"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that
the
US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds
new
development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now)
it
should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
weapons for a deterent program.

David



Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea
or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the
countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and
Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an
ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal
a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a
stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped
their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build
them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells
the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do
you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify
that view?

My arguement is that I do not believe that in the current world (post
Mutually Assured Destruction) no WMD's have any warfighting credibility. In
terms of the international inspections the act of telling the IAEA to stop
inspections is the trigger for more severe international pressure (whatever
that may involve).

The stability of the current nuclear powers is an interesting note. The
Isreali gov't appears to have a policy of first use based on "percieved"
threat, while the US gov't is actively doing R&D on more "usable"
battlefield nuclear weapons. This is interesting when it is combined with
the new US policy of starting wars on the belief that the "other guy" might
be a threat to the USA in the near future!

I am more concerned of the approach taken by a super power who is reasonably
convinced (by things like the ABM system) that it can pre-emptively use
WMD's against minor pwers with little or no danger of a counter strike, than
I am by minor powers who fully understand that their first use of their
WMD's would lead to their inevitable distruction.

I believe that leaders of many states (e.g. North Korea) are very very evil,
and should not be supported in any way at all - I just do not believe that
they are stupid. Stupid evil dictators get killed off very quickly.

David