Geoff Hoon goes mad

Clementine · February 3, 2003, 1:59pm

Saddam can be ‘absolutely confident’ Britain is willing to use nuclear weapons against him, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has warned.

Is he mad or what?!

I wonder how much it helps to threat Saddam with this stupid statement.

Pax_Vitae · February 3, 2003, 4:05pm

Here is the Story on BBC News!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1883258.stm

BBC News
The UK is prepared to use nuclear weapons against rogue states such as Iraq if they ever used “weapons of mass destruction” against British troops in the field, defence secretary Geoff Hoon has told MPs.

Mr Hoon said he was not certain Britain’s nuclear arsenal would deter a first strike from a state willing to sacrifice its own people to make a “gesture”.

He also told MPs the possibility of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction was a cause for “real anxiety” and something “we would have to guard against very seriously”.

However, he stressed, there was no evidence that any terrorist group had so far acquired such weapons.

And the prospect of terrorists acquiring ballistic missiles was not considered a major threat.

Mr Hoon was briefing MPs on the threat posed by four countries identified by the UK as “states of concern” - Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Chemical weapons
"There are clearly some states who would be deterred by the fact that the UK possesses nuclear weapons and has the willingness and ability to use them in appropriate circumstances, " he told the Commons defence select committee.

"States of concern, I would be much less confident about.

"Saddam Hussein has demonstrated in the past his willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people.

“In those kinds of states, the wishes and needs and interests of citizens are clearly much less regarded, and we can not rule out the possibility that such states would be willing to sacrifice their own people to make such a gesture.”

No evidence

He added: "They can be absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons.

“What I can not be absolutely confident about is whether or not that would be sufficient to deter them from using a weapon of mass destruction in the first place.”

Of the four “states of concern” identified by the UK, Mr Hoon said North Korea appeared closest to developing intercontinental ballistic missiles.

There was no evidence of a direct threat to the UK from North Korea, he said.

But, he added: “Their threat is a threat to the stability of the world because they are clearly very determined to sell their equipment to anyone who has the cash to buy it.”

Mr Hoon also singled out Libya as a cause for concern.

"I am sure Libya has an aspiration to develop a weapon of mass destruction and, equally, would like to purchase the necessary technology to allow it to deliver it.

“That conjunction is something we keep a close eye on.”

Missile defence

Mr Hoon said he still considered Iraq the greatest threat the UK currently faced.

But, he stressed there were no states - to the government’s knowledge - that had both the intention and the ability to launch an attack against the UK.

Mr Hoon refused to be drawn on the extent of UK involvement in the development of the US missile defence - or son of Star Wars - system.

In a statement, he told the committee: "We have so far received no requests for from the United States for the use of sites in the UK for missile defence purposes.

"We do not know exactly what might be involved in any such requests nor when they might be made.

“If we are asked to make such a decision we will ofcourse do so on the basis of our own national interest.”

He said that would include the UK’s own national security, which includes the “security interests of our closest ally”.

"The US has made clear that it wants to see territory of its friends and allies protected from emerging missile threats.

“It has not yet said how this might be achieved. We are ready to engage positively in a dialogue on that question.”

Brad · February 3, 2003, 4:13pm

Why is this a difficult argument?

MAD is still live and well. If North Korea fires nuclear on South, North is destroyed (All of it). It has to be that way.

Pangloss · February 3, 2003, 4:26pm

Please let us know what the reality is on the Korean peninsula. Is containment working? Are young Koreans in the South genuinely convinced that the North could nuke them. Is this really real? If even a hint of ‘yes’, Get out mate!

As eccentric as Saddam or Kim is, surely launching a nuclear weapon on a much stronger (assuming the particpiation of allies/the US) military power, or on one of that power’s allied or client states, the would-be aggressor would also need a profound incentive since the invited response could plainly prove obliterative. What would be the point? This is the fundamental question in point?

Also what would China do with theirs after that? Jesus f****** Christ!

I need answers Brad, now!

(This need not apply if the potential antagonist were truly mad but all the alleged ‘terror states’, not least Iraq, appear to be ruled by edtermined - and, so far, notably successful - survivors.

The situation would be totally different if the antagonist, say Saddam, were to be pre-emptively assaulted but without all his retaliatory capabilities being destroyed immediately and at one go. He could otherwise then decide he had nothing to lose witha last defiant of probably suicidal throw. (This is one of several reasons why deterrence and containment rather pre-emption have for so long been the governing features of US, and NATO, defence policy.)

Will the proposed ‘blitzkreig’ attack be enough?

Regarding Korea, answers, Brad.