WMD: The nuclear, chemical, and biological threat and the US response.

Should we respond with full force?

Who do you find to be the biggest threat in the world to free nations?

Should there be a difference in our reponse to different types of WMD attacks?

____


How big of a threat do you find North Korea to be?

I personally believe them to be even more dangerous than Iraq and more dangerous than Iran. They have been found to export weapons all over the world to rogue states, and have recently admitted they have nuclear weapons.

Now, they have reopened a nuclear plant capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.

If say N. Korea or any other nation gives a nuke to a terrorist who uses it on US soil, do you agree with the White House's position of "massive retaliation" if a nuclear device is set off in one of our major cities?

 

''Should we respond with full force? ''
Respond to WHAT? The only country I see issueing threats is the US.



''They have been found to export weapons all over the world to rogue states, and have recently admitted they have nuclear weapons. ''

What,. like...like....America????

 

First of all if the situation should present it self, god forbid, I hope that not even Bush is stupid enough to use nuclear bombs.

And no country , neither N. Korea or Iraq, are that stupid that they would risk starting WW3.


-Mulacki

 

But if they are that stupid...

The fact is, George H.W. Bush issued a similar statement of fact before the Gulf War: any use of WMD's by Iraq could result in a full-force response. That likely kept our soldiers safe from chemical and biological attack.

We are not saying we'll strike first with WMD's. We won't throw the first punch on this; but, by God, we'll throw the last punch - and it will be deadly.

 

WMD is WMD, regardless of whecther it is nuclear or not. Any chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) attack made against the United States or our interests should be met with and equal response. That is to say that if we are attacked with WMD and there is the possibility of continued WMD attacks, we should resond with a WMD attack of our own.

The only difference between the elements of CBRN are the delivery mthods and immediate efects. They are WMD attacks and should be responded in kind.

 

The WMD response to a WMD use has been around for some time now. It was put out there during the Cold War, and put out there just prior to the Gulf War, it works. The threat of being nuked off the Earth is a powerful deterrant.

Its hard to say what Bush might do; if a fight starts and a bio weapon wipes out out troops, we may not automatically strike back with nuclear force because our ability to deliver conventional weapons is leaps and bounds ahead of what was used in the Gulf War.

But that begs the question, "How many WMD will it take to prompt us to use our own?"

Will they give him ONE warning, or use a 50 kiloton device or two right from the get go?

 

I saw an interesting piece on the BBC yesterday claiming that the majority of North Korean political activity is simply posturing for more US aid and attention. Personally I don't see them as a security threat; they're just a nation that we need to handle carefully.

As for the response, I don't know. If the WTC centre attacks had been nuclear, would it have been correct to nuke Afghanistan? I don't think so.

We have to realise that the unconventional nature of the current threat renders our conventional responses obsolete. You can't destroy a nation on the belief that that nation may have harboured terrorists.

Well I say "you can't", but I imagine Bush et al will say "I can".

 

"If the WTC centre attacks had been nuclear..."

Actually, wasn't there a commission to quantify the nature and destructive power of those attacks, to determine if the planes - used the way they were - could technically be classified as WMD?

 

If any country were to ever use a weapon of mass destruction against US soil, their country would not survive very long. The US policy is and always have been to classify chemical or biological weapons AS nukes.

 

Should we respond with full force?

No. Taking aggressive action against North Korea would likely start a third World War.

Who do you find to be the biggest threat in the world to free nations?

Used to be China, but North Korea seems to be a bigger threat. It has been proven that they have nuclear weapons, unlike Iraq. There is evidence that NK is supplying weapons to terrorists, unlike Iraq.

Iraq is simply the weakest of the "Axis of Evil", and Bush wouldn't dare go against countries that can actually retaliate.

Should there be a difference in our reponse to different types of WMD attacks?

No.

 

Iraq is the weakest?

From what we(the public) know now, Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons, but they do have a lot of oil, and are in a position to, attempt anyway, take control of a large portion of the world's oil.

What do you think would hurt the world more: Iraq's ability to use a few nuclear bombs, or the ability to control the Middle East and it's oil?

 

Neither, we'd kick their arse, again.

 

Iraq is the weakest?

I'm sorry. I forgot to say that they had the weakest millitary.

 

Iraq is not the end all be all of oil. We do have ample reserves ourselves, and wether you like them or not Saudi Arabia would make up for what we lose in Iraqi oil(At least thats what military analysts say).

 

I am much more fearful of a terrorist organization sneaking biological or nuclear weapons ("dirty" bombs) into the US. Quite frankly, when 275,000 people illegally cross into the US each year, I can see the distinct possibility for a highly organized group to infiltrate the borders and cause some serious harm. Remember, all it takes is one dirty bomb, one smallpox outbreak to cause mass hysteria, panic, and a whole lot of damage.

This is the primary reason why I am opposed to war in Iraq until we crackdown and close our borders AND we have some sort of organization in place to investigate and prosecute those involved in terrorist organizations against the US (ie dismantle the Al Queada network and similar networks).

 

There is only one reason we should use nuclear weapons:

If we want to kill a bunch of innocent people.





Using nuclear weapons is morally wrong, no matter who is using them, defensive or not.

 

Shooting someone is morally wrong. I don't see much of a difference.

 

"This is the primary reason why I am opposed to war in Iraq until we crackdown and close our borders AND we have some sort of organization in place to investigate and prosecute those involved in terrorist organizations against the US (ie dismantle the Al Queada network and similar networks)."


There is no such thing as perfect defense. There is no way to protect all of our borders. Terrorists need to be confronted and killed before they reach our borders for any real security to exist.

 

Let's have an analogy.

A criminal broke out of jail and took a school hostage. He then preceded to demand ransom and randomly started executing the hostages. So the police planted explosives around the building and BLEW HIM TO SMITHEREANS. They went home and had a beer, congratulating themselves on how they overwhelmed the criminal.

Now this wouldn't happen in the real world. Why not? Because our children are valuable to us and we wouldn't risk harming them. In fact we would probably sacrifice some of our police officers in a storming operation rather than see them get hurt.

It should be the same case with Iraq (and any other nation for that matter). We should be trying to spare the Iraqi people. They are innocent bystanders, much like the children in my story, who are at the mercy of the criminal. In our effort to take out the criminal, we should be no means harm the Iraqi people. In fact we should suffer losses before that happens.

Taking out Saddam and his regime is the same as storming the school. Using nuclear weapons in response is like blowing up the school, with children and all still inside.

 

A North Korean freighter carrying no flags (which is in itself a crime, piracy, regardless of whether you are a pirate or not) was stopped by US patrols. It was full of SCUD missiles. They let it go. It was just an innocent merchant vessel. Sure, they were illegally smuggling weapons into a blockaded country on board a pirate ship.

America lets in weapons designed to hit cities fall into Saddam's hands, but not food into his people's mouths. If you're going to try and stop Saddam getting weapons, then impound ships caught carrying them. And if two Axis of Evil (God, that sounds so corny) countries are trading arms covertly, shouldn't some action be taken? At the very least the ships being stopped? OMG, Dubya, buy a freaking clue about your own foreign policy.

 

Admiral, the North Korean ship was bound for Yemen, not Iraq.

 

"There is no way to protect all of our borders. Terrorists need to be confronted and killed before they reach our borders for any real security to exist. "

We have over a quarter million people coming into our country unaccounted for-that is the REAL threat. The $30,000 coyotes are taking to smuggle in Middle Easterners is a threat. Securing our borders is the FIRST step in reducing terrorist threats to the US. Launching missles at Iraq while we keep the barn door open leaves us vunerable and is quite frankly, stupid.

 

Zaarin still has a point. If it wasn't flagged then it's natural to assume that it's a pirate vessel. RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR mi matey.

 

Ok, Yemen, whatever. But under internation law you're a pirate if you fly no flag. And America just lets it go! St Adrian of Nicomedia (patron saint of arms dealers) must have smiled on those North Koreans that day.