isn’t the whole point of having a WMD is because its a deterrent?
so how can you just randomly decide to invade Iraq BECAUSE they have WMD? wouldn’t they just use them on you if they had them? isn’t this just a flat out illogical so therefore a very obvious lie that doesn’t even need proving?
Comments
Look up what ‘MAD’ stands for in this context and it will answer your question
WMDs are just a deterant against other WMDs. You need one to stop other countries using theirs against you. You can never use it against a country who has one because then you will both destroy each other. Without one you basicly lose before even starting. So you can still wage war against each other as if they are not at play. It is still dangerous however because if one country is on the brink of losing there is technically nothing stopping them from firing off their WMD anymore as they already are destroyed.
Well that was the whole point. It was a bullshit argument that a lot of people saw through.
Having Weapons of Mass Destruction and actually using them are two vastly different things.
The USA for example has WMDs of their own, most prominently their nuclear arsenal, but as far as we know they haven’t used them since the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
Also, Iraq was heavily protesting the accusation of having WMDs.
Iraq was accused of trying to develop WMD’s but not having the capability or a fully developed bomb at the time of Gulf War 2 that W and Co. claimed was their reason to go to war. Curveball and all the other evidence was later proven false and junk and nothing was ever found in Iraq after the invasion.
Thus like Trump will use with Iran, but note, he was the one who pulled out of the Nuke agreement with them and thus they started to enrich uranium again.
Arsonist lights the fire, calls the fire department and claims victory.
There’s a difference between having a weapon, and having a credible deterrent.
The Iraqi nuclear program was alleged to be fairly mature in developing a weapon, but its missile and other delivery programs were known to be significantly less advanced. This presented a narrowing window of opportunity where Iraq had the potential to cause significant destruction, but lacked the means to actually threaten the US with it.
That made intervention in the short-term feasible, but increasingly uncertain as (real) Iraqi Missile capabilities developed further.
Wmds are not all the same. The mutually assured destruction (mad) piece is the basis of the wmds as deterrents. Iraq didn’t have advanced capability to deploy their wmds. They could only use them fairly locally, so there wasn’t much risk to NATO because of them.
As far as Iraq goes:
There are degrees of ‘having’ WMDs. The USA-led coalition complained that Saddam was developing WMDs, that he could deploy some of them quickly, and that he could sell or give them to anti-Western actors.
They were not claiming that Saddam possessed an apocalyptic arsenal that could destroy the USA. They were claiming that he had weapons which could destroy a town or a city.
If North Korea fired a nuclear weapon, it would be annihilated by the Western allies. People are not worried about North Korea using its nuclear weapons to achieve a military victory. What people are worried about is the damage North Korea could cause before it was atomised.
The US knew Iraq had WMDs because they literally had the receipts. Chemical weapons were supplied to Iraq for use during the Iran-Iraq war.
Chemical weapons were no deterrent against the USA as Iraq had no delivery system to use them to attach the USA.
So I am saying this as an American who has noticed a lot of world powers (even before the current climate) criticize the USA for being the only people to drop the atomic bomb.
I think some(maybe most) countries operate on a soft belief that most other countries will not employ WMDs even if they have them available.
As you see there is a lot of propaganda going on in the internet and mostly in the richest countries.
First of all Iraq did not have them and that is proven.
They knew it and they had to find a reason to get into Iraq somehow.
Ask yourself why the USD is so strong.
World wide influence. It doesnt matter if positive or negative.
USA wealth is based on having the highest consumer rate and this way making money. Its like permanent tourism but in your own country with your own people, of course this is not stable.
Ask yourself why their military seems so strong.
World wide influence.
They are alowed to have their aircraft carriers standing everywhere around the world. Others allow it for whatever reasons.
World wide influence and the highest consumer spendings is all they have.
Iraq was getting too strong and Iraq is only an example here.
If one person activates a WMD everybody will and we all are going to die.
They knew Iraq woudnt activate theirs because there was none.
But looks like a rotten orange may be the breaking point of a consume based country, so poetic.
Somebody is late to the party
A lot of things are considered WMD’s.
The reason some can use them as deterrents is because they can send them very far, very fast, in such a way that others can’t be sure to intercept them.
You can have nukes, for example.
But if you ain’t got big enough, fast enough, sneaky enough rockets to send them to where your enemy lives without getting shot down, the enemy ain’t gonna care.