Weapons of mass destruction

Aside from the obvious they’re evil, in the axis of evil, dictator types, why is it ok for many countries to possess, experiment with, and test weapons of mass destruction, but not Iraq or NK?

Certainly I don’t like the idea of them having such toys, but then niether do I care for the fact that others, including the US, but we have them. Isn’t this where we become the police of the world?

It wouldn’t bother me so much if I didn’t know that the US has facilities for both biological and chemical weapons. Naturally, we say we have them to defend ourselves, we have to understand such weapons if we are to protect ourselves from them. Is this big hulabaloo really over the fact that Mr. Saddam has no rspect for human life and builds such things in secret?

I mean if France, England, The US, and Russia all do it why is it so bad for the rest of the world?

I think the deal is that Iraq agreed not to have any after losing the Gulf War.

It does seem like your neighbors would kick your ass if you didn’t have weapons, though.

Weapons yes, but Our neighbors are Canada and Mexico. I don’t think we need nukes, chemicals, or biological weapons to defend ourselves.

We don’t trust them not to use them, seeing as how Saddam used WMD against his own people a while back.

I am in 100% agreement. Why is it that only the “friends” of the United States, United Kingdom and UN can have these weapons? If I was the leader of a country, I would focus a great deal of resources towards developing the best weapons I could. We all know that the bully picked on the weak, why wouldn’t a world bully do the same? If Kuwait had VX missles, I’m sure Saddam damn well would have reconsidered his invasion. I don’t like Saddam or what North Korea seems to want to do more than anyone else, but damn it, we’ve had thousands of years of resolving conflict with war. Can we try something else for a change?

Welcome, Zombie Dude13 & TrentVaughn

This looks like a great topic- for Great Debates. I don’t think there is an opinion-free factual answer for this OP. My take on this:

As long as there are people willing to sacrifice others to gratify themselves, this will be a violent world. I prefer to do what I must to prevent my family, friends, and community being sacrificed to an outsider’s interests.

My government should address its attention to those areas that present the greatest threats. With the general alignment of the west (culturally, economically, etc) our “friends” do not present the threat, even with WMDs, that a hostile regime presents.

As there cannot be a useful law without an enforcement mechanism, nor can a resolution be empowered without consequences for ignoring it, the questions now are: should there be action to enforce the UN’s resolution to disarm Iraq? If there is not, can that resolution be considered viable? If not, what are the consequences to the UN’s credibility, the region’s stabilty, the world’s economies, and (back to where I started) the safety and security of my family, friends and country?

So, if the UN proves to be ineffective, the only course for the US to take is to compensate for that in its own security interests. This is really a great test case for the UN, which has so far apparently ineffective. I would really prefer a peaceful UN backed solution, but I don’t think that will prove realistic.