Yes, well, I would much prefer if no countries had WMD's, but how do we get there?

If I were running a small country I would not waste my money and resources building nuclear weapons. I would try to get along peacefully with my neighbours.

Given the history of the Korean conflict, though, I am not surprised that North Korea has built nukes. They experienced a war, a bombing campaign, and a biological warfare campaign in the 1950's that no one has forgotten and that war is still technically not ended. Nor am I surprised that Israel has nukes. In both cases, it's a deterrent...but it's also a very dangerous one...you never know what may happen with deterrents, do you?

I don't think the fact that a country has or is developing WMD's is a moral basis for invading that country, no matter who they are. It's like the big rancher saying..."Lookee here...I cain't let them Mexican farmers have Winchesters like I've got...they are jest a buncha stinkin' wetbacks! I'm gonna send mah cowboys out and burn 'em out of their miserable shacks!"

You've got to remember that using those WMD's would provoke massive retaliation, so is even someone like Idi Amin actually going to be that stupid and suicidal? I think probably not.

The real danger is not that a national entity have nukes, but that a secret, clandestine organization have them in a secret location...because such people imagine that they can strike their chosen enemy in a terrorist attack and not be found for a counterstrike. Therefore, I would use the secret service and a variety of other means to vigorously prevent that from happening, but that does not equate to invading a sovereign country like Iraq, in my opinion.

It is the unofficial, hidden, clandestine possessor of the WMD that is truly dangerous (and criminal), not the national government which openly exposes itself to attack if it uses them.

It's like registered guns versus illegally owned guns. You know who's got the former...you don't know who's got the latter.

- LH