“If you want to use the argument that no nation should tell another one what weapons they can or can't build, then get ready for a world prolific with nuclear weaponry. Do you want to live in that world? Because I don't. “

Wow, it seems that Brad DeLong is about to join the neo-conservatives. As for his peacenik friends, one must remember how much blood has been spilt because pacifists got in the way of dealing with a tyrant before he became dangerously out of control. Have we already forgotten a guy named Adolph Hitler? Both war mongers and pacifists are dangerous to our safety!

Good argument. What else is there to say?

I guess the only debate is which of the Axis of Evil to take out first. North Korea is furthest down the road, it has the maddest leader, it can threaten Japan. I say its time for the Koreans again.

And this time if the Chinese try to stop us - roll on!

It's too late to take out the Koreans. Now that they are armed to the teeth it would be too costly to go to war with them. We just need to make sure that Iraq does not become a North Korea.

It is the very proliferation of nuclear states that argues in favor of a different solution than the military one. The US just can't wage war on all of them. Some coherent international aggreement should be called for, and nations that abide by it should be rewarded and conversely.

Strangely enough, it seems to be the administration's position towards North Korea. Brazil, India, Pakistan, Israel and the rest of the nuclear states (and there are in fact quite a few others - besides the officially recognized ones) are just dealt with complete indifference. Oh, that's right, there is not much oil in these countries...

Of course one argument against such a war is that it is self-fulfilling. That is to have a doctrine of preventative action against countries that might be looking into adopting nuclear weapons is a sure way of making them adopt them.

If we can't take out the Koreans, or the Chinese, because they have nukes, then Saddam should get some quickly!

We are living in a world prolific with nuclear weaponry.

Iraq adds to the danger, but the addition is marginal.

Lost in all this is a simple calculation: the real enemy of Iraq and Saddam Hussein is not the US, we are his biggest customer. The real target is Saudi Arabia, which is why I am dumbfounded that the Saudis aren't falling over themselves to help take out Saddam.

As for prolific, the US, Russia and China account for nearly 95% of the weapons out there. But that is what makes the nuclear weapon so attractive; the guy who owns 2% has nearly the same clout as the guy who owns 95%.

So everybody wants in on the action especially when all you need is 2% to sit with the big boys!

This genii is not going back into the bottle.
MAD is here to stay and we better get used to living with it.

Brad,

I thought you had some familiarity with the mushy, "third way" sort of thinking on economic and social policy. Heres a third-way notion on disarmament. First, gather the support of a large, long standing and well respected international body. The bigger the better. If it has a reputation for occasional military intervention, only after careful and balanced consideration, all the better. Then, issue a clear and unequivocal call from that body for adherence to acceptable behavior. Make sure some sort of powerful inspection is included, so that more than lip service is offered by the offending nation. Then and only then, undertake a military action with the clear intention of enforcing acceptable standards, for now and for as long as is needed, at whatever expense is required, so that lives are not lost in vane.

Do these things, and there is a possibility, no one knows how great, no matter how many pretende they do, that the goal of getting nasty weapons out of the hands of dictators can be achieved without killing many thousands initially, and perhaps making other important foreign policy goals in the region unattainable for a generation or more.

If the third way fails, then, again with careful calculation of what it takes to do the job completely and for as long as it takes, undertake a military option.

Maybe somebody has already thought of this.

>>Maybe somebody has already thought of this.<<

Strangely enough, I have not read any explicit argument along these lines in the US press. I think it's pretty much the thinking of all reasonable people around the planet though... (it's very unfortunate that this is becoming an extint specie in this country.)

I don't think there is much difference between your third-way and the French (official) position. In fact the French call it the third way (between the UK and Germany). The only major difference is that with this administration there is no point for France to push for a international / multilateral aggreement.

Along the same lines, much more funding should be poored into nuclear material control (that's what nuclear physicists and arm control experts argue for - no enriched uranium, no nuclear bombs). Someone still has to explain to me why the Republicans blocked a proposal to do so... Is it because it would spoil the fun?

Someone needs to convince me that Iraq is within a decade of obtaining a nuclear device. I see no evidence of it.

David,

Does liberal + interventionist = neo-conservative?

>>Someone needs to convince me that Iraq is within a decade of obtaining a nuclear device. I see no evidence of it.<<

Saddam Hussein is EVIL! What more do you need??? Some people are simply incapable to dealing with a logical argument! %-)

>>Someone needs to convince me that Iraq is within a decade of obtaining a nuclear device. I see no evidence of it.<<

Saddam Hussein is EVIL! What more do you need??? Some people are simply incapable of dealing with a logical argument! %-)

“>>Someone needs to convince me that Iraq is within a decade of obtaining a nuclear device. I see no evidence of it.<<

Saddam Hussein is EVIL! What more do you need??? Some people are simply incapable of dealing with a logical argument! %-)”

Is this your idea of a sick joke? You seem to possess a very disgusting and vile sense of humor. Saddam is so evil that he even has children tortured:

http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,742303,00.html

The odds are overwhelming that if left unhindered he almost certainly would have a nuclear device within ten years. Actually, five years would be more like it.

Um...if you haven't seen evidence that Saddam is trying to build nuclear weapons then you haven't been looking very hard.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html

Have you heard of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? What more can we do to punish Iraq? They have defied every UN resolution and treaties that ended the Gulf War. What more can we do? They fire on our planes in the no-fly zones and they develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons all while under a fairly strict embargo - what would you have us do? And is it really fair to the people of Iraq to punish them with sanctions when we could take out their dictatorial regime to accomplish the same purposes.

War is a classic emotion vs reason dilemma.

To highlight it, lets look at the extremes.

On the far left, there are people who think President Bush is capable of a plan to down Sen. Wellstone's plane but can't seem to believe that Saddam Hussein wants nuclear weapons, could use them and probably will use if he had them. It strikes me that their view of human nature is curiously selective.

Likewise on the far right, you have some hawks who want to wipe out all mid-east govts, abolish Islam and democratize the region. Okay....and you propose to do that how and with whose money?

More reasonable people aren't immune and struggle for the right answer: WFB Jr, Peggy Noonan, Mickey Kaus, Brad DeLong. Seperating emotion is useful and necessary in this discussion. That said, I don't know how we could conclude anything but taking out his weapons supply and ability to generate more.

Kevin, the most recent article in the link you provided appears to say:

>>The verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its program objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance. In February 1994, IAEA completed the removal from Iraq of all weapon-usable nuclear material - essentially research reactor fuel - under IAEA safeguards. The IAEA noted that there were no indications of significant discrepancies between the technically coherent picture that had evolved of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program and the information contained in Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete Declaration". <<

which is hardly "a bomb in two years". The website itself manages to take this back in two paragraphs and somehow end up concluding that "All Iraq lacks for a nuclear bomb is the fissile material", but there doesn't appear to be much evidence for this.

It is, I suppose, possible that Iraq has managed to keep a nuclear program going without anything showing up on surveillance photographs; that it has found some way to produce fissile uranium without cyclotrons, or found some way to hide power cables. But I would have thought that the balance of risks suggests that we can afford to wait until 2004, when there is still some chance of America getting an administration that might be trusted to carry out an invasion.

The deadly danger the human race will confront in just a few decades is that there will be so many nuclear powers, and powers capable of developing really deadly biological weapons, that it will be possible for a nation to undergo a devastating nuclear or biological attack with smuggled weapons without even knowing for sure who attacked it, and thus who to retaliate against. When we reach that point, bye-bye civilization.

The only way to stop this is to start working -- immediately -- to prevent any additional nations from acquiring nuclear and biological weapons. An attack on Iraq can be viewed as the first step in this. But to gain the support of the world community for it -- which is an absolute necessity, since the US can never do all this alone -- we have to make it publicly clear that any attack on Iraq is part of just such a worldwide campaign to prevent such a future nightmare world from coming into existence. And that means that it must also be integrated with a genuine, worldwide nuclear/biological disarmament effort, complete with ubiquitous inspections.

This is the first real rationale for a United Nations with teeth, which wasn't a strict necessity for human survival during the Cold War because Mutual Assured Destruction could serve as a substitute for it. Now it IS a necessity for survival -- and dictatorships, as well as democracies, should recognize that they are vulnerable to such attacks. If the human race doesn't hang together at this point, all nations really will hang separately. But this also means that all remaining nuclear and biological weapons -- including those owned by the superpowers -- MUST now be controlled by a unified world organization. This is no longer a matter of starry-eyed idealism; it's about to become an absolute, brutal necessity for human survival. Why, oh why, aren't either Bush or the Democrats talking about this fact?

Only by dropping nukes on Iraq will the coming nuclear conflict in the gulf region be avoided. Let's act.

Does anyone have a persuasive argument why an inspection regime couldn't do the job of an invasion, if this is what we're worried about?

The CIA briefing at FAS.org, says,

"
The acquisition of sufficient fissile material is Iraq's principal hurdle in developing a nuclear weapon.

Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad."

There is no immediat threat unless Iraq aquirs fissile material from another country. So instead of invading Iraq we should be strengthening weapon's control treaties instead of abandoning them. There is nothing in the CIA report that suggests that inspections are not sufficient to stopp Iraq from aquiring a nulear weapons. I'd liek a good answer to Daniel's question too.

Note also that the report does not say "Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year in secret, in a way in which inspectors would not be able to find no matter what they did." Nuclear bombs can't be produced in test-tubes; they're much more difficult to hide away than other kinds of "weapon of mass destruction".

Nuclear bombs can't be produced in test-tubes; they're much more difficult to hide away than other kinds of "weapon of mass destruction".

more importantly, nuclear bombs cannot be tested in secret (and they have to be tested)

The only reason Israel is able to have nuclear weapons that are not publicly tested is because they get it from us and we have tested them plenty. All other nations, India, Pakistan, China have all teted their weapons and these are impossible to hide.

The CIA had adequate warning of the recent Indian and pakistani tests and there is no reason to believe we (or the Israelis) will not find out about Iraq's plans to test.

I find the 'imminent nuclear threat' argument having no legs.

Chris K's comment, while not requiring a response itself, does raise an issue. The reason for not nuking Iraq is that, since WWII, there has been a taboo about using nukes. There is also a bit of a taboo about the level of threat to which war is an appropriate response. That is one big worry about the Bush's new doctrine of preventative war. Preventative war lowers the standard for war considerably below what is enshrined in "just war" thinking till now. Other than the obvious superior strength of the US, there is no reason that other nations cannot adopt similar arguments for incursions into neighboring countries. India going into Pakistan strikes me as justified by the Bush doctrine.

Not to change the subject too much, but does anybody else wonder whether the US employed a Predator to attack al Qaeda guys in Yemen for demonstration purposes? The military could have sent an F-16 to do the job. Instead, the CIA (which reportedly has few qualms about using drones for such missions than does the military) sent in a drone. This is the first use outside of Afghanistan, we are told. Certainly there are real advantages to using such a craft, but I wonder whether it is also meant to give the impression that the US is really, really dangerous and tricky. Give the bad guys the shivers. It also initiates (or continues - remember that poor tall Afghani?) an Israel-style assasination of suspects, half way around the world. Another way of looking scary to bad guys.

The problem with iraq having WMD, from the point of view of the administration and its neocon supporteers, is not so much the possibility that Saddam will want to commit suicide and take a couple of cities with him, but that deterrence is a 2-way street--if Saddam has nukes, he can deter us from doing whatever we want over there. This is why N. Korea's possession of nukes is not such a big concern to the administration--N. Korea can deter us already with conventional weapons, given that Seoul, with a population of 10 million, is so close to the border that there is no way either S. Korea or we could prevent a massacre if N. Korea didn't care about losing the war later. Long-term, the genie's out of the bottle--there is no practical way we can prevent widespread possession of WMD--we can't fight everyone.

In response to a couple of the posts above, I never claimed to have a timeline as to when Iraq is likely to have nuclear weapons. My point is simply that Saddam has been working to get them for the last 30 years. It is clearly a high priority for him, and to claim that the "case hasn't been proven" is ludicrous.

When is he likely to get them? That's another matter.

The inspection issue is a more complex question. I'll concede that a properly executed inspections regime could probably manage to forestall nuclear weapons development in Iraq, WHILE IT LASTED. However, I have seen nothing to convince me that it would be politically feasable to maintain a wepons inspection regime for the next 30-40 years. Since Saddam's sons are very likely to continue this policy (as well as the other policies that make him dangerous) inspections have to be a very long term solution in order to be effective.

Suresh -

As for weapon's "having to be tested": the Hiroshima bomb was not tested. It was felt that the simple "gun" type bomb was so dirt-simple there was little chance of failure. The Trinity test was of the more complex implosion-type bomb used at Nagasaki. While Saddam might want to stage a test for political reasons (to announce his new capabilites to the world), there's no particular reason they couldn't put together a bomb using time-honored techniques that would work from the get-go.

Note North Korea: they have not had a test, yet they claim they have a working bomb. Pakistan tested, but that was a political move to rub India's face in it. I'm afraid we can't count on Saddam informing us when he's joined the nuclear club...

Couple of points.

It is preferable to have tested a nuclear device to ensure that it will produce the desired yield, but it is feasible to design a device that works without testing if one is prepared to accept an approximate yield.

I don't know for sure, but I bet that the Israelis did not get the design for their device from information we shared about American warheads.

The CIA used the Predator in Yemen not because it has fewer "qualms" than the military but because a Presidential finding told the CIA to do the mission.

If I recall correctly, the Indian test was a surprise to just about everyone.

What a happy subject.

The major difference between Iraq and North Korea is that the world has tremendous leverage over Korea. A country with no oil and a tendency to not be able to feed its own people needs the outside world to survive. If the U.S. and Korea's neighbors play their cards right, we can get what we want short of war. As for Iraq, the only real leverage against Saddam is the imminent threat of war, and even that one is shaky. The economic sanctions on Iraq could be lifted at anytime if Saddam would follow the resolutions he had earlier agreed to. The fact that he has allowed the sanctions to go on in order to keep inspectors out is a clear sign that he is working on WMDs, and to assume that he's not takes a level of naivete that is too dangerous for the 21st century... in my opinion.
This said the thought of this coming war scares me to the core. I am fairly sure Saddam's regime will fall soon after a battle begins, but I'm more worried about the long term prospect of Iraq turning into a giant Somalia-esque scenario. Anyboy who doesn't think Iran and Syria will do most anything to get the U.S. out of Iraq probably needs proof that Saddam is working on WMDs.

Jimbo,

I think precisely the opposite is true: Saddam cannot wait to announce he has joined the nuclear club.

I am coming at this thing with a different axiom than conventional wisdom, to wit

Saddam Hussein has no interest in messing with the US. In fact, he is counting on the US as his best customer. He wants to be the head honcho in the MidEast so he can control oil prices

he appears to especially hate the Islamic fundamentalist - Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I have not been able to find any action of Saddam that contradicts this perspective.

He wants nuclear weapons because then nothing stops him from taking over Saudi Arabia. we are seriously underestimating him if we dismiss him as a 'madman' incapable of rational behavior.

Correction for Suresh: Israel jointly developed nuclear weapons with France, following the 1956 Suez Crisis. It did not obtain them from the US.

To play devil's advocate, perhaps a bit too literally...

There is only thing that disturbs me more than the existence of unstable backwards countries that are capable of building nukes within five years. What really disturbs me is that there are still countries so backwards that it would take them five years to build a nuclear bomb. This is 1940s era applied science. Pre-ENIAC and pre-tupperware.

It seems to me that the UN should give massive development aid to any country that isn't within five years of building nukes.

Also: Is it really a wise policy for the US to systematically make enemies of all countries just before they attain nuclear technology?

Oops, broken link. Let me try again.

Assassination from drones as "Another way of looking scary to bad guys"?

I can't help finding myself quoting Waterloo here; I don't know what it looks like to the enemy, but it certainly terrifies *me*. The whole notion of due-process seems to have flown out of the window here, and you're left with exactly the sort of vigilante behaviour that is widely condemned from the Israelis.

I'm sure, the last time I looked, that assassinations in foreign countries were considered the act of rogue stages -- they were things that the Iraqi secret service might do to their exiled opposition in London, that Bulgarian secret-service agents did with poisoned umbrellas.

Would the US nowadays not bother invading Panama to arrest President Noriega, and simply send a Tomahawk through his bedroom window some starry night?

Suresh,

Given that the scientists who developed nuclear weapons for the U.S. were almost exclusively Jewish, I really find it amusing that you don't think that they'd be smart enough to develop similar devices for themselves, with or without being tested.

The one nation that I really fear in the nuclear department is actually France; a country for whom supreme arrogance married with a total contempt for anyone who isn't them is the order for this and every other day. Actually, I wanted to suggest that they are a nation of prostitutes led by a government of pimps but it would have been entirely too impolitic, so I shan't.

Jim Harris,

The "qualms" notion is not my notion. It is right out of wire service reporting of the event. In addition, we have military troops in the Horn of Africa ready to go into Yemen, so there is apparently a willingness to use to hunt down al Qaeda in Yemen. If we are willing to send troops, we are willing to send manned aircraft. In fact, aircraft will almost certainly accompany troops. Yup, the CIA finding lets the CIA seek the same result, death to US enemies, for which the military is normally used. However, using the CIA, and its drones, still represents a choice in this circumstance. Perhaps the issue of "qualms" is broader than just the use of drone aircraft. Though the tactics of some elite US troops don't look from the outside much different from what the CIA did, beyond technique, maybe from the inside, military officials have identified a line they are unwilling to cross.

DD,

we tried an inspection regime. Saddam got in their way enough that they couldn't do their jobs, and so they left. They have not been let back in. War would have been the appropriate response to this in 1998 when Clinton was president.

Saddam has had an additional 4 years to work on his nuclear program - war makes even more sense now. Why give him ANOTHER opportunity to stall - do you think that this time he'll give up and play nice?

Re: Use of the Predator

Based on what I've read about it's capabilities, I think the Predator was used simply because it's the most effective tool for the job. Manned jets are good for obliterating something once you've found it, but they're too fast-moving and short range to do any serious reconnesence (sp?) The predator lolls along at 80 mph, and it can stay aloft for up to 24 hours, if today's NYT is to be beieived. So if you think a bad guy is in an area, you send one up, look around until you are 100% sure you've found him, and then pull the trigger.

Personally, I think we're seeing the begining of the end of the era of manned (military) aviation. The Predator and it's progeny are going to create a whole new ballgame...

Tom,

I don't wish to be petty but you were actually quoting the Duke of Wellington. "Waterloo" was a battle (and a rather decrepit train station).

By the by, Wellington was known as the "iron duke" not because of his fortitude in battle but owing to the iron shutters he was compelled to place over the windows of his London townhouse. The thing is, he was such an unpopular politician that the common people took to regularly smashing his windows.

It's pathetic. I'd never thought I'd have to liten to pinko-commies like David Thompson arguing such nonsense over and over again.

Let's take out N.Korea. Let's take out China.

Dictators with nuclear weapons one day will use them on us. It's a fact.

First, let's invade Korea. Then let's carry on to Beijing.

I know we can't deal with moscow. But if we take China and Korea it will scare them to death...

"It's pathetic. I'd never thought I'd have to liten to pinko-commies like David Thompson arguing such nonsense over and over again.

Let's take out N.Korea. Let's take out China.

Dictators with nuclear weapons one day will use them on us. It's a fact."

It is not a fact that all dictators will one day use nuclear weapons against us. Some may have little interest in causing us harm. We must deal with each on a case by case basis.

How quaint for someone to be referencing pinko-commies. It's soooo retro.

I'm not a pinko-commie myself, but I think we should let South Korea take the lead on negotiating with North Korea. Seoul is in artillery range of the DMZ and there's no way to evacuate the population. They have to look for a peaceful solution.
As for "Let's take out China.", I can only assume you are not only foolish, but mean spirited as well. For all the rigid gerontocracy and legacy of communist rule, the biggest threat China poses to us is as an economic rival. They're industrious as hell and they understand the value of education. Historically, the Chinese don't invade...except for Vietnam. It's just not part of their character. A hand of friendship, honestly offered, is what China values from us and what they will offer in return.
As for Iraq, I'm in total agreement with you. We would be making a giant mistake if we let him have nuclear weapons. It's one thing to have a conventional sociopathic lunatic running a country. It's impossibly dangerous if he can reach out and nuke you. He, his sons, and the Baath leadership have to go.

Ethan wrote:

>>we tried an inspection regime. Saddam got in their way enough that they couldn't do their jobs, and so they left. <<

Which is wrong on a number of counts; first, as is well known, they didn't just "leave"; they were withdrawn by Clinton so he could start bombing.

But much more importantly, Saddam "got in their way" with respect to giving them access to the Ba'ath Party's personnel files, which information they wanted in order to establish the scientific capability of Iraq. This was clearly an important thing to know if one proposes to have the inspectors leave at some future date giving Iraq a clean bill of health. Since the current proposal is for an ongoing, indefinite inspections regime, this is not an objection unless one believes that nuclear weapons can be constructed in a personnel department.

A quote from Bill Moyers:

"Our Secretary of Defense has a plaque on his desk that says, "Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords." I don't think so.
To launch an armada against Hussein's own hostages, a people who have not fired a shot at us in anger, seems a crude and poor alternative to shrewd, disciplined diplomacy.
Don't get me wrong. Vietnam didn't make me a dove; it made me read the Constitution. That's all. Government's first obligation is to defend its citizens. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it's permissible for a great nation to go hunting for Hussein by killing the people he holds hostage, his own people, who have no choice in the matter, who have done us no harm.
Unprovoked, the noble sport of war becomes the murder of the innocent."

Bill Moyers fails to distinguish between the direct and indirect consequences of military actions. Innocent people invariably get caught in the middle of such situations. America is not planning to directly attack Iraq’s general population.

The logical conclusion of Moyer’s position is that the United States also had no right to go to war against either Japan or Germany! Moreover, the police could not chase down a criminal if it endangered his hostages. Embracing this premise renders the civilized world impotent in the face of tyranny.

>> The whole notion of due-process seems to have flown out of the window here.... <<

There's a due process exception for states of war. See, oh, the firebombing of Tokyo, 1945, 100,000 dead, for one of many precedents.

>> I'm sure, the last time I looked, that assassinations in foreign countries were considered the act of rogue stages ... Would the US nowadays not bother invading Panama to arrest President Noriega, and simply send a Tomahawk through his bedroom window some starry night? <<

If he'd blown up the World Trade Center we'd send 'em through his window and the windows of all his friends, happily.

>>> The problem with iraq having WMD, from the point of view of the administration and its neocon supporteers, is not so much the possibility that Saddam will want to commit suicide and take a couple of cities with him, but that deterrence is a 2-way street -- if Saddam has nukes, he can deter us from doing whatever we want over there. <<<

Well, if he'd had nukes when he rolled into Kuwait he might very well have deterred UN forces from driving him back out.

So, yes, if his having nukes would effectively deter others from doing anything about it when
he gobbled up a neighboring country, that could be a problem. Even some non-neocons might think so.

"The logical conclusion of Moyer’s position is that the United States also had no right to go to war against either Japan or Germany!"

No. They declared war on the United States. The administration certainly has a duty to protect American citizens against the possibility of an Iraqi attack. But it neither has the duty nor any chance of seeing to it that no other nation on earth ever will have the potential to strike at American planes, carriers or military bases/personnel deployed at their borders. Either America protects its own national interests when they conflict with those of other countries - or it succumbs to the imperial notion that America´s interests reign supreme. Obviously, the second option is somewhat inevitable if the rest of the world tends to delegate policing the society of nations to the US - and the US, in turn, happily accepts this role. But Iraq is definitely not a case in point, as no other country really made it a priority.
America should be able to deploy its already-funded new short- and medium-range missile systems faster than Saddam Hussein can possibly develop nukes. In fact, its allies would be much more worried if it were not able to do so than if it did not disarm Iraq.