The way to stop WMD proliferation?

[DemoCoder]

Many people buy guns for home defense because they don't believe the police can or won't adequately protect them.

A similar rationale lies in the rationale of states (not terrorists) to acquire WMD : to prevent attack.

North Korea keeps screaming for the US to sign a non-agression pact before it will give up WMD.

In the middle east, Israel obtained WMD because it felt under siege by many enemies. But middle eastern countries feel they need some kind of WMD deterrence against Israel.

So now today, I read the following: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

It appears part of the carrot handed to Libya was the promise that they would be brought under the global US protection umbrella. US will now promise to defend Libya from external attack like a good neighborhood cop, in exchange, for them handing in their biggest guns, and the US upgrading their home security system (conventional weapons)

So it appears the US has set the following precedent with two major examples: Give up WMD and be transparent, and you get neighborhood protection, normalized relations, upgraded weapons, possibly trade deals. Pursue WMD, you have to look over your shoulder for a US attack.

Classic Freedom vs Security dichotomy. Critics will argue that the US is guaranteeing protection for a dictatorship in exchange for increased security. Freedom advocates will say that instead of protecting dictators, we should depose them and a followinga democracy will be more transparent. Critics of the Freedom position will say that the turmoil from a revolution will discrease security in the short term and we just can't allow such chaos in a state with weapons, e.g. it will increase proliferation as bandits take advantage of chaos to steal state weapons and sell them.
So we are left with the sorry choice of living with "freedom", but all the chaos that implies, or living with "security" and a dictator/authoritarian regime under permanent US protection.


Could this be the route out for Syria? US guarantees defense of Syria against Israel to defuse tensions? Basically, a cop saying "no fighting allowed"?

I actually have to wonder if perhaps the US chose Iraq as a target because it knew it didn't have any weapons, so the risk of looters stealing and selling such weapons was minimal and Saddam was an easy target to make an example out of?

Another possibility is using Iraq as a "honeypot" to trap terrorists. Tons of nutcase fanatics from Pakistan files over the border into Afghanistan to fight B-52 bombers and got chewed up. Now Al Qaeda and other extremist groups are sending all their fighters into Iraq to kill American troops there, but paradoxically, having them drawn to a pilgrimage into Iraq to fight American military may mean there are less of them focused on civilian targets.

 

[ByteMe]

Anyway it works out the fokking liberals will scream bloody murder that the US is fokking the world up.

 

[Natoma]

Democoder,

I've often wondered whether the lessons of history have been learned by our people here in the US. In the last 60 years we have found that blindly supporting dictators with our military power has only led to eventual ruin and/or hatred of our nation, for the good of short term security and stability.

I would change the carrot slightly, but use that same premise. Libya gets our military aid and support, and is assured protection against attack, in exchange for giving up their WMD ambitions, as well as opening up their society in terms of trade and the political process. Frankly I don't think we can afford in this day and age to continue to prop up "rogue" states with our military power without assurances that they will open themselves up to freedom of economics and political expression. They go hand in hand now, especially in light of the last 60 years of our history.

ByteMe,

I could have sworn that Democoder wanted constructive comments in this thread.

 

[Silent_One]

Interesting subject. I read the "Letters to the Editor"NYT the other day regarding this subject. One of the letters struck me as a viable method of enforcement to curb proliferation of nuclear wepons. I quote it in it's entirety;
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/opinion/L28NUKE.html

To the Editor:

The proposal to curb proliferation by halting the export of fuel cycle facilities (Op-Ed, Dec. 22) sidesteps the problems we now confront with North Korea and Iran: Both have crossed or are crossing the fuel cycle threshold.

What the authors ought to be asking is this: If parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty cheat, what do we do?

One option: Once the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors declares that a treaty party is in noncompliance, the United Nations Security Council will have in place a template of sanctions that it will initiate within two weeks unless the violator reverses policy. Illustration: Suspension of international commerce (week 3); suspension of all commercial air travel (week 5), naval blockade (week 7); and military action (week 9).

Parties to the Proliferation Security Initiative would be responsible for blockades and NATO's rapid reaction force for additional military action. If the Council fails to act, NATO could do so in its stead. This would give the treaty the teeth it requires to deter violations.

BENNETT RAMBERG

Los Angeles, Dec. 22, 2003

The writer served in the State Department during the first Bush administration and is the author of "Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy."

The other letters were the standard "everyone must disarm, set the example, ect....from the Union of Concerned Scientists groups, ect...

 

[Natoma]

One option: Once the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors declares that a treaty party is in noncompliance, the United Nations Security Council will have in place a template of sanctions that it will initiate within two weeks unless the violator reverses policy. Illustration: Suspension of international commerce (week 3); suspension of all commercial air travel (week 5), naval blockade (week 7); and military action (week 9).

Parties to the Proliferation Security Initiative would be responsible for blockades and NATO's rapid reaction force for additional military action. If the Council fails to act, NATO could do so in its stead. This would give the treaty the teeth it requires to deter violations.

Agreed in theory. Practice is another story.

This would pose a problem with nations such as North Korea in that China and Russia, two countries who are notorious for not wishing to crack down on North Korea, border it. Even if we institute a naval blockade, there is nothing to prevent the Chinese and Russians from continuing trade with the North Koreans if they wished.

Iran has Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan (I think, or is it Uzbekistan?) and Russia on its borders. Again, tremendous problem if we do not have world support for such measures. And as we've seen over the last 20 years, that would be a rather difficult thing to amass imo. Good idea in theory nonetheless.

 

[pax]

Its not a bad strategy as long as we dont coddle up to evil and unpopular dictators anymore. And its only one issue in dealing with terrorism. The multi pronged approach needs other obvious avenues...

 

[Tim Murray]

Its not a bad strategy as long as we dont coddle up to evil and unpopular dictators anymore. And its only one issue in dealing with terrorism. The multi pronged approach needs other obvious avenues...

Silly goose! Israel will magically fix itself, just like it has been for the past sixty years.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Its not a bad strategy as long as we dont coddle up to evil and unpopular dictators anymore. And its only one issue in dealing with terrorism. The multi pronged approach needs other obvious avenues...

Silly goose! Israel will magically fix itself, just like it has been for the past sixty years.

Well, once they/we get rid of all the godless heathens/terrorists around there...

 

[ByteMe]

ByteMe,

I could have sworn that Democoder wanted constructive comments in this thread.

Sorry, weak moment... I was thinking of dig in a thong again.

 

[Fred]

I like how critics of any administration will point to the downside in one strategy as proof the scheme didn't work. When it should be obvious that there is a base rate neglect. Picking the other choice had serious negatives as well.

Personally, in recent years I tend to side with Republican thinking on this.
Give me security, to hell with the moral issue of whether supporting a dictator is a good or bad thing. Its not *OUR* fault that they do such and such to their own people. The world isn't a perfect place, and its foolish to think we can make it so, the best one can do is to look out for ones own.

I can think of as many examples where beating ones chest with moral outrage and righteous indignation has accomplished less than moderate machiavelic support. See china and human rights for instance

 

[DemoCoder]

Only problem is, if you side with the security folks, that means coddling Saddam Hussein instead of deposing him. I'm sure we could have worked out an equitable deal with him after he invaded Kuwait for some cheap oil, just give him some modern conventional arms to use against our enemy Iran and get him to sign a peace deal with Israel, and suppress Shiite mullahs in his own country (which he was already doing)

The Iraq War was not the "security" method (trade people's freedom for security), since his deposement will lead to more freedom, but perhaps more religious fundamentalism too.

 

[Willmeister]

Iran has Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan (I think, or is it Uzbekistan?) and Russia on its borders.

You conveniently forgot the nuclear nation that borders with Pakistan. Remember that little nation that Pakistan went to war with twice in fifty years? Somehow I don't think Pakistan made nuclear weapons to protect itself from Afghanistan, or even Iran...

 

[pax]

Hhe Fred did you shoot yourself in the foot there? Coddling dictatros is never right and will always deservedly bite you in the ass in the long run... The only diff is coddling up to such brutes may gain you some temporary security but like saddam will likely cost you security abnd american blood in the long run.

 

[cthellis42]

The way to stop WMD proliferation?

Keep a closer eye on Texans.

 

[Fred]

The security route only works if the dictator in question can be contained (via deterence, bribes, additional control over their populace, etc).

I didn't think Saddam could be, nor where the Taliban. They sufficiently despised us, and negotiations would not have worked.

The futility limit is applicable of course.

Nkorea, Libya, Pakistan, China should work under the appeasement route.

The jury is out on Syria and Iran.

 

[Sage]

The security route only works if the dictator in question can be contained (via deterence, bribes, additional control over their populace, etc).

I didn't think Saddam could be, nor where the Taliban. They sufficiently despised us, and negotiations would not have worked.

The futility limit is applicable of course.

Nkorea, Libya, Pakistan, China should work under the appeasement route.

The jury is out on Syria and Iran.

excuse me, who put the Taliban and Saddam in controll? Who funded Ossama Bin Laden and Saddam? Who gave them weapons? We gave them "bribes, additional controll over their populace" but eventually had to "deter" them.

 

[Fred]

Thank you for proving my point Sage. It should be obvious that indeed that was a risk. That they may grow out of control over time.

However at the time, it was judged that funding them was the lesser of two evils.

In order to prove the point your trying to make, you would have to go back in time, remake history, and compare the pros and cons of the world where Russia hadn't lost the battle for Afghanistan, or at least the world where the Mujahadin weren't funded, trained and equipped. Then compare and contrast death tolls, casualties, strategic placement for the US, etc

The war in Afghanistan was wildly unpopular at the time by most rational thinkers. It was one of those wars where it was judged charitable to support the 'freedom fighters'. Hindsight is 20/20 when the results of helping out come back to bite us in the ankle

 

[bloodbob]

What is a weapon of mass distruction?

The general public view I find is a biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapon.

Well lets look at biological weapons the simplist biological weapon is probably blood from an infected person how are we supposed to stop people getting their hands of this when an outbreak of ebola happens are we supposed to fire bomb the villages to stop anyone attempting to take a sample of blood??

Chemical weapons well depends on what you chemicals you consider enough to satisify the phrase weapons of mass destruction. If cyanide is considered enough then a crazy red neck apple cider maker could core apple and distill cyanide from the seeds. Cyanide isn't the really the worest chemical weapon you could make but just to show you the base ingredients are aviable everywhere.

Radiological and nuclear weapons I guess could possible be stopped by attempting to force a world wide ban mining of radioactive ores but how would you enforce this also this would stop radiotherapy of cancer suffers, sterilastion of medical equipment and waste through picowaving ( gamma irradation ) and of course nuclear power.

My question is why has it been in the news at late the countries like north korea and iran are supposedly obtaining WMD when countries like USA are public talking about banned weapons such as biological weapons and laser with the capablities to blind their enemies???

 

[DemoCoder]

What does "blinding" laser weapons have to do with WMD? A worldwide proliferation of "blinding" laser weapons would not constitute a threat to global security. There is a huge difference between someone fielding weaponized Anthrax and someone fielding an anti-personnel laser. And frankly, those I know it upsets many people, there is a huge difference between a stable country like the US, France, or even China, possessing
weaponized Anthrax, and Yemen, Iran, or NK possessing it.

Moreover, rightly or wrongly, the US is trying to produce anti-personnel lasers that are not permanently blinding. Perhaps their current research prototypes don't meet this, but they aren't fielding them and it does not violate the intent behind the international conventions, which is to prevent permanent disabilities on the battlefield, NOT, to prevent weapons which confuse the enemy. Are flash and concussion grenades to be banned too? If not, what's wrong with simply a higher tech version of the flash grenade which can be used at long distances?


Frankly, the whole method of classifying what conventional weapons are, and are not, "humane" is somewhat bogus. It is claimed that directly blowing someone up with an 155mm shell is "inhumane" warfare, but shooting them with a UN approved NATO round isn't. Isn't killing someone by instantly blowing them to pieces more humane than wounding and a slow painful death by from internal injuries? Thermobaric fuel-air-explosives are declared "inhumane" but traditional 20000lb daisy cutter bombs aren't? Negative classifications of land mines and cluster bombs are reasonable, due to the fact that they persist as dangers after warfare is over, but why is blowing someone up with a daisy cutter "OK" but blowing them up with a thermobaric weapon "not ok"

The whole idea of "humane" warfare is somewhat absurd. At best, warfare should not leave behind dangers after the fight is over (unexploded ordinance, land minds, etc) or damage the environment "too much". All else is getting into bodily calculus. Is being maimed in your limbs (losing arms, legs) worse then eyes? Why no complaint about deafness? Many conventional weapons that human rights groups make no complaints about leave victums deaf.

Western countries are trying to develop a whole new range of "non lethal" weapons, which ironically, "peace" groups are protesting because of course, they are not 100% perfect, and a certain percentage of people do get maimed by them (but far less than "fully lethal" weapons, which directly kill x% of people (most humane I think), and maim a much larger y%, leaving them scarred for life)

 

[cthellis42]

I'm mainly just a fan of avoiding/reducing/not-developing-more-of (or more powerful versions of) weapon technologies that are "borderless"--having long-reaching effects past their use in war, as they could be causing casualties long past cease-fire and to people afterwards supposed to be friendly.