Future WMD threats and Tony Blair

[matthew22081991]

I believe that in light of the recent developments in the Iraq Enquiry, whereby Tony Blair has said that he'd "do it again", as it were, this has increased the threat from WMDs. He also claimed that, had there not been an invasion, and Saddam Hussein increased oil revenues, then we could be facing a nuclear or WMD armed Iraq today.

Tony Blair is now the boy who cried wolf. Now, even worse, he's the unrepentant boy who cried wolf. If there is ever a real threat of WMDs, politicians will find it a bit of a taboo to start pointing out the threat, not wishing to be equated with Blair. Either that, or the public will simply be too sceptical.

Now, of course, with regards to Iran, most people in Britain agree there probably is something fishy about their 'civilian' nuclear project, but I am not sure they'd support a government intervention thanks to Iraq. This could potentially leave the US on it's own against Iran or perhaps the US won't get involved without British support. Obviously we all hope there never is a war with Iran, but to be frank, if they build a nuclear weapon, and don't respond to non-military pressure, military force might be necessary. Iran is, after all, an unstable country, and an unstable country with nuclear weapons is not a pretty thought, especially since Iran tends to deal with internal problems by creating external pressure on the West.

Iran is not the only country, either. Pakistan is becoming less stable, and if, God forbid, terrorists were ever to get hold of one of their nuclear weapons, how would the British people react?

What I am saying is, thanks to Blair, perhaps we are more at risk from WMDs or nuclear weapons.

So, what do you lot think? The points up for discussion are:

1) Is there a threat from WMDs or nuclear weapons?
2) Has Tony Blair's unrepentance and/or his lies over Iraq increased the threat?
3) Does the potential of a country to build nuclear weaponry or WMDs justify invasion?
4) How will the British public (or indeed another country's public) respond to a government that tries to persuade them action against or in such countries is necessary?

 

[Herodotus]

I believe that in light of the recent developments in the Iraq Enquiry, whereby Tony Blair has said that he'd "do it again", as it were, this has increased the threat from WMDs. He also claimed that, had there not been an invasion, and Saddam Hussein increased oil revenues, then we could be facing a nuclear or WMD armed Iraq today.

Tony Blair is now the boy who cried wolf. Now, even worse, he's the unrepentant boy who cried wolf. If there is ever a real threat of WMDs, politicians will find it a bit of a taboo to start pointing out the threat, not wishing to be equated with Blair. Either that, or the public will simply be too sceptical.

Now, of course, with regards to Iran, most people in Britain agree there probably is something fishy about their 'civilian' nuclear project, but I am not sure they'd support a government intervention thanks to Iraq. This could potentially leave the US on it's own against Iran or perhaps the US won't get involved without British support. Obviously we all hope there never is a war with Iran, but to be frank, if they build a nuclear weapon, and don't respond to non-military pressure, military force might be necessary. Iran is, after all, an unstable country, and an unstable country with nuclear weapons is not a pretty thought, especially since Iran tends to deal with internal problems by creating external pressure on the West.

Iran is not the only country, either. Pakistan is becoming less stable, and if, God forbid, terrorists were ever to get hold of one of their nuclear weapons, how would the British people react?

What I am saying is, thanks to Blair, perhaps we are more at risk from WMDs or nuclear weapons.

So, what do you lot think? The points up for discussion are:

1) Is there a threat from WMDs or nuclear weapons?
2) Has Tony Blair's unrepentance and/or his lies over Iraq increased the threat?
3) Does the potential of a country to build nuclear weaponry or WMDs justify invasion?
4) How will the British public (or indeed another country's public) respond to a government that tries to persuade them action against or in such countries is necessary?

I will address your questions first then maybe go back and parse through some of your statements.

1) Is there a threat from WMDs or nuclear weapons?

WMD (chem/bio I presume) and nuclear weapons are two different issues. Also do you mean proliferation of these weapons, since they have existed, in the case of chemical weapons for nearly 100 years and in the case of nuclear weapons for 65 years. The danger may not come from the said existence of these weapons but rather the imbalance in capabilities. One or two, or three states have a preponderance of the total nuclear weapons, so there is a school of thought that believes that if nuclear weapons spread the likelihood of war decreases: Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (London: International Institute f as nuclear weapons force states to act more rationally.

As far as Chem/Bio we can look at the empirical evidence; how many state sponsored chemical attacks have there been, how many state sponsored biological attacks have there been? Aside from Saddam Hussein and Iranian responses in the Iran-Iraq war there haven't been many chemical attacks. Bio weapons are even more rarely used . I don't think there has been a state sponsored attack though others with more knowledge on the subject may know better than I.

2) Has Tony Blair's unrepentance and/or his lies over Iraq increased the threat?

That is kind of a loaded question. I don't really want to get into the politics of the war since there are other forums that deal with that and the merits/demerits of preemption and prevention has been discussed. http://www.twq.com/03spring/docs/03spring_freedman.pdf


3) Does the potential of a country to build nuclear weaponry or WMDs justify invasion?

Well again two different issues: nuclear and non-nuclear WMD. Invasion or war depends on a lot of factors: threat perception, national interests, cost-benefit analysis, domestic political considerations, etc. I think all of those issues need to be taken into account and it isn't as simple as country A is building nukes/WMD therefore invasion. South Africa actually successfully proliferated nuclear weapons in the 1980s and then unbidden destroyed their capabilities. I don't think anyone was talking about invasion then, but I could be wrong.


4) How will the British public (or indeed another country's public) respond to a government that tries to persuade them action against or in such countries is necessary?

How does any public respond in a democracy, or any other form of government? There will be factions for any action and factions that are against it. In a democracy, if the faction opposed to the action is in the majority they can vote the political party out of office. If they are in a non-democracy well....

When it comes to Iran and nuclear weapons, "unstable" is another loaded term. What is the criteria? According to one study Iran is not that much more "unstable" then China: The Fund for Peace - Failed States Index Scores 2009 Pakistan and North Korea are considered worse off yet also have nuclear weapons. Per my first link to Waltz nuclear weapons may have the tendency to create more rational actors.

 

[Feanor]

This thread is very close to turning into a discussion about politics. Please keep it away from issues of political competence.