From: Avatar Polymorph (avatarpolymorph@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 10:18:31 MST
Since there have been lots of posts on Iraq, I thought I might put up a copy
of a letter of mine. This has absolutely no bearing on my personal views on
war, violence or any conflict in Iraq. It is purely an assessment. Also, I
am fully cognizant of oil politics, Venezuela, etc. I might also add that I
am certain that many western countries, Australia and Japan included, could
have minor nuclear weapons capability within several hours of an
"emergency", whatever their official stated governmental positions.
Avatar
=======================
The impending US-UK war with Iraq is not primarily due to oil, terrorism,
biological or chemical weapons, human rights, dictatorship, punishment (for
the invasion of Kuwait) or revenge (for Saddam Hussein's survival of the
Gulf War) - however influential these factors have been from the sidelines.
The Iraqi war is due to the non-Western nuclear arms race.
Aerial bombing has already nullified Iraq's current nuclear weapons
production programme (beginning with the Israeli bombing of its nuclear
power plant in 1981 and continuing through Gulf War and post-Gulf War US-UK
air strikes).
However, the only non-Western nuclear power (China) has already been joined
by two others, India and Pakistan, with between several and several dozen
atomic bombs each.
The "Axis of Evil" was and is next in line. Iraq, Iran and North Korea have
all attempted to construct atomic weapons. This process is a continuing one
in Iran and North Korea, and has halted for the moment in Iraq.
The US has belatedly realized the danger of having allowed the Indian
sub-continent to enter the atomic arms race which had stabilized in Western
countries. Unlike South Africa, these countries will not voluntarily rescind
their nuclear weapons acquisition programmes. The US has convinced the other
Western nuclear powers that action is necessary.
The invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of will intended to intimidate Iran
and North Korea. If it does not succeed in disturbing their acquisitions
programme, it is highly likely that an aerial campaign will be fought
against Iran and that China will be placed under enormous pressure to
acquiesce to similar action in North Korea. They will be picked off one by
one by the West.
Many commentators would judge such a possibility to be ridiculous, given the
risks involved. However, these risks are not military risks at the strategic
level. It is likely that unmanned US fighter planes will be joining unmanned
US surveillance planes in the skis above Iran and North Korea.
Finally, having dealt with the "Axis of Evil" the US will not allow Pakistan
to retain its nuclear capability. India may have achieved a fait accompli
and joined China as a permanent nuclear power, due to its sheer size. The US
will however be reluctant to allow India, an unstable marginal democracy
only tentatively allied to the West, to add to the non-Western (Chinese)
nuclear arsenal at a time when the US and Russia wish to reduce their own
overall weapons numbers. (An uncontrolled non-Western nuclear arms race
could in itself easily double or treble the numbers of non-Western nuclear
arms, raising them to a thousand and altering the global strategic balance.)
The September 11 attacks have demonstrated to America that a rogue State
driven by ideology (Afghanistan) is capable of ruthless tactical attack
despite the inevitability of retaliation. From a military perspective the US
believes it must prevent State-level atomic attacks from occurring. Apart
from invading Afghanistan (punishment for September 11) and developing
anti-ballistic missile systems, this entails halting the non-Western nuclear
arms race by force, following the "demonstration" of consequence about to
play out in Iraq.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:41 MST