the Impending Iraq conflict from an Aussie point of view

[Stravo]

Mike,

To be clear on this, I agree that the message being sent is that grab nukes because its the only way to gain immunity from the big bad US. However there is also a fundamental difference strategically between Iraq and NK. Iraq cannoy really hurt its neighbors, it fires off a few scuds and thats it.

However, NK can basically flatten Seoul and all the outlying cities near the DMZ with artillery fire. I think I read somewhere that NK actually has the most artillery pieces accumalated than most other countries in the world including the US. Major targets of oppurtunity are in range of NK and they can do much more damage. The Nadong missiles can reach as far as Japan and there are some experts saying that with the right amount of juryrigging the NK's could even launch a strike against Hawaii.

So, the differences are vast in the amount of damage they can do if there is a full blown conflict. Iraq, until it gets weapons of mass destruction can lob some SCUDS and scare some folks in Israel and Saudi Arabia. NK can kill MILLIONS in a few days with intense artiillary fire and not only that, you have a million men under arms that can stream across that 38th parallel and just swamp our guys down there.

These are some of the options the NKs can exercise WITHOUT nukes. So you can see why the NK's have to be treated differently, its not just the bomb, its a whole host of other reasons that Iraq does not have.

[weemadando]

Well, this thread has been remarkably reasonable and logical.

I would like to ask one question though, why is Iraq on the brink of getting invaded for developing NBC weapons when it is undeniable that the US has the biggest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

The United States is destroying her chemical and biological weapons, Anders. Congress ordered the destruction of our chemical arsenal years ago (2007 is the target date for the elimination of our stockpiles) and biological weapons research was halted in 1970 with all stocks destroyed by 1973.

I have no numbes on either the US or Russian nuclear forces, but I suspect that the Russian stockpile has greatly degraded since the fall of the USSR.

Hardly "undeniable" that we have the largest stocks of CBWs, eh Anders?

What about USAMRIID? Surely you can't say that you don't have a stash of biological weapons.

As for chem weapons: Ordered the destruction YEARS ago, and 2007 is the target date for elimination? You guys sure have been sitting on your hands. I mean Iraq is supposed to get rid of all their NBC stocks and give it to the UN in what? 2 months?

I know that Saddamn mightn't be the most stable man in existance and yes, he did use Chem weapons against the kurds, but lets not forget that the US gov't has admitted to testing NBC weapons on its own soldiers AND civilians often without their knowledge, let alone their approval.

Evidence that we have tested nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on civilians, please, or that we have tested such weapons on soldiers without their knowledge. Primary sources are preferable.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002 ... 10092.html

It now appears that this revelation was only the tip of the iceberg. Newly released records confirm that at least 28 additional tests were conducted on Americans, using both chemical and biological toxins, seven at sea and 21 on land. The tests were carried out in six states—Maryland, Florida, Utah, California, Hawaii and Alaska—and in Canada and Great Britain. Among the substances sprayed on unwitting subjects were e-coli bacteria and nerve gases such as sarin (used in the Tokyo subway terrorist attack), tabun and VX.

British newspapers reported that some 6,000 stillborn babies and dead infants were sent from hospitals in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, South America, the UK and the US between the 1950s and 1970s without the permission of parents for use in nuclear experiments. According to the reports, the US Department of Energy used the bodies and some body parts for tests to monitor radioactivity levels of the element Strotium 90 in humans. University of Chicago physician Willard Libby started "Project Sunshine" in 1955, appealing for bodies, preferably stillborn or newly-born babies, to test the impact of an atomic bomb fallout. Libby later received a Nobel prize for his research in carbon dating.

Do I even have to mention the countless soldiers and civilians exposed to fallout and other radiological side effects (intentionally and otherwise) in order to probe the full damage potential of the weapons?[/url]

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

This whole argument boils down to the simple question.
Who do you trust with power?
Those who say that the USA with nukes is as bad as NK or Iraq having the same, is the same as those who say they fear the police with guns as much as the criminals.
The very idea that it doesn't what the culteral and moral values the holder of the weapons are, and the simple possetion of weapons makes you a danger, is lazy critcal thinking. Rather than asessing each individual CASE, each individual TIME, and REEVALUATING ALL cases regularly, you just say, "weapons are bad."
This, like the premis, "god created the universe," seems simpler on the face of it, and thus more likely to be true, via Occam's Razor. The problem is, it is based on a false premis, so all the logical conclusions that follow are wrong. It ends up leaving you unable to hold anyone responsible for their action, because it is the object, or the circumstance that is the true cause of the behavior. (Poverty causes crime, weapons cause violence.)

It is not the weapon, or the hand, that is a force for good or evil, but the mind directing it.

USA, UK, France, Russia, China,India, with nukes, no problem.
NK, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syrria, Sudan, ect... FUCK NO!!
Brazil, Australia, and their ilk, raises my awareness, no fear yet.
This constant refrain of ,"The USA has nukes, so it is the greatest threat to world peace" rot makes me laugh.
If we were .00001% as imperialistic and hostile as we are made out to be, then the carnage would be a new order of magnitude greater than it is now.

[phongn]

What about USAMRIID? Surely you can't say that you don't have a stash of biological weapons.

USAMRIID does research on the effects of biological agents for defensive purposes (e.g. if the USSR were to dump Anthrax on us). We do not have a "stash" of biological weapons just lying around waiting for use.

As for chem weapons: Ordered the destruction YEARS ago, and 2007 is the target date for elimination? You guys sure have been sitting on your hands. I mean Iraq is supposed to get rid of all their NBC stocks and give it to the UN in what? 2 months?

They were supposed to destroy their CBW stocks (and cease manufacturing them) since 1991. They've been given over ten years to destroy a stockpile of relatively new weapons, while the US's arsenal consisted of agents dating back to WW1 over a much larger geographic area.

My apologies as well, I had an incorrect source: the target date is 2004 for the total elimination of US chemical weapons agents.

Do I even have to mention the countless soldiers and civilians exposed to fallout and other radiological side effects (intentionally and otherwise) in order to probe the full damage potential of the weapons?

I knew about the nuclear programs already, hence why I said CBW and not NBC.