Iraq's remaining weapons of mass destruction are not formidable enough to justify the US-led invasion, a former United Nations chief weapons inspector said Monday.

Roger Hill, who was an inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, said during at visit to Jakarta that he believed 95 percent of such weapons were destroyed by the UN special commission.

"Yes, they have some (weapons of mass destruction) but to my mind, not a lot," Hill told foreign correspondents.

"I am not sure we should be at war...if it is about weapons of mass destruction, I don't think this is the right thing to do." Hill, 49, said the US attack was not about the remaining weapons but "it is about control in the Middle East." He said the psychological impact of the September 11 terror attacks in the United States was partly behind the decision to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

Hill said whatever weapons of mass destruction the Iraqis still had, they could not be effectively used on the battleground and could not significantly alter the regional balance of power.

Iraq, he said was only left with between 10 and 25 Scud missiles and four launchers and only had limited rounds of biological or chemical weapons.

"In terms of usage they are not very effective. It is not a weapon of military significance," Hill said.

"Their ability to effectively deliver it (biological or chemical weapons) to the battlespace is very limited." He said so far there has been "no credible report" of links between President Saddam Husein and terrorist organisations which would allow weapons of mass destruction to be channelled to terrorists.

Hill said US evidence on Iraq's alleged weaponry, presented to justify its attack, contained no new elements and dated back as far as six years.

The former Australian soldier, who holds a master's degree in defence studies, said Saddam should be removed but not by outsiders.

Hill said resistance would collapse only after the Republican Guards were defeated or after Saddam was killed - Sapa-AFP