[AmishDude]

OK, here's how to refute this:

• Saddam won't "launch" a nuke against the US. He'll use Al Qaeda as a surrogate to detonate it in the US.
• He won't need to use it. He'll just have it and then bully the region around. Because although it's madness to use a nuke to initiate a strike, it's perfectly rational to use it when you're about to be attacked. Hence, none of his neighbors would dare attack Saddam.

[browardchad]

A long, but well-reasoned and sobering response to these sorts of arguments:

Brave New World: Why We Must Invade Iraq

[finnman69]

He does not need to use it, he just has to threaten to nuke Tel Aviv or New York.

[secretagent]

Saddam won't "launch" a nuke against the US. He'll use Al Qaeda as a surrogate to detonate it in the US.

Too risky. If the agents of attack get caught, then he loses big time.

He won't need to use it. He'll just have it and then bully the region around. Because although it's madness to use a nuke to initiate a strike, it's perfectly rational to use it when you're about to be attacked. Hence, none of his neighbors would dare attack Saddam.

More plausible. But distracts from the goal of getting Al Qaeda.

[GHOST WRITER]

I suppose Sadam was not suicidal enough to attempt to asassinate an ex-President of the United States, George Bush. If he's crazy enough to do that, thinking he can get away with it, he's crazy enough to give weapons of mass destructions to Al Qaeda to use against us.