
mechanisms. Through the Export Control Assistance Program, we are
helping other countries to control the movement of goods and
technology through their borders."

Bolton: Strong, Well-Enforced Export Controls Can Stem Weapons Spread
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02100415.htm 

What does this say to us? That even the US and UN doesn't have a good
idea on what the exact situation is in terms of other countries it is
currently monitoring.

It is also but rational that the US only criticizes in the media,
countries which has a direct or indirect threat to them. It could well
be possible and rational to suspect that other countries friendly to
them will have this nuclear capability. It will however be a question
this time of diplomacy to attack and criticize these countries in the
media if they do have nuclear weapons. The US have enough in their
hands fighting a media and real war when it confronts its present
enemies so why add more to the mix? Furthermore if these so called
friendly or neutral contries does possess nuclear weapons, the US I
think would rather have them as allies than as enemies. One example of
this is Israel which has been also on the watchlist of the UN just
like Iraq but the US has not called for a massive arms inspection on
the state.

I hope I have given supplement to my answer. Thanks again for being a
part of Google Answer.

Regards,
Easterangel

---

Request for Answer Clarification by wantstoknow-ga on 11 Oct 2002 17:02 PDT

While the clarification given is informative, it still doesn't really
address the question.  What I want to know is this: It has been widely
reported that Iraq, if it had the fissile material, could develop a
nuclear bomb within a year.  This is also true of which other
countries?

I recognize that a precise answer may not be possible.  What I really
suspect is that what is supposedly true of Iraq is also true of
numerous other countries (mostly because building a crude nuclear bomb
isn't that big of a deal if you have the high-level radioactive
material).  I'd like to be either proven right or be shown that my
suppositions are wrong.

---

Clarification of Answer by easterangel-ga on 11 Oct 2002 19:19 PDT

In answering the second clarification let us first establish the
nations which have fissile materials. Please bear with me.

This website from the ISIS provides a summary of nations which possess
these types of materials.
http://www.isis-online.org/mapproject/supplements.html 

Another table of inventory of fissile materials (1999 article) is
found here.

“Negotiating a fissile-material cut-off treaty”
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/fissile.htm 

It is true that the so called rogue nations are not within this list
but an interesting article from the same website informs us that they
are more than capable of possessing such potentially destructive
material.

“Historically, neptunium 237 and americium have been separated by the
nuclear weapon states in only small quantities, principally for
non-explosive uses—as target materials for plutonium 238 production,
and for smoke detectors, neutron generators, and research activities.
International commerce in neptunium and americium is very small.
Although the information is incomplete, non-nuclear weapon states are
believed to possess little separated neptunium or americium.”

“Current controls and monitoring practices do not provide the
international community with adequate assurance that these materials
are not being used to make nuclear explosives. A principal concern is
that a civilian reprocessing facility or a waste treatment facility in
full compliance with its safeguards obligations could extract
neptunium or americium that would not be under any international
inspections.”

“Although no country has stated it has used neptunium 237 in a nuclear
explosive device, neptunium 237 is considered usable in nuclear
weapons. It has a bare-sphere metal critical mass of about 60
kilograms, and in metal form it is easier to compress than highly
enriched uranium (HEU). About 30 kilograms or less would be sufficient
to create a crude implosion device. With a half-life of more than two
million years, neptunium 237 has no heat or radiation properties that
would complicate its use in a nuclear explosive. Because it has a low
neutron background, it could also be used in a gun-type device,
although a larger quantity would be required.”

“Russia, the United States, and other nuclear weapon states have
exported neptunium 237. From 1950 to April 1998, the United States
exported only about a kilogram of separated neptunium 237 to 12
countries. In order of amounts, the recipients of more than 98 percent
of the material were Germany, Belgium, Britain, Israel, Japan, and
India. Russian exports are less known; it has not provided the IAEA
with an accounting of its neptunium exports before 1994. Britain sold
Iraq 200 milligrams of neptunium oxide in the 1980s. About a quarter
of it was irradiated to produce plutonium 238, which Iraq evaluated as
a material for a neutron initiator for nuclear weapons. The rest of
the plutonium was used in reprocessing research and development
activities at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center south of Baghdad.”

“Troubles Tomorrow? Separated Neptunium 237 and Americium” --David
Albright and Lauren Barbour
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/fmct/book/New%20chapter%205.pdf

Now what does this article suggest. It insinuates that at this point
due to practices in the past, other nations may already be in
possession of materials capable of production for nuclear weaponry and
should be a cause for concern.

Now for the most important part, if they possess these fissile
materials, are they now capable of having nuclear weapons in such a
short time? I don’t presume that the following articles will
completely answer your suspicion but they might be a source of
enlightenment.

A study of countries by the United States in the past could bring into
light some of our questions.

Algeria:

“Algeria has renounced nuclear weapons, signing the Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT) and submitting to International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) controls. However, they are continuing with a nuclear program
which greatly exceeds their civil needs and which in two years may
have the facilities necessary to produce military plutonium, the key
element in nuclear weapons. So warns a confidential report written in
July by the Cesid, according to whom, Algeria will be at the end of
the century in a technical position to go nuclear if the authorities
so decide.”

“The IAEA inspections of the Algerian facilities produced tensions, as
they discovered that 3 kilograms of enriched uranium, some liters of
heavy water, and various pieces of natural uranium supplied by China
had not been declared to the IAEA.”

“The Es Salam reactor has the theoretical capacity to produce up to 3
kilograms of plutonium annually, but the report estimates that only a
few grams could be diverted for military purposes without being
detected by the international controls.”

"El Cesid warns that Algeria can have the capacity to produce military
plutonium in two years" (1998 report)
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/algeria/elpais.html 

Iran: 1995 report

“The information that is available does not indicate how Iran might
produce fissile material, or even if it has chosen one particular
method. A senior U.S. official told me that intelligence information
indicates Iran has not yet made a choice.”

“As previously noted, Iran might steal fissile material or buy it on
the black market, either in pure or impure forms. Constructing
facilities to purify plutonium or to produce highly enriched uranium
and fashion bomb components is probably within Iran's reach, although
some foreign procurement might be necessary.”

“Failing overseas acquisition of fissile material, Iran would have to
develop the capability to make and separate plutonium or to enrich
uranium. As yet, Iran does not possess a nuclear reactor that can
produce significant quantities of plutonium, despite years of trying
to obtain one, nor does it have a plutonium separation plant. As
Secretary Christopher said on May 1, ‘For years, Iran has been trying
to purchase heavy-water research reactors that are best suited to
producing weapon-grade plutonium, not electricity.’’”

"An Iranian bomb?" By David Albright
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1995/ja95/ja95.albright.html 

In this much recent report by the same author it can be inferred that
although North Korea has the facilities for making nuclear weapons
through the fissile materials, its stocks are not significant enough
to cause alarm at this point but still would be a concern.

Solving the North Korean Nuclear Puzzle
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/book/app3.html 

South Africa meanwhile is a different case altogether since it is
perceived in this report that it has already succeeded in creating
established facilities to make nuclear weapons. Furthermore; this
report suggests that only a fraction of South Africa’s facilities are
needed by terrorist groups in order to achieve such an effect.

“South Africa’s Nuclear Weaponization Efforts : Success on a
Small-Scale”
By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein
September 13, 2001
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/terrorism/safrica.pdf 

Yugoslavia meanwhile is a country which stresses that premise of your
suspicion is not black and white or simple as may seem. Diplomacy,
international relations and the personalities of current leaders all
have a say in the issue.

“Should we worry about 60 kilograms of 80 percent highly enriched
uranium at the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Science outside Belgrade
being turned into nuclear weapons by a desperate Yugoslav
government?”.

“Despite the site's increasing international isolation, most officials
interviewed in the course of preparing this paper believe that
Yugoslavia would not divert the highly enriched uranium and, in fact,
would have a hard time producing a nuclear weapon. Why would President
Slobodan Milosevic risk alienating his Russian allies, his most
important friends right now? Even though Russia strongly opposes the
NATO strikes against its Slavic cousin, it is unlikely to tolerate a
decision by Yugoslavia to arm itself with nuclear weapons, or for that
matter, to accept deteriorating physical protection arrangements over
the Russian-supplied highly enriched uranium.”

”No evidence of any current weapons work exists. IAEA and U.S.
officials have given no indication that Yugoslavia could produce a
nuclear explosive quickly, i.e. within weeks or a few months, or that
it has any intentions to do so. However, information that allows an
independent judgement of Yugoslavia's intentions or current technical
capability is limited. If the Yugoslavian government decided to make a
nuclear explosive, it may be able to do so, although probably not
quickly.”

“What about Yugoslavia's Nuclear Explosive Material?”
April 21, 1999
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/yugoslavia/yugoslavia499.html

What do these articles have to do with your suspicions? The cases in
Algeria, South American and could be ones that could establish your
point. However; if we consider other real world factors, the cases of
North Korea and Yoguslavia shows that it’s not as easy as ABC.

I hope that this time I was of help to your query. 

Regards,
Easterangel-ga

The answer doesn't answer the question, but it is informative. Too
much work was put into the answer for me to request a refund and not
pay the researcher, and I do appreciate the effort, even if the result
wasn't sufficient to satisfy my curiosity.