urr... North Korea and China HAVE proliferated. They both helped Pakistan develop her nukes. (One supplied the missile, one supplied the fissile material and technology). Those remain the only nukes in the hands of a muslim state. In my honest opinion, America should have wiped out both the USSR and Communist China back in 1945, like many of the generals at the time believed. It would have saved the entire world 50 years of Cold War and pointless waste of human life and military buildup. Our economic and scientific advances would have been far greater... We'd all live to be 100 years old now, eliminated cancer and global poverty, travel to space as tourists, and probably type on these message boards via thought alone... Those who fail to destroy evil pay the price of fear. A fear eternal.
Exactly. I hear people saying "Well the U.S. attacking Iraq actually increases the chances of another country or entity using nuclear weapons", but I disagree. They were going to use the devices anyway, you don't build a nuclear device and then set it off to the side and do nothing with it. You build a nuclear device for a reason. Iraq has been trying to get nuclear weapons for years, N Korea is trying to build one. Does the U.S. wait until they build it and say "Well they have a nuclear weapon. . .NOW!" And then attack and have that country use their nuclear weapons on the troops? Or do you get the job done early and avoid that? Iraq claims they don't have biological and chemical weapons, yet there is talk of using that as a "last resort". So they lied about having biological and chemical weapons, what makes people think they don't have nuclear weapons and just don't know how to use them yet?
I can handle the truth, just wish you would tell the whole truth about the US & Afghanistan. The Administration of Carter started aid/support to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, not that of Reagan.
At one point our concern about who posed a danger with nuclear arms centered around the USSR...it would spell the doom of civilization, we were told. Then it happened...and it didn't happen, if you get my drift. Then we were really, seriously concerned with the Red Chinese...whoo,boy! That would be trouble! But it wasn't... Flash ahead a few decades...Now it's states we deem as 'rogue' who shouldn't be allowed to have what we have...and have used....unlike anyone else. What's the pattern? We think that the only ones who should have it are us, and those who support/agree with us. What has changed is that all the people who could stand up to us about this already have it, so now the ones who 'shouldn't' have it are the ones we can make not have it by force...but it's still just those who don't already have it and don't support/agree with us.
Surprised? I'm not. Disappointed, bored, irritated, and annoyed, but not surprised. We need two new forums, pro-war and anti war. Let everyone stay with their own.
MacBeth, are you comparing the USSR with the suicide hijackers? Do you think Bush would have done this down-with-Saddam thing if 9/11 didn't happen? You might be right that this terrorism thing is nothing but a historical fad, just like communism. But the concepts of "danger" and "enemy" has certainly changed. Actually, I hope you are right that this terrorism thing will turn out to be just like the nuclear holocaust scare.
I gave a historical fact as an answer, you couldn't find it after two posts. I believe you read with one eye closed.
1) Who mentioned highjackers? I thought the rogue state in question was Iraq? 2) I didn't mean that terrorism is a historical fad, just that our concept of what represented the gravest nuclear danger has conveniently shifted to those we can control, without ever addressing the fact that our previous doomsday fears were unfounded.
To assert that fears of nuclear holocaust were 'unfounded' is ridiculous. Especially considering that there were several times when nuclear war was very close to happening. To brush off the confrontation between the US and USSR as threat construction and/or paranoia is way off base.
MacBeth, Did you really not get my point or are you avoiding it and trying to play word game with me? Everybody knows that "Iraq=terrorism" is one of the primary reason (or excuse, depending on your perspective) for Bush to start the war. Of course, you may say that the link between Iraq and terrorism is unfounded. But that's not your argument. You were arguing that since the previous threat (USSR) didn't materialize, this threat (Iraq) should be treated accordingly. I was pointing out that the threat of the USSR is very different from the threat of terrorism of the present day. You seem to lump every "doomsday fears" into one single phenomena. And I disagree. 1. It might well be that the Soviet threat did not materialize was due to a correct strategy, namely, nuclear arm race. I know you probably don't agree with this assessment. I am not going to argue. Just take it as a theory, ok. The theory was that if we built enough nuclear firepower, the Soviet wouldn't try to do stupid things because they would fear inihilation. This is called peace by intimidation. I think it worked because the Soviet didn't want to die. But the present terrorist situation is very different. I mentioned suicide hijacker to highlight the fact that these people are not afraid to die. They have nothing to lose. They are perfectly willing to go down with you. So they will not hesitate as much as the Soviet did in using WMD. Moreover, they are spread out everywhere. You can't just nuke them like we could the USSR. So the "peace by intimidation" strategy won't work. The best you can do is to make sure, or try to make sure, that these terrorist don't get their hands on WMD. That is why preemtive strike is a viable option now, but not in the past. 2. You still didn't answer my question: Do you think Bush would have done this down-with-Saddam thing if 9/11 didn't happen?
Sorry, MacBeth. I didn't see this post yesterday. Interesting that you seem to believe there was no impact to Soviet proliferation. I KNOW, not believe or speculate, I KNOW that people in Eastern Europe disagree with you. Absent Soviet proliferation it is doubtful that Hungary, for example, would have been crushed in '56 or that Czechoslovakia would have been crushed in '68, or that there would have been a Berlin Wall, and those that were tortured and killed behind it. Of course, that is irrelevant to you since as long as 'the world keeps spinning' you think its ok. What you fail to realize or acknowledge is that proliferation makes the regime unassailable. And as we were powerless to stop internal genocide in the USSR, we will be when/if Iraq proliferates. Just as we could not intervene directly against the Soviet invasions of Hungary or Czech or Afghanistan, so will we be unable to intervene to stop Iraqi aggression post proliferation. Your analysis makes absolutely NO sense. Here's why: if you used your logic, NO THREAT will ever be credible with regard to future proliferation. After all, the USSR proliferated, so there you go. That is simply fantasyland. You will be hard pressed to find ANYONE who claims that proliferation is not a threat. As I have said before, even the MOST ADAMANT theoretical proponents of nuclear proliferation do not even come close to your conclusions. Yep, and that would be the correct view. Really your whole tone just pisses me off to no end. I'm not sure what freakin books you've been reading, but the USSR wasn't just some peacelovin' commune out in the boonies somewhere. It was a violent, genocidal, expansionist evil monolith that rolled over quite a lot of people and property. That, genius, is because the last thing you want is a direct conflict between two nuclear powers. Look, even pro-proliferation theorists argue that if there were to be horizontal proliferation, it would have to be balanced. If Iraq proliferates there is no counterbalance to their newly gained power, which Saddam will no doubt use aggressively. You can say he won't, but empirical evidence, rather than your speculation, clearly indicates he will. Let's imagine, for a moment, that Milosevic had possessed nukes. Would we have intervened in Bosnia or Kosovo? Would we have intervened in the first Gulf War if Saddam had nukes then? I don't think so for exactly the same reasons there was no direct intevention between the West and the USSR or China. To MacBeth it doesn't matter because he doesn't give a hoot about those people. Most of us do. And none of this really even addresses the implications of horizontal proliferation and the risks inherent within it. Accidents, terrorists, miscalculation, warlordism: all problems when third world states consider proliferation. NONE OF IT considered by MacBeth.
Oh and one more thing. I think its important for people to realize just how radical and isolated MacBeth's worldview is on this issue. NO ONE. NO ONE supports his view that proliferation is not so dangerous it should be stopped. NOT EVEN those MOST OPPOSED to this war WITHIN THE UN assume his stance. France, Germany, Russia et al ALL ARE WILLING TO INTERVENE to stop Iraqi proliferation. ALL OF THEM. MacBeth says there saying proliferation is a major threat is exaggerated, and not really true, because other states have done so and we are all still here. But NONE OF THESE OPPONENTS believe this. NONE OF THEM. They are all on board for preventing nuclear proliferation in places like Iraq. MacBeth likes to mix and match 'worldwide opinion' to suit his own warped worldview. But it is UNDENIABLE that other states are willing to cross that 'moral' threshold and intervene and stomp on another state's sovereign right to produce nuclear weapons. He STANDS ALONE. Pre-emptively I will guess that MacBeth might say he would be for UN action, but not US action. Despite the fact that 30 other countries support our decision. But that will not help in his previous argument that there is no threat from proliferation.
