Okay this may seem like a dumb question, but...WE have this huge concern that Iraq has WMD, we are also worried about chemical weapons and bioligical weapons. I understand the fear of him possibly using them, but why is it okay for us to have these. We just fired bombs, 4 of them that are designed to sink into the earth and destroy city blocks. We have nuclear weapons, we have all the chemical/biological capabilites. So why are we allowed to have this, but no one else is?

By Palmbchprincess on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 - 01:24 pm:

Other countries are allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. They must allow the UN to know what and how much they have, and they must be part of the UN, I believe. Reason being is the rest of the world can rest assured the US isn't going to bomb some country for no good reason. The same goes for England and Germany, and others. When you get a country like Iraq or N. Korea, that is run by a madman, the nuclear and chem/bio weapons are a threat. He will not abide by UN regulations, he will not stop using chemical weapons on his OWN people. I guess the way I look at it is having them is a privilege, not a right. Would you hand your teen the keys to your car, knowing they planned on getting drunk and high, and being the getaway drive for a robbery? (best scenario I could think of... LOL) Saddam has no qualms about using the weapons to destroy people at whim, so we will not allow him to have them at all.

By Feona on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 - 04:39 pm:

Unfortunately there are no "rules" about any country having WMD. There are a number of countries who have agreed to the Nuclear non-proliferation(sp?) treaty which is a VOLUNTARY agreement that they will not develop nuclear weapons AND/OR pass nuclear technology on to other countries.

The UN security counsel, whose permanent members ALL have WMD have past UN resolutions against countries that have engaged in hostile actions against other countries. Also in the case of Iraq, ordered them to be disarmed of WMD.

North Korea originally agreed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but since has decided to "withdraw" their agreement to the treaty.
They haven't broken any international laws for doing so.

Many countries are very interested in developing their own Nuclear weapons as the quickest way to "status" in the world and possible future membership in the Security Counsel.

By Palmbchprincess on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 - 07:26 pm:

Feona~ you bring up an interesting point. My FIL, who is a Warrant Officer in the FL National Guard, was explaining to me the only reason N. Korea was developing weapons was to get attention. They are so poor and need help, and they think that if they have WMD we will pay attention to them, and respect them.

By Ginnyk on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 - 09:35 pm:

Quite a few nations have WMD, North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, some other Arab nations I think, and I believe Israel, are among the "non Western" nations having nuclear weapon capability and/or nuclear weapon delvery capability (which is perhaps more to the point). Certainly England, France, Germany, all have WMD, nuclear and otherwise.

As I understand it, the President claims that Iraq promised to identify and destroy all WMD as part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War and failed to do so. The inspectors found no WMD, even in the beefed up and probably fairly thorough inspections that took place in the months leading up to the war (I agree, Iraq did not cooperate in inspections before that time). The President and/or his advisors said they are there and we know they are there, but we couldn't reveal our sources because that would jeopardize them; the inspectors said if you don't tell us where you think they are, you don't have a legitimate beef if we can't find them - and on and on. However, to date no WMD have been found.

We know Iraq has/had chemical WMD because they used them on the Kurds after some government leaders, by perhaps less than careful remarks, were deemed by the Iraqi Kurds to be encouraging a revolution agaisnt Hussein; thousands of Kurds died. Samples from a recently found large cache of metal drums have been brought to the U.S. for testing on the suspicion that the drums might contain the means of chemical warfare.

To date, however, Iraq has not used WMD in this war. If they have them, it has not been proved. If they have them, they have not used them, even while the U.S. is taking over the Bagdad airport and other major points and the "fall of Bagdad" seems to be only days away, if that long.

Sadly, technology and knowledge have reached the point where any nation willing to make the investment can have WMD; there has been speculation that some of the former Soviet Union's nuclear warheads and other devices may get into the hands of tin-pot dictators or even terrorists because of the economic, political and social dissarray in that part of the world and the opportunity this provides for arms dealers. While there is indeed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, most of the nations which are not signers seem to have the attitude that - OK, you have them and now you don't want us to have them, but if it's OK for you to have them then it's OK for us to have them too.

One of the important differences between the WMD that Iraq may possess and the WMD the U.S. does possess is that Iraq never had the ability to "deliver" them more than a hundred miles or so outside its borders, if that far; the U.S. has the ability to deliver them anywhere in the world (and is not alone in this capability). Many militarily and scientifically knowledgeable people believe North Korea also has this ability or will very soon, which terrifies me.

I have read articles presenting the proposition that North Korea had signed a treaty to stop developing nuclear weapon capability in exchange for financial and construction assistance in building some nuclear power plants (which is not the same thing as nuclear weapon building capability), financial and food aid, and measurable steps toward diplomatic recognition.
While a lot of financial and food aid did materialize, the nuclear power plants and diplomatic recognition did not. In recent months leaders of the U.S. have vilified North Korea and its president - so we should not be too suprised if they don't react well.

Kaye, the question you ask is pretty much the same question I ask.

By Feona on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 - 02:23 pm:

I think we all agree that we don't want MORE countries in the world to acquire nuclear weapons or other WMD.

The question is how do encourage/admonish/convince other countries to not acquire them?

Some possible answers:

Bribery: Assist other countries to develop their economies to the point where they don't need or want these weapons to gain "status"

Shame: Make possession of these weapons a shameful thing on the world stage. Unfortunately that leaves the US in the tricky position since we have the most of any other country in the world.

Unfortunately no matter what we do there will always be countries like Pakistan and India who feel "threatened" by each other. To them, MAD (mutual assured destruction) is still a viable policy.

This is one reason why the UN, no matter its faults, is one of the best hopes for countries like these to work out their differences in non-military ways.