Proliferation is the issue, not Iraq

[deeppow]

EDIT:
This thread had little (debatable if any) discussion related to the issue. I suggest you save your time and energy, read something else.






Original Post:
There are a couple of fairly intense debates going on here related to the Iraq war. I would like to separate this thread from the “discussion of nations” and who is responsible for what because I’ve found that in most situations, there is normally more than enough blame to go around to everyone.

In the eaily 1900s and before, the world existed in as time-separated countries. By that I mean it took awhile to get from one place to another. And if we wanted to go to war then we could but it took awhile to fight and we had to really work at it to kill millions.

Speed of travel of course increased in the early half of the 20th century and also throung the last half but I would argue at not quite the explosive rate in the first half.

Around the half way point in the 20th century “the bomb” was created and our world changed because we could now kill millions quickly. It changed slowly at first as the number of nations that had the bomb grew slowly. Creating a bomb took time and resources but the technology did spread. While our perspective may differ, you all know the history of this evolution through today. (Dirty bombs are nearly as difficult to build.)

Of course there have also been chemical weapons around since before WW1. And the world has agreements between nations that we’ll restrict their development and usage. (I’ll skip the point of how absurd I find the concept of “a gentleman’s war.”) Chemical weapons aren’t nearly as expensive to produce nor is the technology needed as great as that required for “the bomb.”

Biological weapons have also been around for tens of years and most nations have done work to investigate and study them. These can be cheap to produce and the technology isn’t that great. (Delivery can be difficult.)

Unfortunately, our world is no longer made of time-separated countries. We can travel half way around the world in a day or less. Proliferation of the bomb is still an issue but not nearly as scary as that associated with chemical and bio weapons. One person can travel around the world with a suitcase and potentially kill millions. Look at the current concern dealing with the new strain of pneumonia.

This is what scares me about Iraq, North Korea, China, etc. All it takes is one person to carry the suitcase to kill the infidels in the name of whatever god you wish to evoke. Saddam or others don’t have to attack the US, or England, or German, or France; all he has to do is slip a bio-agent to anyone willing to die for their god. 9/11 and all the loss of life in Israel proves that there are those quite willing to carry out this task.

I don’t have a good solution to this problem other than trying to identify and eliminate the sources that may proliferate such weapons. I believe that is the root problem at the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).


EDIT: My question is then directed to those saying there should be no war. If you believe Iraq has no WMD then just state it, I think the evidence is otherwise but you are free to have you opinion, at least in my country.

Proliferatopm has occurred to all WMD. Do you propose to do nothing about the issue in hopes it will not be a problem? Do you have an alternate solution that involves some concrete action.

And since this is my thread, I get to define that waiting isn't an action, it is inaction.

[winewood]

Fact: The UN has documented that Iraq has thousands of lbs of chemical and biological weapons. An estimated 10 thousand of which is Anthrax.

Fact: These munitions and thousands pounds of chemical and biological toxins (wmd) have not been disclosed to the UN or US. Neither the storage site, nor the disposal site.

This was disclosed in the Blix report. Nations and members of this forum choose to not address, nor just dismiss this as harmless or a fabrication. Clearly WMD is not a factor, nor a concern for the people for Saddam. They argue everything else and then declare as innocent as sheep, "ok.. where are they? What chemical or biological weapons?" Considering that they were already found in discovery by the UN earlier. I say.. "exactly!" For anyone to say no justification is a person who denies the facts in favor of rose colored glasses. IMHO!!!!!
Read what Mr. Blix has to say on this. CLICK ME
Co-operating? Co-operating like a fox.

I don't expect to comment back on this. I have said my share.

[bigben2k]

An interesting topic, Deepow, but would you rather focus on the technology, the weapons, or is this to be a religious debate, or a historical one?

Technologically, yes, we've all advanced, and more advance is to be expected. It has been spotted early on, that the use of satellites as bases for weapons, would be extremely hazardous, and might cause some leaders to use them without thinking too much. It would also have forced the world to either do the same, or surrender to the will of those countries that have them. So everyone agreed not to do it. This agreement still stands today.

Information is also something that wasn't readily available, just 50 years ago: I don't know how the Japanese live, but I certainly don't need much googling now, to get a fair idea.

Fanaticism is what causes a country's population to go to such extremes, as to sacrifice their own lives, at the call of a leader. It is a structure that emcompasses both the government of a country and the religious leadership all into one. It's actually quite hard to get to that point, but fairly easy to maintain. In sharp contrast, the US has attempted to make clearer seperations between the government and religion (but not being able to recite a prayer at a school football game might be taking it a bit too far).

So is the solution to get rid of fanaticism? Are there instances where fanaticism is acceptable?

As for WMDs, yes, there is a gentleman's rule: rules of engagement or rules of war, if you prefer. Under the S.A.L.T. treaty, all nuclear weapon bearing countries have agreed not to use them, but the treaty never said anything about not having them, but mentions something about how one could use them, if one was used against them, or something like that...

There are many weapons that are not used, that could have been developped. I don't care to get into the technical details, but I'll mention landmines which, at the request of the late Diana, are slowly being phased out.

[deeppow]

An interesting topic, Deepow, but would you rather focus on the technology, the weapons, or is this to be a religious debate, or a historical one?

Since I usually find what is clear to me isn't to others, your question is very reasonable.

In short give me an alternate solution for proliferation of WMD in general.

I view the Iraq war as an effort to address that problem but I'm not asking if you think Iraq has WMD. Instead, how do you plan on dealing with other unstable regimes or individuals that have no problems destroying you, your countrymen, or your country?

I've editted the original post hoping to help point the discussion.

[bigben2k]

The answer is relatively simple: if you make WMDs keep'em to yourself!

The US, Russia, and countless other countries are guilty of providing weapons to countries, where it probably wasn't wise to do so.

Also, the fall of Russia created a huge blackmarket for its arsenal.

What the US and some of the G7 nations are doing now, is sharing the ideas, which in itself isn't bad, because it levels the playing field, but then the greater countries become even greater, and stand far, far above other countries, wether it's the Middle East, or 3rd world nations.

I'll stop here, for now.

[deeppow]

Originally posted by bigben2k
The answer is relatively simple: if you make WMDs keep'em to yourself!

Hummmmmm. That isn't bad but what then?? I have an answer but what is your answer or what is the anwser of others?

We are approaching a fork in the logic of this discussion very quickly.

[BillA]

the past is the best indicator of the future
saying "if you make WMDs keep'em to yourself!" fails to address the action of proliferation
what is an admonition ?
words
yea, those are really useful - the evidence is all around us

I find WMD less distressing than the potential transfer of WMD to terrorists who have no country of their own which can be 'held hostage'

so my threshold for actionable WMD is their possession by any entity which may, repeat may, pass such to terrorists - or those who succor terrorists

we have addressed Afghanistan (to an uncertain end)
Iraq is in process
North Korea is next (commercial vendor, stated intentions)
and Iran is certain (supporter of Hezbolla/Hamas (sp), openly advocating the eradication of Israel)

read 'em and weep Ben - your words mean nothing at all
for they are ONLY words

[deeppow]

Originally posted by unregistered
so my threshold for actionable WMD is their possession by any entity which may, repeat may, pass such to terrorists - or those who succor terrorists
[/b]

Bill, I fully agree with you, that + ~$3 will buy you a lata at Starbucks!

This to me is the fork in logic (sorry folks but I'm an analytical).

Bill, I agree with Ben's "keep 'em to yourself." And I agree with with your extension (excuse my inability to properly characterize your extension above).

If I may, "this is the line in the sand," at least for me. What then? There are both technological and practical issues with respect to your statement. Please extend.


Please note that I've made a slight change to the topic title.

[BillA]

I do not hold with accepting the possession of WMD by certain types
ineligibility is established by word and/or deed, pretty flexible - err on side of conservatism

1) state clearly proscribed WMD 'development'
2) when identified act immediately without prior notice, warning, or demand
3) insert permanent inspection
4) if the 'host' country is not in full active compliant support (which means incarcerating all responsible), remove existing power structure completely

role of UN: none
as it is a political body incapable of concerted (unpopular) action given its structure
- let the UN become an aid agency

this is what is referred to as a benign dictatorship
as I see it (I am not a sheep, and will not be held hostage - period)

[deeppow]

Originally posted by unregistered
I do not hold with accepting the possession of WMD by certain types
ineligibility is established by word and/or deed, pretty flexible - err on side of conservatism

1) state clearly proscribed WMD 'development'
2) when identified act immediately without prior notice, warning, or demand
3) insert permanent inspection
4) if the 'host' country is not in full active compliant support (which means incarcerating all responsible), remove existing power structure completely

role of UN: none
as it is a political body incapable of concerted (unpopular) action given its structure
- let the UN become an aid agency

this is what is referred to as a benign dictatorship
as I see it (I am not a sheep, and will not be held hostage - period)

I agree with everything you've said BUT how do you know? To begin enforcing what you've said you must have knowledge (intelligence). You may not know!!!! I'll bet you (as well many others unfortunately) could hide your efforts if you were a Sadamm -like figure. You believe he is insane? Don't confuse that with being stupid.

There are clearly an infinite number of variations to the question. You must end up with an approach/solution to all.

Impossible? Might be! There are ill-posed problems in the world and those dealing with human maybe the most likely. Don't expect logical behavior from those you deal with. (Oh, I forgot that you deal with those of us in the various forums so you do that daily to a certain extent!)

[BillA]

no perfect answer, life entails risk

I am reminded of the Russian that was kidnapped in Beirut;
a nephew (young boy) carried the balls of the kidnapper's brother to the kidnapper in a paper bag
- the Russian was immediately released
-> no Russian was ever kidnapped again

there IS a cost which will be deemed excessive, might be pretty ugly with fanatics
the Germans were not really successful at controlling freedom fighters despite lots of 'revenge'

[Blackeagle]

"Let the UN become a aid agency."

That is without question what the UN does best. And they have done a fair abount of good in that very role.

Only problem I see with your solution Bill is that I think the US would be the one to carry the expense & military actions burdens to a large extent.

Proliferation is without question a huge problem. And it's going to get worse.

[TerraMex]

There is a general misconception on what the UN is or what it does.

Simplyfing things a bit:

The UN exists as a base of discussion on general issues between countrys, global issues and promote understanding and peacefull solutions to problems. It also has a set os rules and resolutions focused on those issues. The members agreed to operate in those rules.

But those understandings and solutions are done and agreed between member countrys. The UN operates mainly as a mediator, as an inspector and a regulator. It does not impose . Those agreements are done through the UN, with the support of the UN's infrastructures, but always depending on those supporting countrys. Without that support, the UN doesnt do jack. And thats why everybody keeps "flaming" them. But they're not a country, or a military organization, they're a political organization .

In case of failure , there are diplomatic bonds that keeps things under discussion in the UN between the target countrys. In other cases, exists the securty council. The Security Council works on an agreement between those countrys and then THEY can impose a resolution, as a whole, not as the UN. Those countrys then support , and have active role in maintaining those resolutions. Again, through the UN. But always depending on those supporting countrys.

The remaining infrastructures are more turned to diplomatic relations, giving aid, research and development to global problems, etc. and open to every member and always free for debate.

So, i have to say , the UN is only as good as you make it. And it has his part on the world's politics and agreements.

Doing a correlation with the current events, as the USA and UK (and a few others) circunvented the UN, the "tab" will without a doubt be picked up mainly by those two countrys. In the previous gulf war, the tab was split between the rest of the security council that participated in the war, such as the french and german.

Again, the UN did not have a operation in Iraq then, those countrys had a joint operation, agreeded upon in the UN, and with the aval of the security council, and thus, of the UN and respective majority members.

I hope i made sense .

[deeppow]

So, i have to say , the UN is only as good as you make it. And it has his part on the world's politics and agreements.

The UN and Security Council are as good as their weakest links. In general as you increase the size of a committee your chances of reaching a solution decreases. You want to stop progress of any sort, appoint a large committee to run the task.

Found your post interesting TerraMex but it says nothing about the issue in the thread.

[bigben2k]

TerraMex is pretty accurate!

The UN's role is indeed to act more in the spirit of a mediator, and certainly it will be in conflict when it is asked to act as an enforcer, as we have recently seen.

Controling this proliferation of WMDs may indeed depend on the UN, because it is essentially a neutral body, but this implies that all of its 191 members respect it, and allow it to do what it has mandated itself to do.

IMO, as a relatively new organization (even if it's been 50+ years), it is far more critical that the UN maintains its presence/existence, and for all the support it has, it can most definitely still be considered as fragile.

We've clearly seen that Iraq has opted to treat the UN with great disrespect, and so it is where it is today. What worries me is the consequences of the US action will be, on the UN.

[BillA]

the UN apologists are posting words to create that 'feel good' experience
shitcan the words

please define a course of action

I understand the difficulty that some have with multivariate analysis, but there is a classic work in this field:

"Systemantics" by John Gall

VERY briefly; Gall states that an organization, once created, then starts to define and satisfy its 'needs', rather than solving the task for which it was created

as a lady I knew once said about men; 'ignore the words, watch their feet'

[bigben2k]

A very valid point, Bill.

Kinda ironic that your post count would hit "666" on it.

[nexxo]

OK, I'm not an expert on politics, but I do understand people. I know there are some people out there who feel disempowered, deprived, inadequate and hostile enough to want to wipe out a lot of people in some revenge/rage trip (in fact, quite a few). usually these unstable persons are solitary and isolated individuals, and therefore luckily are not likely to get their hands on the means to do so.
They are the people we refer to sometimes as "going postal".

The problem starts when such individuals get together, and get organised. Ingroup-Outgroup dynamics and recursive feedback loops of distorted beliefs ensue, and soon they start behaving in ways of which any person would normally have asked themselves: "Hang on-- just what the heck am I doing!?!". They also pool their resources, and as such they're able to access the hardware they require to do their damage.
They are the people we refer to as terrorists.

Terrorists are not some sort of random magnetic particles that cluster together by accident. Potential candidates are slowly bred en masse in conditions of deprivation, disenfranchisement, persecution and oppression. After years of this, they feel that they have nothing left to lose; no faith, no hope, no dignity, no future. No soul. Instead, they feel frustration, humiliation, powerlessness, insignificance and anger. But when they get together, they start feeling important, powerful and validated by their equally dysfuntional peers. Add an ideology/religion that specifies a scapegoat to channel their rage, and stand back. They will do anything for their peergroup, their only perceived source of feeling that they matter. Peer pressure? Lord of the flies? You ain't seen nothing yet. And they will do anything to get their own back. Reason does not come into it anymore. They will spit at the world with their dying breath.

The reason I'm going on about this here is that I don't believe this is a question of WMD, those who supply them, or how forceful or indecisive the UN is. Remember that 9/11 was wrought with a few hand weapons and some ordinary off-the-shelf civilian airliners. As it said in "The Usual Suspects": "Real power is not about how many weapons you have, or how many men. It is about having the will to do what other men won't".

Rather than focussing on the whole WMD issue, perhaps we should focus on just how entire societies get to be screwed over so badly that they're driven to that utterly insane state of mind where people want to just hurt/kill entire populations. Perhaps we should focus on why those with real power let it happen. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should focus on why the Western world frequently ends up being the target of this insane rage.

[TerraMex]

>the UN apologists

Apologize for what? That the UN doesnt work if you're the US+UK and tell them to "kiss my ass" ? Again, the UN depends on the agreements and actions of its members.

If the desagreement is strong enough, or the military/economical might of the "stray" country is strong enough, it can stop de effectiveness of the mediation of the UN. If it was China or Russia for that matter, it would still reach a break point .

Besides, the UN can impose or force them (US/UK) to do squat . It doesnt work like that.

A diplomatic approach to a subject of this complexity is the first step in solving it, not "the way of the gun".

>Gall states that an organization, once created, then
>starts to define and satisfy its 'needs', rather than
>solving the task for which it was created

Very true. There are inumerous books on the inercias of an organization and their internal goals and disputes formed by groups. Interesting reading .

-------------

Back to the initial topic.

IMO, one of the reasons that there are so many WMD , is due to the fact that there's a sentiment of insecurity in a good number of countrys in the world. Specially african and middle eastern countrys. Those in particular, have been in war with each others , or internally since ...well almost forever. And Russian and the US always had that feeling of paranoia against nuclear countrys.

Second reason is simply, dick size. Something that was clearly developed during the Cold War towards nukes. The constant competition between the US and Russia led to many other countrys to see it as a way to earn respect, to some extent, by "light fear". They see it as a method to gain respect, and a dissuasion to have a future military intervention if things go "really wrong". North Korea is a good example. They dont want to be next in list for "ass whooping" so, make it with the mushroom bombs. Nobody is going to really use nukes, so it boils down to that in the end.

good enough for an ontopic?

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by nexxo
...

Rather than focussing on the whole WMD issue, perhaps we should focus on just how entire societies get to be screwed over so badly that they're driven to that utterly insane state of mind where people want to just hurt/kill entire populations. Perhaps we should focus on why those with real power let it happen. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should focus on why the Western world frequently ends up being the target of this insane rage.

The "Western World" (per se) represents the antithesis of every rationalization of terrorism: reason. This one concept so completely tears asunder their world view that they would seem to have no choice but to attempt its destruction. It is no accident that the one non-government target of the 9/11 terrorists was the World Trade Center.

While the root of this hatred is the denial of reason, its emotional manifestation is that of envy. Notice that the choice of targets made by UBL were all symbols of America's power and wealth (WTC, Pentagon, USS Cole, ...), while Israel (hated on religious principle alone) gets pizza places and buses blown up.

Much of the "Western World" has been on a flight from reason as well (witness Kant, Hegel, Nietzche and their bastard child Hitler, also many of the French "thinkers" a la gmat, Sartre and Camus). The difference is that our Renaissance came earlier than that of Islam and the East (they are still waiting), and they have not yet discovered its efficacy vis a vis religious revelation (try to eat while following every nuance of any religious doctrine). The same is happening here in America with the rise of the "Religious Right" as well as the "Greens" (2 sides of the same coin).

Gotta go!
Bob

[BillA]

"Proliferation is the issue"

not why some have a 'need' for WMD,
not really about what some may speculate about the use or non use of WMD

rather, the effective means of ensuring their non-proliferation

"Nobody is going to really use nukes"
this is speculation
what is a fact is that 'someone without nukes cannot use such'
- see the difference ?

no value judgements (words)
what is the plan of action ?

[nexxo]

The plan (easier said than done, of course) would be to eradicate the desire to use WMD in the first place, rather than WMD in themselves. Demand and supply, and all that. No-one wants a gun, no-one will try and manufacture/sell them, by and large.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by nexxo
The plan (easier said than done, of course) would be to eradicate the desire to use WMD in the first place, rather than WMD in themselves. Demand and supply, and all that. No-one wants a gun, no-one will try and manufacture/sell them, by and large.

That's essentially the way to go, failing which, put an agreement into place banning the use of such weapons, as has been done for space based weapons, and nukes.

[airspirit]

Everybody knows that if you ban something that somebody will ignore the ban. Look at North Korea. These people are beyond reason, and beyond political solutions.

You can't reason with Saddam. TerraMex, I'd hope that you'd realize that after 12 years of him refusing to the terms of his surrender that he probably never would.

Whenever you post all I hear is

blah blah blah liberal bullshit blah blah blah daisies and flowers blah blah jews are evil blah palestinians should kill more jew children blah blah blah.

Welcome to my personal squelch list. Whenever I come to this site, certain posts by certain people have the text replaced for an equal character count of "BLAH BLAH BLAH" on the client side, so I don't have to listen to the stupidity of certain individuals. You have the honor to be the third person added to this exclusive club. This client side script is the result of a whole three hours coding, so feel privileged that I would waste my precious time on your account.

Anyway, the solution to WMD is to severely punish those who use, manufacture without collective consent, or distribute such weapons. The US doesn't make these weapons anymore, and has them in protected isolation. This goes for all other rational nations worldwide. Nukes should be treated the same way, and anyone that currently possesses them should stop making them, and everyone who doesn't have them should get their pee pee slapped by a ruler if they attempt to do so.

The fear isn't a nation committing suicide for using these weapons, but of some corrupt Iraqi colonel selling some anthrax to his crazy brother Akhmed and his band of loonies so they can release it into the Mall of America. It also goes without saying that since Saddam has already proved willing to sponsor terrorism (committed by palestinians on Israeli civilians, and YES this is fact and ADMITTED to by the Iraqi regime, so it's no fscking conspiracy or screw up by the CIA, so don't waste my time scrolling through BLAH BLAH BLAH about it), that he may be willing to sell some of these weapons to hit the grand daddy target of them all, the USA. Any nation that cannot control their legal WMD stock by a stable government should be toppled posthaste.

[TerraMex]

So much for diplomacy and democracy. If you dont like what you hear, ignore them, or blast them .

Mainly for airspirit, i point the flaws in your speech, and you dont like that. Dont like what's written ? Then its stupid, and the writer is stupid. Well, duh. Keep the script. Its called censure. You just want to read the posts that agree with you.

>rather, the effective means of ensuring their
>non-proliferation

I agree. But how do you propose to do that? By force? * (Read below, plz.) If not, them what? I'd really like to know .

That anti nuke shield doesnt work, but if it did , it would be a great start. If you cant use them, then you dont really need them. It would be like shooting a bullet proof window. However, it does not invalidade the use of chemical or biological weapons. But those are much easier to contain, and inspect.

nexxo makes perfect sense. I believe that's the way to go. Going phisical against countrys that have WMD is almost inviting them to use those weapons. However, breaking the need of those weapons would ensure a much safer countrys , and less prone to conflicts.

But to achieve that there must be an understanding on what causes those conflicts , and why they have this race to armament. Usually there's an exterior , and serious thread leading to that. Eliminating those threats, or fear , by educating or diplomatic conversations , in those countrys can (and it has) have a very positive effect. Its about changing mentalities instead of changing the governments , or imposing rules.

Those agreements have been made in the past. And worked. Russia, china, US, and several others have kept their part , and had a good role in the non proliferation and destruction of those weapons.

>Everybody knows that if you ban something that
>somebody will ignore the ban. Look at North Korea. >These people are beyond reason, and beyond political
>solutions.

Unless you find a good way to maintain the ban, its a "gentlemen agreement" to an extent.

North Korea activated their uranium program. But, neither me, nor the UN, have seen evidence that backs up the US's claim that they are developing nuclear weapons. It could be to power their several nuclear plants for all we know, and produce electricity. Doesnt mean they're not producing WMD, but you'll have to prove that to sustain a basis for another direct attack , in the securty council , if you want a joint task force. Just like you praise your judicial system, its innocent until proven guilty.

Just for a few more remarks, some US power companies had several agreements with the NK government to produce electricy and build several infrastructures, sponsored by NK . Those never came. And that left the NK in a very tight spot. So they powered up the nuclear plants. This is as much as i know about their power crisis.

If you say you're after them because they're one of the worlds biggest manufacturer and seller of missiles and weapons, then i'd understand, but the nuke issues are not very clear . Same goes for Iraq.

> The US doesn't make these weapons anymore

Wrong. They have a whole new batch ready. Its for the "safety" of the country.

>to severely punish those who use *

I want to see you try that. You cant use military might against those countrys for the precise reason that they have WMD. As long as things remain in the diplomatic field, they are contained, if you threaten them by force ... They'll just might go nuclear on you, well, because you put them between the sword and the wall. And thats something nobody wants. So it must be dealth with a diplomatic way and an agreement of non proliferation. Most of the civilized countrys have kept their part of the bargain. And we havent seen any real danger coming from WMD from 3rd world countrys or the middle east. The rest is based on assumtions.

>Any nation that cannot control their legal WMD

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there's been alot of black market deals between several countrys to buy stolen nukes . Russian can't keep up with every nuke, and it has some severe consequences. However, flaming Russian wont do anything pratical. The dismantling of the nuclear arsenal is not as quick and painfull as some thought. Things are not that simple .