used so variously as to confuse rather than enlighten readers. Rather than adding to this debate and this confusion, we have in our Report chosen to spell out what we mean in full. In cases where it is used by others, most notably in JIC assessments, we have had in mind in interpreting those assessments the definition at paragraphs 8 and 9 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, which defined the systems which Iraq was required to abandon:
Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research,development,support or manufacturing facil ities relating to [nuclear weapons].
Chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub- systems and components and all research,development,support and manufacturing facilities.
Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities.
The abbreviation ‘CBW’ (often expressed as ‘BCW’) occurs regularly both in intelligence reporting and in related analysis and assessment. At a certain level of generality, ‘CBW’ can be a useful term to embody the concept of chemical and biological warfare. Thus, for example, in the face of a ‘CBW’ attack the tempo of military operations is significantly impeded by soldiers having to don cumbersome clothing whether facing chemical weapons or biological weapons. But for detailed technical intelligence assessments, the distinction is important. Chemical weapons and biological weapons involve very different technologies, and are usually developed by different people at different facilities. Delivery requirements, and hence doctrine, training, storage and handling, are different, as are the troops involved. One of our witnesses said that any report in which the terms ‘CW’ and ‘BW’ were interwoven or combined through the use of the single acronym ‘CBW’: . . . always makes me slightly suspicious.
We agree that such use is confusing. Thus, although the term may have some value in some contexts, we have sought to avoid it altogether, although it does feature in some of the extracts from JIC assessments which we have taken in to our Report.
As well as nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, JIC assessments and intelligence reports, especially those on terrorism, also consider radiological weapons, which employ conventional, typically high-explosive means to distribute radioactive material. As a result, our Report includes where relevant the phrase ‘chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons’, and its abbreviation ‘CBRN’.
Notwithstanding our short timetable, a massive amount of paper has been relevant to our Review. Sorting out and providing these papers has been a huge task for the intelligence