Surrendering weapons
Michael Gordon, NY Times:
...
"Libya's important and welcome decision to abandon its unconventional weapons programs is all the more interesting since the same government that got Libya into the business of developing forbidden weapons has now ordered the change of course.
"But the larger issue is whether North Korea and Iran can be similarly disarmed and, if so, how best to go about it.
"Libya never got very far down the nuclear road and its weapons programs were not enough of a worry to rate inclusion in the "axis of evil" proclaimed by President Bush in his State of the Union speech in 2002. (Iraq, Iran and North Korea made the cut).
"While Libya had acquired centrifuges on the black market, it had not assembled them into a large-scale cascade for producing highly enriched uranium. When it came to a nuclear arsenal, Libya was abandoning a distant — but still dangerous — dream, not a real ability.
"North Korea and Iran are much tougher cases and ultimately a far more important test of the Bush administration's efforts to roll back weapon programs through a mixture of force and diplomacy, rather than the more traditional reliance on weak international treaties and policing."
Prairiepudit analysis:
The problem with diplomatic solutions is that they leave the despot in power. If he changes his mind he can resart his WMD programs. While Gordon is correct that the Norks are unlikely to voluntarily give up their program, they are losing their market for missilis which raised the money to fund their program. They no longer have Iraq, Lybia and Pakistan. If Iran comes into line they will lose that market. Syria does not have the resources to be a big time purchaser from the Norks. With a shrinking market, the Norks will have to further starve their own people to maintain their program, which making them weaker, not stronger. The Nork leadership appears to be low functioning at best, but they may eventually come to understand that WMD make them more, not less vulnerable.
The Nork leadership appears to be so self absorbed that they do not recognize that the US could care less about them and their crummy country as long at they do not become threatening to their neighbors. By pursuing WMD they make themselves a threat, which prompts US concern. Offering to proliferate their technoligy raaises the threat level and makes them more vulnerable. With their flakey leadership, it is doubtful that anyone could survive telling them the truth. That was one of Saddam's problems, any messenger who told him they were losing would be tortured or killed. It is hard to respond when you do not know the facts.
Michael Gordon, NY Times:
...
"Libya's important and welcome decision to abandon its unconventional weapons programs is all the more interesting since the same government that got Libya into the business of developing forbidden weapons has now ordered the change of course.
"But the larger issue is whether North Korea and Iran can be similarly disarmed and, if so, how best to go about it.
"Libya never got very far down the nuclear road and its weapons programs were not enough of a worry to rate inclusion in the "axis of evil" proclaimed by President Bush in his State of the Union speech in 2002. (Iraq, Iran and North Korea made the cut).
"While Libya had acquired centrifuges on the black market, it had not assembled them into a large-scale cascade for producing highly enriched uranium. When it came to a nuclear arsenal, Libya was abandoning a distant — but still dangerous — dream, not a real ability.
"North Korea and Iran are much tougher cases and ultimately a far more important test of the Bush administration's efforts to roll back weapon programs through a mixture of force and diplomacy, rather than the more traditional reliance on weak international treaties and policing."
Prairiepudit analysis:
The problem with diplomatic solutions is that they leave the despot in power. If he changes his mind he can resart his WMD programs. While Gordon is correct that the Norks are unlikely to voluntarily give up their program, they are losing their market for missilis which raised the money to fund their program. They no longer have Iraq, Lybia and Pakistan. If Iran comes into line they will lose that market. Syria does not have the resources to be a big time purchaser from the Norks. With a shrinking market, the Norks will have to further starve their own people to maintain their program, which making them weaker, not stronger. The Nork leadership appears to be low functioning at best, but they may eventually come to understand that WMD make them more, not less vulnerable.
The Nork leadership appears to be so self absorbed that they do not recognize that the US could care less about them and their crummy country as long at they do not become threatening to their neighbors. By pursuing WMD they make themselves a threat, which prompts US concern. Offering to proliferate their technoligy raaises the threat level and makes them more vulnerable. With their flakey leadership, it is doubtful that anyone could survive telling them the truth. That was one of Saddam's problems, any messenger who told him they were losing would be tortured or killed. It is hard to respond when you do not know the facts.
Comments
Post a Comment