ThinkDifferent

Being an Indian, i am convinced that only way to be safe in this world is to have as much WMD as possible. No wonder the whole of our nation rejoiced when india went Nuclear a few years ago. How can you explain what US is doing today? They are the richest country. They are the most powerful in terms technology, economy, military and almost everything else. Still they want more. Still they want to kill. Still they feel threatned. Still their president tells lies without blinking once. Still they use amazing force against weaklings. All this is so frustrating.

After defeating saddam will they show the world the WMD that he has? They won't because he doesn't have any. If he had he would be really very safe.

Happy Wonderer

I don't think that WMD makes the world any safer, but I can see your point. The message that small countries are getting loud and clear is "finish up your nuculear programs now, and you are safe from the US." Just look at the difference between Iraq and North Korea.

Little countries can rejoice that soon (as early as next month) North Korea will be in a position to sell them nukes at very reasonable prices.

HW

ThinkDifferent

With enough WMD India can get a Permanent Seat in the Security Council

Zimyatin

I don't think that this dumb ass administration really cares whether Iraq has WMD or not. They wanted a war and they got it.

Godbert

yes, the whole "we have to attack Saddam or he gives nukes to terrorists" is the stupidest excuse for the war - well, sadly enough, maybe not...
Bush is basically pressuring every country that owns oil or a passage to oil or has whatever other problems with the US to start a nuclear weapons program. Additionally, he managed to generate massive anti-US majorities in pakistan and really piss off the Koreans. Also a few days back the russian parlament put a mutual nuclear arms reductions program with the US on hold. So sure, there will be a lot less possibilities for terrorists to get nukes once Saddam, who doesn't have any and hates fundamentalist muslims, is removed

Happy Wonderer

Here is the problem. You probably felt safer when India completed their nuculear program. But did you feel safer once Pakistan completed theirs?

With conventional arms, the more that you have the safer you are (well, sort of.) 100,000 tanks always beats 1,000 tanks. Nukes are different. The US has enough nukes to take out everybody in the world, but it doesn't protect us against a nation even with a small number of nukes. One nuke in New York would cause permanant damage to the country; in my lifetime we would not recover. Six or seven modern yeild nukes in the right places would take out our country entirely; we would not function as an organized society ever again. So it doesnt' matter that we have so many more than other nations - we can retaliate with 1000's of weapons, but the first six or seven will do the trick. (Of course our arsenal was aimed at Russia with a much larger land mass, although I still think that seven in the right places would take them out.)

I think three would do for India, one or two for Pakistan. These aren't just larger explosives, they have long term effects.

Anyway, this should be obvious but I think that we have gotten a bit too used to the idea of using nukes. It isn't a moral issue, it is a survival of the species issue...

HW

ThinkDifferent

India's Bomb wasn't meant only for pakistan. Pakistan was just a convinient reason. There are a lot of other countries whom India wanted to send a "message". In future if any country wants something from us they will try "democratic" means....unlike those being used against a WMD-less country like iraq. Basically India's WMD acts as a "deterrent" against other countries which already have WMD(which includes the most WMD-rich country which is the USA).

Zar

ThinkDifferent,

I frankly don't understand how anyone living in a Western nuclear power nation can possibly argue against you. Sheer hypocrisy is the only way they can. Only the self-delusion of a "moral exceptionalism", which certainly pervades American thought, can possibly quiet the loud voice of contradiction in one's mind.

The comment about Pakistan having nukes, as if this should make India stop, is a case in point. Exchange "U.S." for India and "USSR" for Pakistan and you can see the futility of this argument.

I choose not to lie to myself on this point.

I want fewer (or no!) WMDs like most others do, but there has never been a comprehensive plan of any seriousness to avoid proliferation. I really don't know what to do, but history and experience point directly to the conclusion you are coming to. There is a certain logic to it even as it is also simultaneously insane for the world in general to have WMDs.

What else can I say?

leonarde

From the OP:Funny but the people who know him best, the Iraqi Kurds, are emptying their cities and heading for the hills in fear of yet further chemical attacks by S Hussein. How do you know that S Hussein "doesn't have any" WMDs?

Cheers!

Corwin

It's been three days, ground forces were in country yesterday.

If he had them he'd most likely have used them by now. If he doesn't use them in the next few days, he doesn't have any. (Like numerous people, including the CIA of all people, have been saying for some months now.)