I don’t know if we are on the slippery slope, but I think I can see it from here.
My basic position is that the horizontal proliferation* of WMDs, especially nuclear weapons, concerns me. To Pakistan, India, Israel, Iraq, North Korea, anywhere. Living in the United States and holding this position, obviously, makes me seem hypocritical. But, I would love to be able to uninvent much of the killing technology which exists today, along with a commensurate reduction in human hostility. The U.S. is powerful, and quite engaged in world affairs (working on my understatement). Living in it, however, is like living with a big bullseye painted on your back.
On the topic: Saddam seems unstable and vengeful to me. He MAY be containable. I don’t know. I do know he wants revenge on the United States for the Gulf War. He tried to assasinate GHWB during the Clinton Administration. The inspectors were removed from Iraq in 1998, and have not returned. Saddam has been relatively quiet in the interim. But, Saddam is no fool. I am almost positive that Saddam is generating all the WMDs he possibly can as quickly as he can. I am therefore nervously riding the fence between the hawks and the doves.
I would love to see inspectors back in. Unlike the hawks in the present administration, I think they can make a difference. Saddam’s only real reasons to keep them out are a reconstituted nuclear program and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
I don’t want to get involved in every nation on Earth. But, when weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a vengeful adversary are involved, it is hard not to. Acting unilaterally in other nations offends my more contemplative side. But, if it prevents millions of casualties, the utilitarian arguments seem very compelling. This is a true paradox.
So, what to do? I don’t think it is simple. You have many competing interests: national sovereignty, world peace, regional stability, international law, human life, containment versus preemption, etc.
I would love to see some debate on the issue of containing the spread of nuclear weapons before any crazy dictator can get access to them. The U.S. and Russia could cooperate on this issue and make a big difference. Or, we can wait for something really bad to happen. Remember, nukes are almost 60 years old and the clock is ticking.
Deterrence will only work between relatively rational adversaries. Holding the whole civilian population of the Earth under the sword of nuclear weapons is probably not the best path to peace in the long run.
*Vertical is when the existing WMD nations build more. Horizontal is the spread to new nations.