ban on developing new WMD

the UN should sponsor a worldwide treaty against the construction of new WMD stockpiles and against the development of new WMD style weapons. all UN nations would sign to it, especially the united states.

[PatrickHenry]

Only those who have 'em should get their righteous hands on WMD, right?
And are you saying the US would sign such a treaty?

There already are treaties banning Chemical and Biological weapons, new or not. There is also the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What would this new treaty do?

[dotcoma]

The US would never ever sign anything like that.

i don't know if the US would. bush is currently developing new WMD - the nuclear bunker buster. this weapon is superfluous and dangerous, in that it is a nuclear warhead which will spread radioactive material in any attack, and that current bunker-buster bombs are sufficient to disable any bunker in existence.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs, current bunker-buster bombs are sufficient to disable any bunker in existence.

Disable, but not destroy.

However, I agree that a focus on new nuclear devices is misguided and dangerous. If proliferation continues, there will be a nuclear confrontation and exchange in the future. When the "Might makes right" philosophy prevails, peaceful conflict resolution becomes less and less likely. Tyrants sense no need to justify their actions, injustice will do as well as justice.

On another note, why would the administration choose to attack Iraq on charges of WMD when their ally, Pakistan, was proliferating like crazy?

An article from before the US attack on Iraq from the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/new/03-03/03-05-03r.html

March 5, 2003 Media Contact: (202) 789-5200 Pakistan Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Cause for U.S. Concern President Bush should also pressure Musharraf to crack down on al-Qaeda in Pakistan WASHINGTON -- Although the United States has touted Pakistan as a "frontline ally" in the war on terrorism, the Pakistani government continues to support terrorist movements affiliated with al-Qaeda and has also played a significant role in advancing North Korea's nuclear program, according to a new Cato Institute report. In "Extremist, Nuclear Pakistan: An Emerging Threat?" Subodh Atal, an independent foreign affairs analyst, argues that elements within Pakistan's military and its intelligence agency, the ISI, have engaged in active proliferation of nuclear weapons-related technology. "U.S. policymakers need to be concerned about the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, the level of threat posed to that arsenal by al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups within Pakistan, the stability of Pakistan's regime, and the country's record on nuclear proliferation," writes Atal, adding that Pakistan, which has become the new command center for al-Qaeda, poses a greater threat to the U.S. than Iraq. As President Bush has been pressuring Iraq to disarm while mulling military action against Hussein's regime, Bush has ignored the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, where they fled and re-established themselves following U.S. action in Afghanistan, Atal argues. "This concentration of al-Qaeda presents the largest risk to U.S. national security because of the proximity of al-Qaeda and its sympathetic jihadi groups to power centers in nuclear Pakistan," says Atal. Atal recommends that the United States pressure President Pervez Musharraf to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Northwest Frontier Province and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, where anti-U.S. jihadis are concentrated. "It should warn Musharraf that, if Pakistan is unwilling or incapable of cleansing itself of its terrorist infrastructure, the U.S. military will take matters into its own hands and extend the anti-terrorism war into Pakistani territory," Atal writes.

The hidden agenda of the PNAC comes into focus.
Here is the current official spin, which is itself, worrisome from:
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040229190439....9.q5jl04vh.html

Pakistan proliferation unpunished so US troops could hunt bin Laden: report WASHINGTON (AFP) Feb 29, 2004 The United States withheld criticism of Pakistan despite leaks of nuclear secrets to Libya and other countries, so long as US troops could launch a search for Osama bin Laden in the Islamic state, said a report released Sunday. "It's a quid pro quo," a former senior intelligence official told New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh. "We're going to get our troops inside Pakistan in return for not forcing (Pakistani leader Pervez) Musharraf to deal with (Pakistan's nuclear research director Abdul Qadeer) Khan," who admitted sharing nuclear secrets with US foes Iran, Libya and North Korea. Musharraf pardoned Khan, who admitted "full responsibility" for the leaks and denied military involvement in his proliferation. "One thing we know is that this was not a rogue operation," a Bush administration official told The New Yorker. "Suppose (atom bomb inventor) Edward Teller had suddenly decided to spread nuclear technology and equipment around the world. Do you really think he could do that without the government knowing? How do you get missiles from North Korea to Pakistan? Do you think (Khan) shipped all the centrifuges by Federal Express?" Hersh's article appeared in the issue of the New York weekly hitting newsstands Monday. Washington said it had not pressured Islamabad for fear of politically weakening Musharraf, a much-needed ally in President George W. Bush's war on terror. However, the amount of nuclear know-how Khan made available to hostile nations put the United States in jeopardy, experts told The New Yorker. "We haven't been this vulnerable since the British burned Washington in 1814," former UN weapons inspector Robert Gallucci told The New Yorker.

Musharraf, our ally, covering a massive proliferator. Oh, right. The War on Terror. Gotta have "allies" like him.

making more nukes is hardly a good way to keep them away from terrorists. their application is severely limited in the first place, and we already have many thousands of them.

what do they mean by 'disabiling a bunker'. does that mean collapsing it down to several hundred feet and severing all communications between that new hole in the ground and the surface? if that is the case, disabling a bunker is quite good enough. a nuclear bomb should not be detonated if it is not absolutely necessary and that the war will be lost otherwise. i doubt that is a situation with the difference between 'disabling' and 'destroying' the deepest of bunkers.

""One thing we know is that this was not a rogue operation," a Bush administration official told The New Yorker."

i suppose north korea is not a 'rogue state' then? what is a 'rogue state' if it is not iran or NK?

[dotcoma]

what is a 'rogue state' if it is not iran or NK?

The US, Britain, Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, France, Germany.....

in some ways yes, definately. NK and Iran should not be absent from your list though.

[dotcoma]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs, in some ways yes, definately. NK and Iran should not be absent from your list though.

Without western support, those countries would be firing muskets. Those regimes are extentions of our own. That's the truth that people fail to see. We create the problem, people have a reaction (in this case: Terror), they offer their solution. Like a window saleman with a pellet gun.

They are on the list....way, way down...

yes in truth we did arm and equip them all in the first place during our cold war with the soviet union. yes the CIA did install the Shah in 1954. this does not excuse them from misusing their resources though.

even more so for the US and the West misusing their resources [IMF, WorldBank, interventionist wars, neo-colonialism, etc]

[Mr.Vicchio]

Bob... you are obssessed with nukes...

Do you know the political ramifications for USING a nuke? Even a small one?

Do you knwo that bunker busters are small yield deep penatration weapons that wouldn't if worked as designed, spread radiation beauce the blast would stay underground?

Just asking if you knwo these small but pertinant facts..

You should be VERY thankful for nuclear weapons, they kept WWIII from ever occuring.

such a blast would contaminate ground water in the region and depending on the size and makeup of the aquifer it could reach rivers in days. a conventional bomb would not cause this contamination and its performance would be almost equal. these nuclear bombs would only be useful in a nuclear engagement, which would be quite severe and bad enough already.

if nothing else, i am arguing that we are wasting our money and aggravating the military and political world by developing these weapons.

[Impenitent]

one simple question...

who would enforce your ban and how?

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Impenitent, one simple question... who would enforce your ban and how?

yes, it is quite naive that we can ban anything - when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was enacted, I believe 3 or 4 countries had 'the bomb' - now over 17 countries do... that program sure is working well...

[Utah]

Originally posted by roxdog, The US would never ever sign anything like that.

The US has signed many agreements with Russia on the destruction of current stockpiles. I just happen to live in an area in which we are complying with said agreements and are destroying chemical weapon stockpiles.

who has the bomb? that increase is likely because of the breakup of the SU and creation of new former soviet states who inherited the bomb.

ideally this ban on new wmd would be by the UN, or if not the UN, by the US and major world players.

[Leopard]

google it

[PatrickHenry]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/in...ia/26nuke.html
Or truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122704F.shtml

Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, went to Pakistan soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and raised concerns about Dr. Khan, some of whose scientists were said to have met with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's leader. But Mr. Hadley did not ask General Musharraf to take action, according to a senior administration official. He returned to Washington complaining that it was unclear whether the Khan Laboratories were operating with the complicity of the Pakistani military, or were controlled by freelancers, motivated by visions of profit or of spreading the bomb to Islamic nations. The Pakistanis insisted they had no evidence of any proliferation at all, a claim American officials said they found laughable. As evidence grew in 2003, Mr. Bush sent Mr. Tenet to New York to meet with General Musharraf. "We were afraid Khan's operation was entering a new, more dangerous phase," said one top official. Still there was little action. But in late October 2003, the United States and its allies seized the BBC China, a freighter bearing centrifuge parts made in Malaysia, along with other products of Dr. Khan's network, all bound for Libya. Confronted with the evidence, Libya finally agreed to surrender all of its nuclear program. Within weeks, tons of equipment was being dismantled and flown to the Energy Department's nuclear weapons lab at Oak Ridge, Tenn. Pressures mounted on General Musharraf. "I said to him, 'We know so much about this that we're going to go public with it,' " Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told journalists last week. " 'And you need to deal with this before you have to deal with it publicly.' " On television, Dr. Khan was forced to confess but he gave no specifics, and General Musharraf pardoned the scientist. American officials pressed to interview him and his chief lieutenant, Mr. Tahir, a Sri Lankan businessman living in Dubai and Malaysia, who was eventually arrested by Malaysian authorities. But the Pakistanis balked, insisting that they would pass questions to Dr. Khan and report back. Little information has been conveyed. "Some questions simply were never answered," said one senior intelligence official. "In other cases, you don't know if you were getting Khan's answer, or the answer the government wanted you to hear." Dr. Khan's silence has extended to the question of what countries, other than Libya, received the bomb design. Intelligence experts say they have no evidence any other nation received the design, although they suspect Iran and perhaps North Korea. But that search has been hampered by lack of hard intelligence. "We strongly believe Iran did," said one American official. "But we need the proof." Dr. Khan has also never discussed his ties with North Korea, a critical issue because the United States has alleged - but cannot prove - that North Korea has two nuclear arms programs, one using Khan technology. "It is an unbelievable story, how this administration has given Pakistan a pass on the single worst case of proliferation in the past half century," said Jack Pritchard, who worked for President Clinton and served as the State Department's special envoy to North Korea until he quit last year, partly in protest over Mr. Bush's Korea policy. "We've given them a pass because of Musharraf's agreement to fight terrorism, and now there is some suggestion that the hunt for Osama is waning. And what have we learned from Khan? Nothing."

Anybody think the Bush Administration is serious about non-proliferation? If they were willing to cite hoaxed material about Iraqi attempts for uranium, but unwilling to get tough with Pakistan, what does that say? Maybe that WMD were never the real focus when planning to sieze Iraq?