True, LH, too true. It would be a better world without any WMD, or weapons at all for that matter. (I am convinced that the Israeli possession of about a dozen nukes prevented the use of chemicals on them in the Gulf War. I think Israel would have had no option but to let the dozen go to targets in the Middle East.) That said, I see a difference: the balance of nuclear power and MAD assured that no one use the weapons at all. I grew up with that philosophy around me. I didn't sleep well at night, along with billions of other people, but we seem to have got through the so-called Cold War. Today, we have dictatorships in possession of WMD. Picture a syphilitic Idi Amin with nukes. I guess the difference I see is this: when I protested at People's Park in Berkeley, I felt some assurance that the National Guard troops likely wouldn't use the weapons they had with them. The half-tracks were a 'show of force' to establish who was in charge, and the 'concertina wire' a method of forcing demonstrators along given routes. I don't think I'd feel that sense of comfort in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Your argument reminds me of one posited by Pat Paulson (sp?) regarding hijackings on planes. He suggested that every passenger be given a loaded gun when boarding and that would put things in perspective for everyone else. I don't think the reasons for the attack on Iraq were spurious; I do think they were not very well thought out. I would like to see the ABC stuff destroyed--assuming we have the ability to do that. As a second and only other choice, I'd like to see no new growth in the WMD capability of ANY country. Back to you.