As reported by Scott Ritter, former head UN arms inspector in Iraq, the country Bush wants to launch a military assault against is "90-95%" disarmed already. After extremely invasive inspections (no matter what the media says) for a decade, Iraq is far, far less likely to possess nuclear or other major "weapons of mass destructions" than, say, Iran, or lots of other countries.
That said, what if Iraq DOES have (perhaps primitive) nuclear weapons? Or just one nuclear weapon?
What is the scenario under which a country would MOST LIKELY use such a weapon? The answer is, if it were being subjected to an all out militarily attack from a very powerful country.
And of those scenarios in which the country would be most likely to resort to using its nuclear weapon(s), namely being subjected to such a military assault, what would be the one single type of assault under which it would be the very most likely to use such a weapon? The answer of course is an all-out military assault by an extremely powerful other country which has the explicit objective to "change" (translation: destroy, kill) the leadership of that country.
[Added later: There's no question the world needs nuclear disarmament -- which will only happen if the US position changes from its present "we'll keep making stronger and stronger bombs, the rest of you need to sit on your hands and never acquire it". But let's take the countries the hawks have called the most Evil in all of history, and the ones who have also had the nuclear bomb for the most years: Russia and China. They didn't use it, even will that those so many years, and being so Evil, they didn't use it -- but were not under a military assault threatening their survival
So what if Iraq was attacked and the leaders' very survival and the entire country's very survival was being assaulted, and they resorted to using the "poison pill"?]
What would be the consequences of such a nuclear denotation?
First, it would kill huge numbers of US personnel, namely most of the (perhaps limited) number of those in the area.
Second, it would kill lots of civilians in the country itself and in neighboring countries through direct and indirect (e.g. radiation)
Third and perhaps most ominously, it would KILL the "Nuclear Taboo" which has been in place since 1945 when the last nuclear weapon was used in war -- this would make future use (and thus the possibility of the expanded use and extinction of the human race) far more likely.
It follows immediately that non-military ways of dealing with Iraq -- and if we are honest, with other countries that are as dangerous or more dangerous, like Saudi Arabia which funds terrorist groups, Iran, and also US allies and the US itself which has killed thousands in the Sudan only to apologize for "mistaking" the medicinal plant for a chemical weapons plant, among other acts of terror by our "leaders" in Washington -- are absolutely necessary unless we are no less than absolutely 100% sure that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
And if we are 100% sure, of course, then there even less justification for a military assault.
Ah, but what if Iraq is close to possessing them, but doesn't? Let's attack then, the argument goes. Putting aside for the moment the moral bankruptcy of this position (would it be ok for the Sudan to bomb the Us for what is now virtually concede was a baseless terror bombing by Washington?) -- there are other problems with this reasoning.
First, if we are wrong, and Iraq *does* have nuclear weapons, the above catastrophic dangers take effect.
Second, if Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons but is "close" the outcome is nearly as bad: imagine that the technology for a bomb isn't there, but plutonium. It does not take many pounds of plutonium, dispersed evenly, to contaminate large regions of the entire planet.
Third, what if there are no nuclear materials, but chemical ones?
These can similarly be dispersed on purpose, or accidentally when subjected to bombing, throughout the middle east, and indeed throughout the world -- even a toxic cloud of pollution from Asia "can travel halfway round the globe in a week." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2188494.stm whereas the chemicals from chemical weapons let alone radioactive particles can cause far, far worst and more widespread damage to the region and perhaps the entire world including the US -- nothing like this has been done in the past after all.
Already the effects of Gulf War syndrome have a decade long legacy that is far from being cured. Already we know from the 1991 attack* on Iraq that burning from the petroleum fields and various plants released a large amount of toxins throughout the region. But that will look like a picnic by comparison. Back then Washington had Saudi Arabia's and Qatar's and everyone cooperations, not today when Bush's insistence on the "right" of his regime to invade any country -- a "right" no sane person, nor Bush, would give to any other country to avoid a Law of the Jungle world which wouldn't' stay a whole world for very long. Back then for Saddam Hussein it was about an embarrassing military forcing of a withdrawal from Kuwait. Today it's about the very survival of the regime so the stakes are much higher. If you were in their position, what would you do? You would probably work on having as many "poison pills" which any outsider coming to devour your regime would have to swallow. Maybe personally strap something very nasty (nuclear, chemical, etc) to your body at all times which would "take" a huge region along with you if you were taken out -- if not something that vivid, -- certainly something in that general spirit. [Added later: on top of that, Saddam Hussein would be replaced by an obedient thug who was just as much a dictator if history is any lesson: Washington replaced Noriega (who was formerly CIA-paid and US-backed) with another strongman, Endara, and more or less runs the show in Afghanistan. Replacing Saddam wouldn't' be democracy -- Bush Sr refused to meet with Saddam's opponents in 1991, because they wouldn't be "obedient" to the US but loyal to the Iraqi people instead -- Washington wants the former, not the latter]
(*there was no "war" between Iraq and Kuwait, there was an Iraqi invasion; similarly there was no "War" between Iraq and Washington when Washington turned down what the NY Times quoted a top Bush official as calling an offer for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait which was "serious negotiating position")
Historically, how dangerous is Iraq? As noted by not only Scott Ritter but countless others, Iraq today is far weaker than it was in 1991.
The lawless militarists around Bush who today tell us that Saddam is a huge threat were exactly the ones who told us it's ok to support Saddam back when he was far, far more militarily strong and a far greater danger.
You know, in the 1980s when I found out about Saddam Hussein's record, I voiced opposition to my government's funding of Iraq (it funded both Iraq and Iran -- but even more so the invading Iraq). When I did so, the response I got from media-saturated Americans was: "what are you, a friend of the Ayatollah?"
It was therefore the height of irony that the never episode took place. When in 1991 I voiced opposition to our "leaders" in Washington slaughtering Iraqis, I was more or less asked, "what are you, a friend of Saddam?" by these Johnny-come-lately militarists and right-wingers who went along with funding Saddam many years earlier. It seems that you are "unpatriotic" unless you cheer-lead the funding of the likes of Noriega, Saddam, and the Taliban by the CIA and Washington, and then AGAIN cheer-lead the mass-murder of civilians proposed as "solutions" to the problems these earlier fundings create. George Orwell would spin in his grave...
We also know that Saddam's two most recent and biggest attacks were both with US support: During the Iran-Iraq war, which included mutual aggression by both sides but ultimately Iraq was the invading side -- Iraq received huge amount of secret military support from Washington. Just before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein felt it necessary to summon April Glaspie the US ambassador and ask her what the US position was on the conflict with Kuwait. He was told: "we have no opinion on your border dispute" with Kuwait.
Do we know that Saddam would have not invaded Iran or Kuwait without US encouragement, or, in the former case, active support? No, we don't. But we do know that the two times he did was with US support. Today, Iraq is far, far weaker, and if -- at last -- Washington could behave itself so as not to support "friendly dictators" as it always has -- the world has much, much higher chances that Iraq, or for that matter other regimes previously, or now, being funded by Washington for amoral reason having to do with gaining control over as much of planet earth as possible -- than under the current policies and regime in Washington which is already supporting regimes today which will cause the anti-US terrorism (and Washington bombing of civilians -- basically another kind of terrorism -- in response) tomorrow, as Washington works to strengthen the dictatorial rulers of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and other regimes, all in the global game of influence and control.
See: "Another World Isn't Just possible -- it's urgently necessary:
http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/wtc-insider.html
What is being called the possibility of "military action against Saddam" is more accurately "a military assault against Iraq" and its people. It was "against Saddam" in 1991 we were told, and the results were hundreds of thousands of civilians dead and Saddam stronger than ever. Even if we *assume* that Saddam could be removed, how many civilians do we have a "right" to kill to do this? What makes Saddam a bad person is he kills people. Telling us their honest "reasons" were to save the world form bad people, Washington has time and again used military action that has resulted in even more deaths -- often, far more deaths -- than those "Bad people" caused over all the previous years -- what is wrong with this picture? Under even the most minimal basic standards of morality we should be willing to subject ourselves to the same: would we think it's ok for countries that have been victimized by the US in the past to bomb the US, having the "Right" to do so even if civilians are killed?
Right now convicted terrorists who have committed crimes in other countries are being protected in the US (this isn't like Bin Laden where Afghanistan asked for evidence which Washington refused to provide; in many cases like in the case of Haiti , the evidence is already out, the former dictators and thugs having already been convicted in court -- and Washington refuses to hand the terrorist over (perhaps afraid that they would "sing" in court, revealing embarrassing support by US leaders for these thugs) -- does this make it ok for Haiti (if it had a conventional or other bomb ) to attack the US and the "Right" to kill any number of US civilians to attain the goals of fighting its own terrorists?
"Haiti, which was once the richest country in the western hemisphere, was raped and brutalised by a military regime propped up and supported by US. In fact, for the last 10 years, Haiti has been desperately asking the US for the extradition of a person called Emanuel Constant, a paramilitary personnel responsible for the massacre of over 20,000 Haitians [that's about 7 times the number of victims of 9/11 ; or a far larger ratio if we compare US and Haitian populations -HB] during the brutal regime. But the US won't extradite him, because they fear that if Constant were tried in a Haitian court, the close links between the brutal regime and US intelligence officers would be exposed. Even after the September 11 attacks, the government of Haiti appealed for his extradition, but to no avail."
http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/nov/3/printable/ca110301noampr.htm
****************************************
Epilogue from interview with Chomsky:
****************************************
Q: The war against terrorism will have a lot more casualties, a lot more innocent casualties. Can this be justified?
NC: Again, the question cannot be answered in the abstract. But there are some criteria for answering it. One simple criterion is that if some action is legitimate for us, then it is legitimate for others. To take an example, if it is legitimate for the US to bomb Afghanistan because Washington suspects that the plot to carry out the 9-11 atrocities was hatched there (the FBI has recently conceded they still have only suspicions, no firm evidence), then a fortiori, it would have been legitimate for Nicaraguans (Cubans, Lebanese, and a long list of others) to bomb Washington because they know, not suspect, that it is the source of terrorist atrocities that far exceed even 9-11. Those who do not accept the latter conclusion -- that is, every sane person -- cannot accept the former one, unless they reject the most elementary moral principles, and thereby abandon any claim to speak of right and wrong, good and evil.
"The same criterion applies universally. It does not answer all questions, but does answer a great many of them. It is true that elementary moral principles such as this cannot be considered by the rich and powerful, because of the consequences that follow very quickly. Nevertheless, honest people should be willing to entertain them."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=36&ItemID=2068
* * *