Weapons of mass destruction

The important question concerning WMD stockpiles, whether real or imagined, is the concept of the need for preemptive war to prevent their use. Many have come to the conclusion that "W's" second Iraq war was wrong.

I would define WMD as weapons that one time usage, such as a nuclear device, would kill thousands or more and unleash usage by the other side, resulting in even more carnage. We could define the CORONA virus as a WMD because it killed millions, but it is hard to prove the weapon was used intentionally. OTOH, Iraq used chemical weapons on its own populous and therefore violated "lawful warfare."

Should we turn China and Russia and North Korea into glass because they might use their nuclear weapons? The answer is NO.

 

Not sure that’s what the real issue was at the time. Yes, they said they believed the evidence supported the conclusion that the madman Saddam Hussein had a dangerously advanced program for nuclear WMDs.

But the issue was to prevent such a program from giving him real nuclear power. IIRC, the UN had sanctioned him some 26 times for not fully complying with inspectors.

His saber-rattling brought UN approved troops to his borders, which once there could not be withdrawn without his full compliance, which he steadfastly refused.

Not saying they did right, but it might be contrasted with the handling of the situation in Iran.

And then there’s the “Arab Spring” debacles. And “the winning of hearts and minds” in Afghanistan.