Why is it ok for some countries to have weapons of mass destruction, but not others?

Great Debates
41

Sam Stone wrote:

Like I said. He’s a threat to decent townfolk.

(See? The cowboy analogy does work!)

I don’t know if anyone happened to catch Bill Clinton on Letterman last night, but he had some interesting observations. He predicted that any war between the US and Iraq would be over in a couple of weeks.

BUT, he also expressed his concern that Saddam Hussein, in the midst of losing such a war, might do the very thing Americans fear the most: turn over weapons of mass destruction (chemical agents and biological weapons) to terrorists, in effect avenging himself by proxy.

Something to think about.

42

If this were Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Iran that were pushing for an invasion of Iraq and the Western Powers (because it is not just the USA) were supporting them, then you would have a very valid point - as it is, the only sense in which Saddam is an active threat to the Western Powers so eager to invade is possibly economically…

Grim

43

Shodan:

Isn’t it a pain in the neck when people ask good questions and raise cogent objections?

You’re right - in that case the best way out is to say ‘there is no common ground for discussion’ and leave. Door’s thataway.

Did he say that? I don’t think so. But he did produce evidence that we’re notoriously fickle about when we’re bothered by who does what to whom.

So where’s the Czechoslovakia that we ‘appeasers’ would hand over to maintain peace? You’re treading near to Godwin’s Law territory. (Comparing someone to an appeaser of the Nazis isn’t as bad as calling them a Nazi, but it’s in the same direction. You shouldn’t go there unless you’re ready to demonstrate a strong analogy.)

You’re right - anyone who criticizes the Administration’s position, or points out inconsistencies in how the U.S. acts in the world, is “blaming America”.
That certainly resolves the debate. :wally

44

“BUT, he also expressed his concern that Saddam Hussein, in the midst of losing such a war, might do the very thing Americans fear the most: turn over weapons of mass destruction (chemical agents and biological weapons) to terrorists, in effect avenging himself by proxy.”
A slight hijack but this is an awfully important point made by Bill Clinton which has not adequately been made in the debate about Iraq.

Even if you believe that controlling Iraqi WMD is important, an invasion to force regime change is the wrong way to go about it. Why? Because it is almost certain that when his back is to the wall Saddam will do everything to hurt Israel and the US and will pass on his WMD to terrorists (something he has good reasons to not do as long as he is safe). These terrorists will be much more likely to use it since they can’t easily be deterred.

In addition a “regime change” will likely lead to a period of anarchy in Iraq when rogue elements will grab the bio/chem weapons lying all around Iraq and sell them to terrorists.

There are many problems with “regime change” in Iraq. The biggest problem is that it will likely lead to terrorists getting the weapons to kill millions of Americans.

45

Speaking as an American, I would argue that “moral calculus” is completely irrelevant. Geopolitical calculus, however, is.

Typically, the European posters to this thread have a much more subtle understanding of this than the Americans do, who tend to see this conflict as an ahistorical, black-and-white opposition of forces and personalities, a conflict which America serves as the keystone.

Other than removing Hussein’s alleged ability to lob weapons of mass destruction, there appears to be no other political goal of this invasion, at least no goal that the administration has cared to share with us. If it cannot harmonize its political and military goals and present them to the public for scrutiny, then it will lose the support of many Americans like myself.

We would also be extremely unwise to overestimate the actual level of cooperation between all of the fractious terrorist leaders and insane tinhorn dictators in the Middle East. It suits them to put up a united public front, but theirs is a sea of egos and conflicting interests just as intense as the west’s.

The last time we assumed that there was a global conspiracy to defeat the west and acted accordingly with no real political goal for the aftermath of military action, we ended up overextended, undercommitted, and ultimately defeated.

While I am not opposed in principle to intervention, I simply do not think that the right calculations of national interest have been made, nor has the right spin been put on these calculations to convince the American people.

In sum, the Bush team farkled this one, big time.

But we shall see what the president says to the UN today.

46

Perhaps, but the danger is greater that such “rogue elements” will use the weapons on each other, or even on us directly. There are over 100,000 Kurd mountain and desert fighters waiting for the US to invade. When we do, they will launch their own invasion, stabbing as far southwards as the city of Kirzuk, and perhaps farther.

The more of Iraq they can swallow up, the stronger their ultimate bargaining position will be. And if they need to use chemical or biological weapons, especially against a regime that gassed them first, I have little doubt that they will.

And I think our good friends, the Turks, might have a little something to say about the detabilization in their own country that Iraqi Kurdish nationalism will cause. Yeah, these are the same Kurds that want to carve Kurdistan out of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

Way to improve our standing in the middle east.

47

grimpixie wrote:

Though I have reservations about a war on Iraq, the above statement just ain’t so.

Hussein carries an obvious grudge against the US. And that means there is always the threat that he could provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the US, using the terrorists to fight a proxy war. (Particularly if he thought he could do so without leaving a trail of evidence leading back to Iraq.)

Of course, this threat doesn’t seem to bother most Europeans too much, since they know the US is the likely target, and they themselves are safe (for the moment at least). On top of this, there seems to be the sense among Europeans (or a significant number of them anyway) that the US somehow “has it coming.” (The logic of this notion, I do not understand.)

So while I have my own doubts about the efficacy of a war on Saddam, I am not so naive as to believe he presents no threat.

And while I respect the opinions of our European (and other) friends on the matter, I take those opinions with a grain of salt.

48

I have seen nothing to indicate that the Euros in this thread have any more profound an understanding than the Americans.

Sadam hates the US, or at the very least the Bushes. Al Quada and other terrorists hate the US. It is not a very far leap of logic to assume that the possibility exists of the two groups cooperating with each other on some level. Although it definitely would not be in Sadams best interest to attack the US with a nuke through terrorists. As the ruler of a country, he has a lot more to lose than a shadowy, countryless terrorist doues.

"The last time we assumed that there was a global conspiracy to defeat the west and acted accordingly with no real political goal for the aftermath of military action, we ended up overextended, undercommitted, and ultimately defeated. "

To what event in history does this refer?

49

Of course you don’t. When you reduce geopolitcal calculations in perhaps the most complex part of the world to, “they hate us, they have guns, let’s invade,” that pretty much marginalizes subtlety and nuance, no?

And what, exactly does he have to gain? This is not a rhetorical question. Lemme give you a hint: if you want to answer this question seriously, you had best take a good look at the Iraqi domestic situation, current US and international policy with respect to sanctions, and the various opposition groups coalescing as US talks to invade intensify.

You really have to ask? Viet Nam.

50

RTF - thank you. My thoughts exactly.

Regarding your earlier statement about Saddam Hussein’s unwillingness to re-take his own country, however, I’d like to point out that the US allowed him to violate the no-fly zones at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 in order to crush the incipient Kurdish and Shi’a uprisings that were in progress. Hell, even Scowcroft admitted he’d pinned his hopes on the next government being a military one, rather than letting the Iraqi people deal with him.

More fickleness, this time regarding regime changes. But I guess since I don’t unthinkingly wave the flag at this time of national crisis, I must simply be blaming America in a knee-jerk fashion.

51

(TOP SECRET: AGENT FOX’S EYES ONLY)

FEED LSD TO “PASSERS-BY” OPERATION: Clearance Code: 129-235-3478 Alpha Bravo Tango Zulu

Agent Fox, your instructions are as follows: Grab any passers-by and feed them LSD. Play that funky music, white boy.

THIS MESSAGE WILL SELF-DESTRUCT IN LITTLE PAISLEY SWIRLS OF COLOR, THE FLOOR IS BREATHING, WHAT THE…

Yes, Latro, we are coming for you. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The actual topic: Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of unstable governments is a sure way to help “eliminate the surplus population,” so I’m all for them. We should immediately ship nuclear weapons to Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, North Korea, Iran, and Libya.

[sub]In Bizarro World[/sub]

52

This debate assumes that Iraq has W’s of MD, can someone provide a link to where the proof of this is?

Were weapons inspectors expelled?

Is the WMD threat real?

53

I have a question about the term “fascist dictator” as used above to describe Saddam Hussein. What does “fascist” mean in that context? Was Josef Stalin a “fascist dictator”?

If “fascist” = “authoritarian”, was Mao also a fascist?

54

Thanks beagle I couldn’t have done a better job, of demonstrating what a fool you are, than you yourself have just done.

Regards,
Latro

55

I’m sorry that you cannot buy a sense of humor in the Netherlands. Try the government grown sensi bud, it kicks ass.

I note that you can’t deal with the substance of what I said either. To wit, the proliferation of WMDs is very dangerous. This is not a recent discovery.

[sub]Wooden shoes and hemp. Wooden shoes and hemp. Wooden shoes and hemp. Wooden shoes and hemp. Wooden shoes and hemp. Wooden shoes and hemp. Wooden shoes and hemp. [/sub]

You need to get out of this thread and read some other threads. I, and many others, have posted the links all over this place. Try Globalsecurity.org, look at the satellite photos of what may well be Saddam’s reconstituted nuclear program. Then, go to PBS and look up the Frontline called “Gunning for Saddam.”

As for chemical and biological, good grief, even Scott Ritter concedes that these programs were probably back in full production within six months of the last inspector leaving.

Sorry, the server is just too slow for me right now. Gotta go do stuff.

To all the WMD ‘experts’ on this thread do a Google on “Unit 731” and get back with me on how high tech a biological weapons program needs to be. THAT WAS OVER 60 YEARS AGO!

56

Just a few brief thoughts as I read through this thread…

Maybe the one country in all the history of the world to use a nuclear bomb (and on civilian targets) should not be the one to determine who gets nukes and who doesn’t?

Also, folks, please be mindful of your sources. Statements like ‘Saddam gasses his own people’ etc, are “facts” that have been filtered though corporate owned media and disseminated to the masses as propaganda. Oh yeah, and if it is true, who do you think sold him the poison gas? Hmmmmm…

57

I’ll be brief as well:

'Nuff said?

58

Ummm, who?

See, they used mostly phosgene, which I imagine they manufactured themselves. It’s not all that tough actually.

Remember, too that the statement “Saddam has gassed his own people” is actually factually correct. Just.

‘Course, he did so as part of a war, and while Iraq was still on happy-happy terms with the US, and with the US advisers’ knowledge (though not expicit approval).

59

Helloooo… has anybody seen the OP?

Really!

As to how come it’s OK for some countries to be in the WMD club and not others – and as someone mentioned before, defining WMD as exclusively N/B/C is kind of simplifying it – well… here’s my take on it.

During a conversation with my brother once, he mentioned that he somehow was never that scared that the Russians would just drop the Bomb during the Cold War. I said: That’s because deep inside you knew, that they cared about there being a world left to conquer the day after making their point.

Narrowing it downto the Nukes, the Big Bomb Boys – the Security Council Five, plus India, Pakistan and Israel, are understood to have regimes in place that, whatever their particular moral shortcomings, have too much at stake in the here-and-now to use their nukes gratuitously – though let’s not fool ourselves: does anyone REALLY take any of their delcarations of a “no first use” policy seriously? That’s cheap PR, any of the eight will first-use if they feel it’s the winning move (or the dying stroke, to take out as many of the others as they can) . Unfortunately we can’t be so sure about folks like Hussein or Kim – not so much for themselves as for their pals in Al-Qaeda or Hamas. And some of these peripheral regimes WILL be “tolerated” by the Big Boys, as long as they know their place and don’t interfere with their interests. But eventually they’ll have to be attended to. (And Shrub argues that in Saddam’s case, “eventually” is now. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t THAT has been a hijack)

(As to who the hell are the Great Powers to tell the rest of the world what to do… well, they’re the Great Powers. Whether the concept itself is valid is still ANOTHER debate!)

Alas, none of the members of the Great Powers club is morally immaculate nor even has desirably clean hands. That would be nice, but it’s not the world we live in. Nobody is “without sin” , geopolitically; and we can’t really expect that the reaction to that truth is to be “Oh, well, then I suppose nobody should do anything, since nobody’s worthy.” Nations will pursue their interests. In that context, it’s best that, given that WMD’s exist and they cannot be made non-existent (knowledge will remain evenif every last bomb is dismantled), as few countries as possible have them, and those few who arrive at the club, do so under some sort of gentlemen’s agreement as to what behavior is expected of them
Oh, and just to return to the hijack:
akrako1 and others: the two full operational deliveries of a nuke in August 1945? An Act of War. Against industrial centers and a major seaport, in a war where mass bombardment was accepted as a standard practice. A declared, recognized, ongoing shooting war, in which atrocities much, much greater than those two instances were committed. Nothing to be proud of; but neither does it in any way imposes any special moral disqualification.
jrd

60

Thanks, JRDelirious, for bringing us back on point. But after reading your post, I’m not sure I know where you stand. I think you are suggesting that the “great powers” can/may/should/will determine whom in the international community can be a part of their club.

If so, I agree with you.

You also state that nobody is “without sin”, and therefore (by implication), shouldn’t be making such determinations unilaterally.

If so, I agree with you.

The point about the US dropping the bomb was a bit of a red herring, that some folks posted to respond to the red herring of pointing out SH “atrocities” (such as gassing his people, war with Iraq, invading Kuwait, etc), all of which happened before the last gulf war. I think your argument supports their point - whether it was an “atrocity” or not depends on your perspective. Who is to judge?

And before I let it slip: 9/11’s death toll is in the thousands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s death toll was in the hundreds of thousands. 9/11 was carried out against a financial center and a military headquarters - “Act of War”? Considering the war in Europe was over, please educate me as to what atrocities were “much, much greater than those two instances”. Again, who is to judge whether it should impose any special moral disqualification?