Hi Big Jimmy. Nice to see you back around. Great to see you the other night. I enjoy the chance to discuss these issues with someone who holds different views (and who I think is smart - imagine that!) I hope that my tone, over the long run, is as balanced and open to debate as yours.
I really like that you specify "nuclear conflict" as a reason for war, as opposed to the very poorly defined "weapons of mass destruction" which apparently include everything from methamphetamine production on up. Even Colin Powell cited "botulism" as a chemical weapon in the Iraqi arsenal in his UN speech. But no reasonable person would think we should invade over the threat of botulism.
As I think you rightly point out, the big problem would be if Saddam had been able to build a nuke. If he had done this, or been on the verge of doing this, I would have had to think hard about my (admittedly intellectually comfortable) anti war position.
But he wasn't. And I submit that he couldn't have been. As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) the production of nuclear weapons requires large football field sized production facilities. It requires massive industrial infrastructure. This isn't something you do in an underground bunker somewhere. This isn't something you can hide from advanced U.S. satellite technology. Of course I'm no expert but I'll point to the fact that no Republican (or anyone else) has ever suggested otherwise. Instead they talk about "WMDs" by which they mean, at worst, battlefield weapons (mortars and such) not too different from our own use of DU rounds - but which they hope a gullible American public will (mis)understand to mean nuclear weapons.
I very much believe - and have never heard even an attempt at a counter argument - that we could have prevented Saddam from building nuclear weapons by a simple program of satellite observation combined, if necessary, with surgical missile strikes against key infrastructure targets. Decade old autoclave parts buried in rose gardens aren't a direct threat to the U.S. I simply don't believe that he was 5 or 8 or even 20 years away from the bomb. I believe he could never have built one, and that the people in charge in the U.S. knew this.
Am I wrong about this? Do you think it is possible to build a nuclear weapon in secret (I mean assuming, as was the case, that the U.S. is suspicious and watching to see if you are trying?) How? Huge underground installations? How do you build those then?
I firmly believe there was never an imminent threat no matter what definition of 'imminent' you use. Therefore the war, even if it by chance produces some small number of benefits for some Iraqis far down the road, was illegitimate.
I predict not only will most Iraqis not be back up to pre-war standard of living after 3 years, and pre-sanction standard of living after 6, but that the country will be plunged into bloody civil war for at least the next decade, and probably much longer. Or, if not that, they will find themselves back under totalitarian rule, except this time it will not be secular.
Of course I hope I'm wrong.
|
I really like that you specify "nuclear conflict" as a reason for war, as opposed to the very poorly defined "weapons of mass destruction" which apparently include everything from methamphetamine production on up. Even Colin Powell cited "botulism" as a chemical weapon in the Iraqi arsenal in his UN speech. But no reasonable person would think we should invade over the threat of botulism.
As I think you rightly point out, the big problem would be if Saddam had been able to build a nuke. If he had done this, or been on the verge of doing this, I would have had to think hard about my (admittedly intellectually comfortable) anti war position.
But he wasn't. And I submit that he couldn't have been. As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) the production of nuclear weapons requires large football field sized production facilities. It requires massive industrial infrastructure. This isn't something you do in an underground bunker somewhere. This isn't something you can hide from advanced U.S. satellite technology. Of course I'm no expert but I'll point to the fact that no Republican (or anyone else) has ever suggested otherwise. Instead they talk about "WMDs" by which they mean, at worst, battlefield weapons (mortars and such) not too different from our own use of DU rounds - but which they hope a gullible American public will (mis)understand to mean nuclear weapons.
I very much believe - and have never heard even an attempt at a counter argument - that we could have prevented Saddam from building nuclear weapons by a simple program of satellite observation combined, if necessary, with surgical missile strikes against key infrastructure targets. Decade old autoclave parts buried in rose gardens aren't a direct threat to the U.S. I simply don't believe that he was 5 or 8 or even 20 years away from the bomb. I believe he could never have built one, and that the people in charge in the U.S. knew this.
Am I wrong about this? Do you think it is possible to build a nuclear weapon in secret (I mean assuming, as was the case, that the U.S. is suspicious and watching to see if you are trying?) How? Huge underground installations? How do you build those then?
I firmly believe there was never an imminent threat no matter what definition of 'imminent' you use. Therefore the war, even if it by chance produces some small number of benefits for some Iraqis far down the road, was illegitimate.
I predict not only will most Iraqis not be back up to pre-war standard of living after 3 years, and pre-sanction standard of living after 6, but that the country will be plunged into bloody civil war for at least the next decade, and probably much longer. Or, if not that, they will find themselves back under totalitarian rule, except this time it will not be secular.
Of course I hope I'm wrong.
- jim 9-20-2003 7:53 pm