Interesting article. Ask a dire "what if" question, and then it's perectly clear what must happen to avoid the serious consequences of "what if".

Russia has nukes, and so does China, Iran, North Korea and none have used them against the US. Something works, whether it's deterence or decency or, more likely, a combination of both.

But there is a glitch. The US has nukes, and threatens to use them against Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't have nukes, and can't threaten the US with them, there is no deterence. No deterence = threat of obliteration.

So, it looks as if deterence is ALL that works. Certainly not decency, at least not on the part of the US anymore. If the Administration is to be believed.

Interestingly, the rationale for attacking Iraq, that they have WMD and will give them to al-Qaeda or use them directly, doesn't hold water.

If they do have them still, they clearly haven't used them against the US directly or indirectly.

If they don't have them any more, they aren't a threat to use them.

And if they're trying to get them, well, the US hasn't signed the biochemical warfare convention, and Israel has them, as do God knows how many other countries. And Iraq has been threatened with nukes by both the US and Israel.

Possession of, for instance, nuclear weapons may be all that would have protected Iraq. Because one nation is rampaging around just because they can. There is no deterence against that nation.

("Well, what if they did use them against the US?" What if North Korea, Libya, Russia, China, or many, many others did? What if the US used them against those people? What if? - indeed.)

Arf