The Terrible Logic of Nukes (Krauthammer)

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

[headsonpikes]

"...end Saddam's own, personal life."

Professional courtesy does not permit the masters of one state to act against the master of another. ;^) (Treaty of Westphalia--1648).

The deal is, we kill his people and blow up their stuff; this makes it easier to keep the bankers happy lending the successor regime more money to p*ss away on boondoggles. Look at 'Former Yugoslavia' for a model.

It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

[Willie Green]

We are in a race against time. Were Iraq to acquire a deliverable nuclear weapon, it would gain a measure of invulnerability.

Japan rebuilt Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after the war.
Hiroshima is now a thriving metropolis exceeding 1.1 million in population, Nagasaki is around 450K.

If Krauthammer wants to nuke & rebuild Baghdad, fine by me.
I won't shed any tears over Saddam Hussein, that's for sure.
But IMHO, we oughta go after Havana and liberate Cuba first...
clean up our own back yard.

[spoiler2]

You certainly have a unique viewpoint, Norvokov.

[snefling]

$5 Billion = about five days of a war.

What makes you think this offer hasn't already been made? Simple logic indicates that every top level person in Iraq has already been approached. The rewards accruing to the group(s) that takes him down will be tremendous.

[Uncle Miltie]

"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."

Exactly. And thank G-d it is us.

[jwalsh07]

Hey, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Four years ago Ritter was to the right of Butler on weapons inspections in Iraq. Today, without having been inspecting in four years he says everythings AOK. You tell me, what made him start singing a different tune?

[Willie Green]

So, you don't mind if hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are living under an oppressive government are nuked? Including many Christians, seeing how Christians make up 6-10% of Iraq's population, in addition to a Jewish population.

My preference is to develop peaceful applications of nuclear power and electric mass-transportation systems so that we may tell the OPEC camel jockeys to take their oil and stuff-it where the sun don't shine. The nomadic tribes of the Middle East have been at each other's throats since the dawn of recorded history. Nothing we do is going to change that, and I'd just as soon keep our noses out of the region. The only thing that interests me there are the ancient, historical artifacts.

If Krauthammer wants to nuke'em, fine, nuke'em.
It's not gonna change anything, they'll only grow back like weeds.

[NeoCaveman]

Four years ago Ritter was to the right of Butler on weapons inspections in Iraq. Today, without having been inspecting in four years he says everythings AOK.

What a difference four years makes. Scott Ritter in 1998.

He has totally flip-flopped his position since then. Reminds me of David Brock.

[Real Cynic No More]

"It was a mistake to leave Saddam in power."

You got that right; but, it was a much worse mistake to allow him to stop the weapons inspections during the Clinton administration without having severe repercussions. After all, the cessation of hostilities in the Gulf War was predicated on his agreement to allow inspections unfettered.

[Alberta's Child]

Moral equivalency between Saddam and the US may wow 'em in the faculty lounge, but come on.

I agree, but "moral equivalency" in these matters is usually dictated by the winners whether they are inherently right or inherently wrong.

[Real Cynic No More]

"... tell me why it was imperative for the United States to restore a royal family to one throne (Kuwait) and keep a royal family on another (Saudi Arabia)."

Unless I'm mistaken, there are things known as treaties between countries that obligate one country to step up to the aid of another in such situations. And I think the U.S. and Kuwait had such treaties legally in effect.

[Alberta's Child]

Policemen regularly abduct adult citizens and place them into little cells with bars on the windows.

Also, I'd be interested to see where in U.S. or international law it is stated that the United States is permitted or mandated to act as the world's "policeman."

[rmlew]

Pakistan already has nukes thus we will not attack them.

[rmlew]

Please find one shred of evidence that we gave Saddam Hussein a green light.
WE indicated that we would be a neutral party in negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait. Saddam saw this as a sign of weakness and went in.

He is a tyrant, a mass murderer, and a gambler. Those are not qualities anyone wants in a man with nuclear weapons.

[avenir]

Well said.

[Real Cynic No More]

Hey, jwalsh07, I suggest you give it up. You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

;>)

[Alberta's Child]

By your logic, any shithead now is entitled to develop and use nukes because America once did.

My response to this statement will be the exact same response I gave back in the 1980s as an audience member in a high school debate on nuclear proliferation. Ironically, I was addressing this statement to the "liberal" speaker who was taking the typical "no nukes!" stand that was so popular among leftists at the time.

For many years, nations fought wars using bows, arrows, armored men on horses, and other hand-held weapons. When someone came along and invented a gun and this new type of weapon became the standard weapon of battle, nobody stood up and suggested that there was a moral imperative to abandon the gun and go back to the old weapons.

While the U.S. certainly has a vested interest in keeping any weapons out of "the wrong hands," the principles that guide this nation should not change simply because the potency of the weapon in question has changed. It is worth noting that this world has progressed from zero nuclear powers, to one nuclear power, to two, and so on until there are now a number of nations with nuclear arsenals of some kind. Ironically, the only time a nuclear weapon was ever used during the course of a war was when there was only one nuclear power.

Another irony, from my perspective, is that the United States expressed alarm about nuclear proliferation every time it was believed that another nation was close to developing a nuclear weapon, and yet Iraq is the first case is which the U.S. has decided that the use of force would be an approporiate deterrent.

Maybe I'm naive, but something about this whole "weapons of mass destruction" excuse really stinks to high heaven.