Well, recently the world has been under the impression of evil roguie states possessing WMDs and proliferating them to terrorists.
Why do middle east countries possess chemical weapons (that's what we're talking about here)? As so often I think a view back into history might give a good glimpse on the possible or likely reasons even. I mean, it is unlikely that evil rogue states invest bazillions in chemical weapons only because they are evil. That would not only be a simplicistic circle but suggest that the entire middle east is ruled by atavistic morons.

As a base for discussion I'd like to quote an article from globalsecurity (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030420-mideast-armsrace01.htm) here: Washington - The United States has repeatedly condemned Syria in the past week for possession of chemical weapons. But experts say the Middle East arms race in weapons of mass destruction has long been fueled by Israel's nuclear weapons program.

Israel refuses to confirm its possession of nuclear weapons. But according to numerous sources, it made a strategic decision in the mid-1950s that, surrounded by hostile Arab countries, it needed a nuclear bomb as a deterrent. Now it is thought to have 100 to 200.

Intelligence sources say Israel also has chemical weapons, which arms control experts say provide Israel with a less drastic deterrent than a nuclear bomb.

Arms control experts say Syria, as well as Egypt, Iran and Iraq began to develop chemical weapons only after it became known that Israel had or was working on "the bomb." They believed that Israel would not use nuclear weapons on Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad if it knew they could respond with a chemical attack against Tel Aviv.

"I think that the Israelis decided very early on that a robust nuclear deterrent was the ultimate guarantor of their survival and that most of the other major states in the region have sought some combination of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in order to offset that Israeli nuclear and chemical capability," said John Pike, director of the nonprofit GlobalSecurity.org.

Syrian diplomats, though claiming Syria does not have chemical weapons, have said repeatedly in the past week they would forswear the development of any weapons of mass destruction if every country in the region - including Israel - did the same. Last week, it proposed that the UN Security Council establish a Middle East zone with no weapons of mass destruction.

Egypt, which like Syria is thought to have developed chemical but not nuclear weapons, has long stated that despite at times intense U.S. pressure, it would not sign an international treaty banning development or use of chemical weapons as long as Israel continues to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That brings up a few interesting questions: No doubt, WMDs in hands of terrorists are a silly thing, mind about Shoko Asahara and his Aum sect (who home-made their stuff anyway).

But think about it, which country would give away it's silver bullet and hand control over it to loonies like Bin Laden? So is the threat of countries proliferating WMDs a real one or just vastly exaggerated? Isn't the thread by terrorists making "some their own brew" ;) much more likely?

Further, when countries that are unfriendly to the US possess WMDs - who should be allowed to have them anyway? As for the middle east: Only israel? After which rationale would that make sense?

Any opinions?

Even the U.S. have WMDs, or maybe people forget that nuclear missiles are the ultimate in WMDs, with such a great power and range. Should any nation have any form of WMD then? No. Not the U.S., not North Korea, not Russia. Not anyone. We make weapons that become more and more lethal, and have the power to wipe out entire populations in just a few seconds. It's not good. End of story.

Well countries have WMDs because it gives them a slight foothold in warfare. Much like how a small, smart kid, with a very big friend won't ever be picked on.

Rallymama wrote (in the join-the-militarythread):

Reminds me of the joke about two students who were trying to figure out which branches of engineering to major in. One chose civil engineering because he liked the idea of building things that would last. The other chose mechanical because she liked the challenge of figuring out how to destroy something that was built to last... Rallymama brilliantly described the real terroristic threat. People with skills and knowledge. Like the Una-Bomber (Mathematician), Timothy McVeigh (Ex-USMilitary), Osama Bin Laden (engineer).

WMA's are too expensive, too complicated and never efficient enough. Now, who would waste his time, when there are so many other, more effective means.

And which country-ruler would be so stupid to get himself caught up passing WMA's, when he cleary risks to be wiped-out of the map when it gets discovered.

And the Anthrax-hysteria caused by the letters. I am to 99% sure that it was some American-whakho who works or worked somewhere in 100% legal lab.

Every country has the right to defend itself, not only France, USA, UK, China, India, Pakistan and Israel.

In some way, it was a good thing that during the cold war both sides had the bomb. The threat of mutual annihilation contributed to keep the war cold, equilibrium was reached (tensions began to rise again when that "starwars" defense program was launched in order to break the equilibrium). So nuclear weapons can bring peace (US tries diplomacy with North-Korea, India and Pakistan despite tensions are not at war). Now that USSR has fallen, all nuclear powers play in the same team (more or less), no more equilibrium. Small states who previously relied on one superpower to defend them from the other now can only count on themselves and since international law cannot protect them they will try to get WMDs. No, no one should have WMD but as long as it is the only thing that can prevent an invasion...
As for terrorists, it seems planes and bombs are more effective in their hands.

I think it's fine for any country to have any weapons they like as long as they haven't agreed not to have them, and as long as they can take the pressure from the international community for them not to have them.

Just the good nations. None of the bad nations should have them.

:hmm: ... as long as they can take the pressure from the international community for them not to have them. :hmm: The pressure from the 'international community' usually comes from one direction and is focused on north-korea, iran, irak (recently dealt with) and syria (actually on schdule). Secondary candidates are Lybia, Egypt, Pakistan and India.

Aside from north-korea these are all middle east countries, who have mainly aquired these weapons to deter it's neighbour israel (or in iran's case, iraq) which rightfully feared for it's existence. Now, since the lebanon war, the arabs rightfully fear israel. ATM the US take pressure on Syria (which hasn't signed the chemical weapons treaty) to, among other things, disarm it's WMDs. On long term this path would result in israel beeing the only middle east country having them - that cannot be acceptable for the arabs.

The US are going to force these countries to undertake sacrifices they themselves would never accept. Would the US give away their nukes volunteeringly? Remember "from my cold dead hands"? I guess that's what Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle would tell you :shake:

Certainly, the possession of arms of choice is expression of the soverignty of countries. When you say "as long as they can stand up to international pressure" BTA, you're stressing the principle of power as a justification in itself. As long as you're strong enough you can do what you like. Or, in other words: **** the soverignty of the others, I'm stonger. IMO that's a questionable point of view.

It's not about standing up to international pressure, the US efforts atm contribute to strengthen israel's position in the middle east.
The arab states will not accept a one-sided pro-israeli course on their costs, and the US must know that. So either the US demands are "tire-kicking" to scare syria to take action against Hizbollah or a prelude to another war. Time will show.

The key for disarmament and pace isn't the existence of WMDs there but a solution of the israeli-palestinian conflict. The WMDs are just a symptom for this problem.

A friend of mine, who spent a time in the US, characterised the american menthality as follows: "When you have a headache you take a pill, when the pill causes a rash you take ointment, when that ointment results in you having diarrhea you take another pill"But Winston Churchill said :shake: "In the end the US will do the right thing, after trying out all other options first."Seemingly that especially applies to their foreign policy, how comforting.

Well, if the Churchill quote from Ragusa :rolleyes: doesn't work, than I think there's another Churchill quote that comes into play:

I comforted myself by the old Swiss saying: 'The trees do not grow up to the sky.'
And suddenly a country which was not used to pressure from the international community will have to learn how to deal with it.

(see: The UN won't lift the sanctions on Iraq?

Certainly, the possession of arms of choice is expression of the soverignty of countries. When you say "as long as they can stand up to international pressure" BTA, you're stressing the principle of power as a justification in itself. As long as you're strong enough you can do what you like. Or, in other words: **** the soverignty of the others, I'm stonger. IMO that's a questionable point of view.No, you have that completely backwards; what I am talking about is that countries can say **** the international community if they want to. Sovereign countries are free not to sign treaties like the NPT or the Chemical Weapons Treaty, but the international community is also free to pressure them to sign through various means. They can still not sign, just like Israel, India and Pakistan didn't sign the NPT, and Syria didn't sign the Chemical Weapons Treaty.

The point is that, when it comes to pressure and WMDs, the "international community" primarily consists of the US. The US gvt, part of the international community (and not primus inter pares), is applying pressure on other countries for possession of WMDs, a thing the US themselves do and don't intend to stop.

The world community is something like 70 major countries signing a treaty and pressing on other countries to join it. That's something different and I fail to see it in the case of Syria and the other "rogue states".

Ejsmith, define a "good" country.

Tarsakh,

I believe that EJSmith was being sarcastic. Don't take it literally. ;)

Rags, I'm really concerned for you; something is really twisted in your mind. I clarified what I meant in my statement, and yet you still try to twist things around into an attack on current US policy and recent events. We all understand that you have issues with current US policy, but not everything a US citizen writes here is an endorsement of that policy that you need to attack.

My statement stands. I am not endorsing current US policy or recent events, I am giving my personal thoughts on the question at hand. Regardless of where the international pressure comes from, certain governments will always be pressured not to have certain types of weapons (and contrary to what you say, not just from the US) because it is believed they are too volatile, and too prone to use them when provoked. And also too prone to transfer their knowledge to others.

[ April 22, 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

This is the whole crux of the biggest problem facing international diplomacy. It goes back to the Cold War and beyond. How do you stop aggressors? By being tough enough to make it unpalatable for them to attack you -- you make them pay for any attacks they make on you. Now when dealing with WMD, you have the ability to wipe out vast areas and populations. The only way to deter someone for doing that to you is to be able to wipe out vast areas and populations of the enemy.

This is why Bush never included China in the axis of evil -- the human rights record there is miserable, but the US tries not to be too confrontational with them, as they have real military power that could play havoc with US foreign policy.

I don't blame countries like Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and the rest for wanting some sort of deterrent against the possibility of an Israeli WMD attack.

In a perfect world, no one would have these weapons, but as long as one country does, the others are going to want them too in order to defend themselves. IMHO, M.A.D means that the existence of these weapons and their possession by many precludes their use by anyone.

BTA,
in that case it has been a misunderstanding from my side. No pun intended.

How do you stop aggressors? By being tough enough to make it unpalatable for them to attack you -- you make them pay for any attacks they make on you At Depaara: That reminds me of the Blackadder series where there in WW1 and discuss, why WW1 started in the first place.

Baldrick: No, the thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?
Edmund: Do you mean "How did the war start?"
Baldrick: Yeah.
Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.
Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.
Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort *not* to have a war.
George: By God this is interesting; I always loved history -- The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives, all that.
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks. The underlying problem is, there's alway going to be an idiot, who actually thinks, he can slaughter 8 million soldiers and than call it a "victory". Like the "Star Wars" humbug:"There's a way to survive and win a nuclear war."

[ April 22, 2003, 20:30: Message edited by: Yago ]

True, there will always be an idiot, which is why people have to defend themselves. I mean, the alternative is to be unarmed, and then what do you do when that madman comes knocking at your door? Roll over and be a slave? Roll over and die? You can't reason with some of these guys, all you can do is fight them off. I'm not a violent person by any stretch, but until I get an answer to my earlier question, deterrence is the best of a series of bad options.

In a perfect world, no one would have these weapons, but as long as one country does, the others are going to want them too in order to defend themselves. IMHO, M.A.D means that the existence of these weapons and their possession by many precludes their use by anyone.

This is the whole crux of the biggest problem facing international diplomacy. It goes back to the Cold War and beyond. How do you stop aggressorsDepaara, no, no, I did not disagree with your point. I totally agree on the MAD point. You just said "it goes back to the cold War and beyond". WW1 is just a perfect example of the madness of it all. 8 Million soldiers died. For what ? Just to continue, when the next generation was ready to be slaughtered in WW2. And the second time around, it has cost approx. 30 Millions Europeans their lifes.

So, I totally agree with your point, that as long as their is a Madman around, you need protection. So, the Arabs need WMA's to protect themselves. So, the MAD system is needed.

But, there are 2 options to make the situation more sane:

1. Limit the madness through disarmament on all sides. Which is tricky, as long every side is sure, that the others are cheating.

2. Change perception. The only "winner" which WW1 and the following huge political mistakes created, was an Austrian with a moustache. Which resulted in more madness. So, after WW2 the Germans and the French hailed the insight, that "the spirit of trade will always prevail over the spirit of war", so they started to trade with eachother and settled their frontier-disputes peacefully. If the Germans and the French can, everyone can.

I'm all for disarmament, as long as it is enforced somehow -- that is, "can I trust this guy if he says he has destroyed 50 of his missiles?" The US is trying to limit the proliferation of such weapons, partially out of a desire to cut down on the number of times the world would be wiped out and partially because they want to be the biggest dogs in the pack, but there'll never be complete trust between nation-states in this world.

Believe me, I'd like to see a LOT fewer nukes!

Then you can be happy you have Bush and his chickenhawks in gvt; they have big plans (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/239) on how to improve the safety of the world ... err ... the US first of all.

In an "american century" - is there place for other countries in a role other than a vassal's? Hardly. And as the world knows that conflict is preprogrammed.

Besides, Max Boot (http://www.opinionjournal.com/bios/bio_boot.html) is a saxophone for PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm), founded by ultra-con William Krystol, where Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheneya are keen supporters (bottom of page). You can expect Boot to reflect their points of view.

:roll: :spin: Globocop galore! :roll: :spin:

The mass destruction weapons are simply an easier way to kill without the unpleasant effect of seeing the other one die. Surely no nation should have them but in this less than perfect world some nations feel threatened and decide to put something in their arsenal in order to keep invaders away. I believe that this principle gives the same exact right to anyone to have WMD and the rest of these attrocities. I mean that if we rely on the fear of destruction in order to have peace then if everyone has mass destruction weapons then there would be no war; I don't think that this is a sane solution but this is an insane world.