The Terrible Logic of Nukes (Krauthammer)

Time.com ^ | September 2, 2002 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[1234]

MAYBE SADDDAM's already got'em; this would explain our pussyfooting...?

[r9etb]

Excellent commentary.

Krauthammer makes two points. First is the extension of the old phrase, "An armed society is a polite society."

This is fine, so long as both parties are rational, which brings us to the second: If one party is a maniac, rules of politeness no longer apply. It's OK to stop the maniac before he hurts somebody.

The ultimate test here is twofold.

First: is Saddam the sort of fellow one would trust to own nukes? Krauthammer's discussion of this is convincing, and the answer is "no, he is not. He's a maniac."

Which brings us to the second, and crucial question: is Saddam likely to pose a credible nuclear threat? This is a lot tougher to answer. And it's also tough to say what should be done to stop the maniac.

Personally, I think war is not required. Instead, I think it's entirely possible to end the Iraq problem by contriving to end Saddam's own, personal life, and I further think that it wouldn't be all that difficult to arrange.

[tet68]

Iraq has always complied with the United Nations/States when it came to weapons inspections.

I don't know what's worse, that you believe this or that they believe Saddam.

[hchutch]

Krauthammer has it right.

We've got to take Saddam out now, before a nuclear-armed Iraq becomes a safe haven for terrorism.

[Alberta's Child]

The response to A is we do not know that Saddam is sane enough never to use them against us, and it is not a proposition that we should wish to test by giving him yet more time to acquire them.

This is where the whole argument falls apart simply on the grounds of principle -- the only nation in the world ever to use a nuclear weapon against an enemy is going to make a determination about whether or not someone else is sane enough to possess a nuclear arsenal.

[Alberta's Child]

We've got to take Saddam out now, before a nuclear-armed Iraq becomes a safe haven for terrorism.

Again, the argument falls short based on a simple logic test -- Pakistan aleady meets this definition, and yet the U.S. is not looking to topple the government there!

[spoiler2]

Krauthammer cuts to the bone on this one.

While the talking heads all discuss the correctness of a first-strike attack on Iraq, the reality is that we are STILL fighting the SAME war that began with Saddam's overrunning Kuwait.

While Bush senior did the "noble" thing, allowing this monster-dictator a chance to stay in power as long as he behaved himself, the latter part of that equation has proved an impossible task.

While Clinton looked the other way, Saddam continued this war through covert build-up of arms and basically putting out "contracts" on his enemies, through side-men like Osama and Arafat.

When we strike Saddam, it will not be a first strike. It will be a, hopefully NOT TOO LATE response, that has been delayed by 10 years.

This reminds me of the scenario seen in many Hollywood flicks, where the monster rises again, just when you think the hero has done him in and turned his gaze away.

It was a mistake to leave Saddam in power. We are paying for that error now and must correct the situation, while we still can, or as the article states, he'll have us and the rest of the free world in nuclear CHECKMATE!

[dennisw]

ping

[hchutch]

Not quite. Musharraf is not hostile to the U.S., while Saddam is. And quite frankly, large parts of Pakistan (particularly near the Iranian and Afghan borders) are not controlled by the government there.

[finnman69]

I love this guy, he makes too much sense. BUMP

[Zviadist]

OK Charles. You go.

[Alberta's Child]

Musharraf is not hostile to the U.S., while Saddam is.

Saddam Hussein wasn't always hostile to the U.S., either (in fact, the U.S. once provided much of his military support). And there are no guarantees about the stability of Musharraf's regime in Pakistan.

[Alberta's Child]

While the talking heads all discuss the correctness of a first-strike attack on Iraq, the reality is that we are STILL fighting the SAME war that began with Saddam's overrunning Kuwait.

In light of 9/11, I contend that the best thing the U.S. could have done in 1991 would have been to let Iraq overrun both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Alberta...you have a pesky habit of being close to being right.

[The Vast Right Wing]

"Krauthammer is a war monger and should be ignored, just like the rest of the war party"

You sound like a pacifist appeaser in the mold of Neville Chamberlin and most definitely should be ignored.

[Chuck_101]

You are simply wrong...the inspectors left because they were constantly denied access to sites, at least until they could be "cleansed" of evidence.

[The Vast Right Wing]

Right, so since we are making a mistake in Pakistan we should make the same mistake in Iraq? Nice logic.

[hchutch]

And I'll bet we're making doubly sure of the targeting data for Pakistan's nukes.