Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced
the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that
the
US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

I don't believe that the US has an active offensive chemical weapons
program. The issue was that the facilities to create pesticides and
chemical weapons are VERY similar (or even the same). The US view was that
it was totally presumptious for the rest of the world to SUSPECT that the US
might have such a plan, and that the inspection of US commercial chemical
production facilities was going to only be "industrial espionage".

This is similar to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, where there are no IAEA
inspections of any US nuclear facilities (comercial or military), and
ceratinly no snap inspections without warning. It is interesting to see the
US say that the Iranian's have no credible need of a commercial nuclear
power industry because they have natural gas and oil reserves, and
particularly no need of uranium enrichment facilities. If this logic is
applied to UK, Russia and USA (but not France and Japan) then the same
applies because of large fossil fuel reserves in those countries (oil,
natuaral gas, and coal). This is also an interesting position in light of
the US proposals to use commercial nuclear power to limit CO2 emmissions.

It is of note that the US has just embarked on a new large commercial
uranium centrifuge enrichment program (using EU technology) to repace its
old gaseous diffusion plants that date from the 1950s & 1960s. Under
current international agreements there will be no need for IAEA safeguards
on the new facilities.

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

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?

"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

In article ,
"David Nicholls" wrote:

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.

Yeah, we really do need to worry about Russia again. They have the only
fielded ABM system on the planet right now, a nationalistic government
and a lot of nukes.

If I were in one of the former Soviet states, I'd make fun of the more
powerful countries, like, oh, the US. Funny how that's actually
happening, isn't it?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.