WMDs - Why do countries have them? Who should have them?

Remove all ads!

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 here:

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):

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.

 

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

 

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

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:

But Winston Churchill said

Seemingly that especially applies to their foreign policy, how comforting.

 

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

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

At Depaara: That reminds me of the Blackadder series where there in WW1 and discuss, why WW1 started in the first place.

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.

 

Depaara, 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!