>
> I thought it possible back then he still had WMD, given past history
> esp. Halabja. Voluminous reportage since the War started has convinced
> me otherwise.
But I refuse even to concede the notion that "they possess 'WMDs'" equals "they're a big immediate threat and so must be invaded." I say that even if, contrary to what we now know, Saddam had had some kind of "WMD" capacity, it _still_ wouldn't have been sufficient grounds for the U.S.A. to start an unprovoked war against Iraq.
Why did anyone care about Baghdad's putative "WMDs" anyway? If they had existed, would they have been a threat to _us_? You employ "WMDs" against any nuclear power (U.S.A. or Israel to be specific) and Dr. Oppenheimer comes to visit all your cities, and you lose. So even if you've got 'em you never intend to use them _except_ in the event of your homeland being overrun by enemy armies bent upon genocide, in which case you lose anyway but go down fighting. Thus "WMDs" in the hands of a national government, or for that matter any other entity for which the Defense Mapping Agency or its foreign equivalents have targeting coordinates, are effective only as deterrent against invasion.
True, if bin Laden had nukes he'd blow us up us for sure, but he can't very well fabricate his own nukes in a cave in Northern Pakistan or whatever. It takes a whole nation, with big cities and satellite-visible strategic industrial targets, each with WGS coordinates on record, to manufacture nukes. Let bin Laden detonate a nuke _anywhere_ and the country which supplied him with it would promptly get that visit from Dr. Oppenheimer. This is precisely why neither Iraq (even if they had any) nor North Korea (who might have a couple) nor Pakistan (who definitely have a handful) will ever supply _him_ with nukes.
My point is, due to the logic of deterrence, unless a nuclear-armed national government such as the U.S.A. intends to invade and annihilate another nation it has zip to fear from that target nation's "WMDs".
A nuclear-armed "rogue nation" could use "WMDs" to blackmail a neighbor country which lacks nukes _and_ which also lacks any nuclear-armed allies. But which countries in Iraq's ambit lack nuclear powers to back them up? I don't suppose any atomic powers would risk a nuclear exchange over Sudan or Rwanda, but Saddam never yearned to conquer Sudan or Rwanda. Would Russia, France and the U.S.A. all have stood back and allowed Saddam to conquer and/or nuke Tehran? Even weak, tiny Kuwait had more than one nuclear-armed big brother defending it.
Yours WDK - WKiernan at ij.net