> My point was not that we knew he didn't have them when
> he didn't use them, but we knew he didn't have them,
> and we knew that the US govt knew, when it decided to
> attack him. The argument _does_ hold up, because see
> the difference in the treatment of N. Korea, ruled by
> a similarly minimally rational dictator, but whom the
> US fears would use the nukes we know it has if we
> attacked them. jks
Again, the WMDs Iraq was presumed to possess weren't nukes. Chemical/biological arms don't have anywhere near the deterrence value of nuclear weapons. One can also doubt whether the US would have the will to use military force against a non-nuclear North Korea, since the US would likely prefer that Seoul be left standing.
-- Luke