WHAT will Saddam do, and WHEN? It's time to assess the situation. (Vanity)

Btw, how much credence to you give this story? ["200 Soviet Nukes Lost in Ukraine"]

Who knows? We've seen reports like these for years. Sooner or later, one of them will turn out to be true. But I find it hard to believe that as many as this would be missing without word of some of them turning up somewhere.

As for an immediate threat, I'd be more concerned about anthrax than about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons require extensive maintenance; the use of a stolen weapon must require the knowledge of special information on it (a cryptographic key for use, perhaps, plus engineering documentation for maintenance and use), since reverse engineering would probably not be feasible. Anthrax is different; once the weaponization is done, the material can be easily transported anywhere, stored indefinitely, and used when desired. And smuggling it is much easier than smuggling a nuclear weapon.

But the bottom line is that we don't know.

But you're right, our best option is pre-emption. The problem is that in a world where WMD technology (especially bio-chem weapons) is accessible to third-world terrorist cesspools, and hiding them from our detection equipment virtual child's play, pre-emption becomes increasingly difficult, if not downright impossible. In short, we're f**ked.

Our immediate goal has to be to deal with these issues as aggressively as possible, and delay the onset of this new regimen in the world.

In the long run, however, this is the way things are headed technologically. Maybe nanotechnology and bioengineering can find a solution: imagine a swarm of millions of bacteria-sized robots scouring Iraq right now for an anthrax lab, for instance; or searching Afghanistan and Pakistan for bin Laden.

Also, it sounds like science fiction, but if things go in the direction we're discussing, space travel and colonization will look increasingly attractive as means of achieving dispersal of the species, as well as a refuge for the individual. Needless to say, this is looking well into the future.

A first strike with weapons of mass destruction is certain to result in the retaliatory destruction of Iraq, but not necessarily in Saddam's personal destruction.It would be a safe assumption I would think to believe that some of the area in Iraq would be reduced to small pebbles......

Saddam is warned: We'd nuke Baghdad
The chilling warning to Iraq was revealed by former Tory Premier John Major, who led Britain in the 1991 Gulf War.
During that conflict, allied forces were armed with “battlefield” nuclear weapons and prepared to use them in a counter attack, he said.
Saddam was privately warned his capital would be obliterated if he used weapons of mass destruction against allied troops or Middle East targets — including Israel.

It would be a safe assumption I would think to believe that some of the area in Iraq would be reduced to small pebbles......

Seems like a safe assumption to me, too.

If Saddam would stay in his own cage, we would let him beat up on his own people to his heart's content. Lot's of tinhorn dictators around the world do just that.

Problem is, Saddam has delusions of grandeur that make him a threat to the United States. It appears that threats against his country are not sufficient deterrence. The use of terrorist organizations as proxies ("cut-outs") gives him a fig leaf of deniability that, if allowed to succeed, would guarantee attacks on us in the future.

We already face the possibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction against our civilian population. If we do nothing, that threat grows. The price we will pay may already be very high. Unfortunately, it gets worse, not better, if we wait.

The best argument I know for waiting is to give us more time to prepare our civilian defenses against biological attack. I do not know how ready we are at this time. I hope we are much better prepared than is publicly admitted.

However, I also know that the present risk must be balanced against the future risk, and that a judgment call must be made as to when the best time to act might be. That judgment call is up to President Bush. He has asked Congress to support his decision. It is a decision that could cost many, many lives. I pray that the good Lord will guide him (and Congress) in this decision.

That said, it appears that the administration has concluded action is needed sooner rather than later. They have emphasized that the threat is growing, and that time is short. Thus far, they have not released details to the public. Tony Blair will be releasing at least some details next week.

Personally, I believe them. I would not believe Slick Willie, and am thankful to have a President I trust in this crisis.

BTW: This does NOT mean I support the administration across the board.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.