[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Eugene Volokh goes over the differences between Iraq and North Korea. He's right, as far as he goes -- but now let's ask the next question.

"If we can live with North Korea possessing and actively making nuclear weapons, why can't we live with the possibility that Iraq may get nuclear weapons?"

Or, put differently: assuming inspections fail, and assuming it's impossible to stand between Saddam and nukes, what makes that world more dangerous than the one we live in? And please. Don't tell me Saddam is more loony than Kim Jong-il.

Comments

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

As unsympathetic as I am to the administration and its approaches to both Iraq and NK, I do think the valid answer to your specific question is 'let us only have one nuke-armed loony, not two'.

[bryant]

Well, three; can't forget Pakistan's loony potential.

I think that's the right line to take in examining the question, but I am not convinced that it provides a full and sufficient answer. Here's why.

a) It seems likely that Pakistan helped North Korea out with its nuclear weapons program.

b) North Korea is gearing up to crank out around one bomb a month.

That makes two unstable regimes with significant nuclear programs, one of which has demonstrated willingness to aid in proliferation.

c) Bush's case against Iraqi WMD is largely predicated on the concept that he will sell them to terrorists.

If WMD are /already/ available to terrorists, it doesn't really matter how many players there are in that game. The threshold for disaster is very low.

d) Bush also argues that Saddam has designs on his neighbors.

No doubt true but note that containment has been effective there for over a decade now; note also that Saddam's previous pair of wars (Kuwait and Iran) were, as far as he knew, OK with the US. It's been a long long time since Iraq attacked a neighboring country without first believing it was acceptable to us.