Hello all. This is an essay I’ve just been writing. I’m very tired, so there may be typos and such. I’ll finish it off some other time. Enjoy…
THE USA’S INVASION OF IRAQ, MARCH 2003
1.0: HISTORY
I’ll do this later…
2.0: NBC WEAPONS
Lately the press in the USA, Britain, and Australia have been using the new and fashionable term “weapons of mass desrtuction”, which is commonly abbreviated to WMDs. However, the term commonly used by the military is NBC weapons, or Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons.
Nuclear weapons are things such as:
- Atomic fission bombs, designed to create a massive explosion, which result in radioactive matter being spread over a wide area.
- Neutron bombs, which have a rather small explosion but produce a massive burst of radiation to harm all nearby life.
- “Dirty bombs”, another fashionable term for a conventional explosive which is used to spread radioactive material.
Chemical weapons are things such as nerve gas, sleeping gas, mustard gas, and so on. Weapons which deploy harmful or debilitating chemicals. These weapons have a definite, limited lifespan, and a limited area of effect. Generally they tend to have more immediate effects than biological weapons.
Biological weapons represent a greater danger than chemical weapons, due to the fact that they can travel through host organisms until actively hunted and killed. In theory, a biological weapon might contaminate the entire world. Usually the effects of biological weapons are slower than those of chemical weapons, as the pathogen must infect a subject, incubate, and grow within the subject. It may then spread to other carriers over days, weeks, or months, until the symptoms progress enough to prevent further travel and contact by the carrier.
2.1: WHO HAS NBC WEAPONS?
Iraq is known to have possessed certain amounts of chemical and biological weapons up to the time of the Desert Storm campaign of 1991. It is known because the USA, Britain, and Germany sold to Iraq these weapons and the means to produce more of them.
The USA currently maintains around nine and a half thousand nuclear weapons (1). Also keep in mind the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, under which the USA and USSR could have only two areas (later one area) covered by ballistic missile protection, in such a way that neither could have nation-wide ballistic missile protection. Yes, the USA’s current development of a “missile shield” constitutes breaking a treaty.
The USA, in contravention of a treaty it signed (3), produced and stockpiled chemical weapons. In fact, the USA has over 25,000 tons of chemical weapons, including the deadly VX nerge agent. The USA has several mutinions dedicated to, or capable of, using chemical weapons, such as the M60 105mm, the M360 105mm, the M104 155mm, M110A/A2 155mm, M121/A1 155mm, M122 155mm, M687 155mm, M426 8-inch, the M23 landmine, and the M55 rocket.
As for biological weapons, the US army has recently apologised for experimenting on US civilians for decades (4). Under Project 112, the US military sprayed New York, San Franciso, and other cities with Aspergillus fumigatus, B. subtilis var. globigii, and Serratia marcescens. This in contravention of yet another treaty signed by the USA (5).
2.3: DOES IRAQ POSSESS NBC WEAPONS?
It is known that Iraq has in the past had chemical weapons. Why? Because they used them during the Iran-Iraq war. Many incidents supposedly occurred, and some have been verified by international inspectors, such as the attack on Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984. There is substantial evidence to support claims of six other chemical weapon attacks between 26 February and 17 March of that year (6). Again, we KNOW that Iraq had these weapons.
However, it must be kept in mind that all chemical and biological weapons have a limited shelf life. They do not last for ever. Some estimates put the shelf life of most common chemical weapons at around five years, and two or three years for most common biological agents.
United Nations inspectors have been in Iraq for most of the time since the end of the Desert Storm campaign. In over ten years, nobody found ANY evidence that Iraq was still producing chemical or biological weapons. And as for nuclear weapons, the IAEA decalred conclusively that Iraq has no nuclear weapons and is not trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq had in the past tried to develop the capability, but the IAEA’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office clearly shows that all such attempts were curtailed and the Iraq nuclear weapns programme was shut down entirely (7). Currently, there is no evidence that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons.
2.2: THE RIGHT TO POSSESS NBC WEAPONS
By what measure do we judge who can or can’t possess NBC weapons? Do we base it on past performance of a state? Or do we base it on some universal idea that all NBC weapons should be illegal, for everyone?
If we base the restriction on a nation-by-nation examination of each state’s past performance, then we must apply an even hand, view each state by the same measure. Yes, Iraq used chemical weapons against armed rebel villages in the north of Iraq, and against Iranian soldiers. But then, the USA used nuclear weapons against civilian cities, used chemical weapons in their conflict with Vietnam (Agent Orange), and even tested chemical and biological weapons against its own citizens. Yet the world seems to accept the USA possessing such things. So clearly we are not basing our judgement on past performance.
A universal restriction? Should everyone dispose of all such weapons? I would like that to happen. But smaller nations such as North Korea want to develop such weapons to make them immune to threats from much larger forces such as the USA. And the USA wishes to maintain such weapons to threaten such smaller powers, just in case. Yes, that’s right, fear of each other keeps those weapons around.
We could reduce this to a simple question: Does any of us have the right to give another person botulism, to spray our neighbour with nerve gas, or to detonate a nuclear weapon in the local school? Since humans are inherently social creatures (we survived the rigours of natural selection by functioning in societies), it is inherently anti-human to do such things.
3.0: JUDGEMENT AND INTERFERING WITH OTHER NATIONS
Does one nation have the right to judge another? In my opinion, the answer is yes. If we did not judge others, then Hitler’s armies would have taken the world. But people judged him and NAZI Germany, judged them to be detrimental, and fought against them. Judgement means we use steel instead of iron. Judgement means we use good materials over bad. It means we try to cut down carbon dioxide emissions. It means we lock up serial killers. Judgement is right, natural, and necessary for a society to function.
Perhaps an analogy can help. If you see your neighbour beating his wife, you can do two things: ignore it, or interfere. Ignore it, and he will keep beating her. Interfere, by going in yourself to stop it, or by calling the police, and you change the situation. personally I think it is right to interfere, to stop the man beating his wife. So then, you may ask, isn’t it right for the USA to charge int Iraq and save its people from Saddam Hussein? Not quite. That abused woman won’t be saved if the one interfering is just another wife-beating drunk. Let’s face it, the USA used nuclear weapons on civilian cities, used chemical and biological weapons against its own people, has more than twenty million people living in poverty, has been bombing Iraq for more than ten years (8 ), and since 1776 has only twenty-one years of peace (9). Interference may be necessary, but the USA is not the one to do it. That wife-beating drunk will only cause more harm to the lady.
3.1: JUDGING NATIONS BASED ON PAST PERFORMANCE
Again, can we judge a nation based on its past performance? Here I will cover ground I have already covered, in other ways. If we are to judge a nation based on past performance, we must judge all nations in that manner. A point-form list should illustrate why this methhod of judgement does not support the idea that Iraq should be attacked:
Iraq:
- Known to have used chemical weapons at least once.
- Broke a treaty regarding medium range ballistic missiles.
- Invaded Kuwait, and had a war with Iran.
- Saddam Hussein is accused of torturing some of his people.
USA:
- Has used nuclear weapons against civilians.
- Has used chemical weapons against civilians.
- Has used biological weapons against its own civilians.
- Is known to have massive stockpiles of NBC weapons.
- Broke international treaties regarding NBC weapons.
- Has attacked Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, and many other states.
- Is known to have over twenty million people living in poverty.
- George Bush was ultimately responsible for the executions of 152 citizens while he was governor of Texas.
Well, I’m sure there are many other points which could be listed, but you get the picture, I’m sure. If we judge nations based on their past performance, then surely it is the USA, not Iraq, which should be attacked. Not that I am advocating such, I’m merely pointing out the logic involved.
3.2: JUDGING NATIONS BASED ON FUTURE THREATS
This, to me, is the most pathetic reasoning we have seen so far from George Bush, the president of the USA. His main reason for attacking Iraq seems to be that some day, possibly, in some hypothetical future, Iraq MIGHT attack the USA or MIGHT provide terrorists with NBC weapons.
First, consider the logic of attacking someone because of what they MIGHT do. The USA has millions of people with privately owned guns. The USA has a very high rate of murder. Shouldn’t every USA citizen, then, go out and start killing other USA citizens who own guns, because some day they MIGHT shoot someone? This is George Bush’s logic. Heck, everyone in the world should go out and start killing people who they think MIGHT some day attack other people. Clearly, this line of reasoning by Bush is ridiculous.
What about terrorists? Might Iraq some day arm terrorists? Apart from the general stupidity of attacking people absed on what they MIGHT do, let’s consider a little more history. It is claimed that Al Qaeda (a terrorist organisation) operatives once trained in Iraq. Does the USA have links to that very same terrorist organisation? Yes, it does. In fact, the USA organised and trained Al Qaeda as a guerilla army to fight against the USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
4.0: THE EFFECTS ON IRAQ
Unlike, George Bush, I don’t like to base my course of action on what MIGHT possibly happen. But here I will say what I suspect will be the effects of this attack on Iraq.
For a start, the Iraqi people will once more feel a massive blow to their dignity, from being beaten down once again, from having their way of life dictated to them by an outside force. Resentment will build. Over time, the country will be more anti-USA than ever.
Iraq may develop a reasonably strong economy IF the USA does what it has pledged and invests heavily in rebuilding the country - in rebuilding what it is about to destroy. But this will not halt the rising tide of anti-USA sentiment.
4.1: THE EFFECTS ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
I have no doubt whatsoever that this attack against Iraq will prompt more people to dislike the USA and its policy of securing its overseas interests through violence. This can only increase the tensions between the USA and its allies on once hand, and their proclaimed enemies on the other.
4.2: THE EFFECTS ON THE USA
The USA actually desires such increased tensions, and possibly even desires further retaliatory attacks against the USA. Why? Quite simply, because then the USA president can say “See? I told you they were nasty people. Now I need to send my military over there, there, and there. Either you’re with us or against us. This is my policy for the world, so suck it up and deal with it. And by the way, I need more tax dollars to pay for this…” In short, the increasing tensions will be used to justify further USA military actions, and further changes within the USA, such as the insane Patriot Act.
FOOTNOTES
- Details of the USA nuclear stockpile can be viewed at:
- Details of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty can be viewed at:
- fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/
- fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/docs/abm1.htm
- fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/text/abm2.htm
- Convention On The Prohibition Of The Development, Production, Stockpiling, And Use Of Chemical Weapons And On Their Destruction. The text of the treaty can be viewed at:
Details of the US military chemical weapons projects can be viewed at:
- Details of the US military experimenting with biological weapons on civilians can be viewed at:
- Biological And Toxin Weapons Convention. Deatils can be views at:
- Details of these incidents can be viewed at:
- Details of Iraq’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and the failure of such attempts, can be viewed at:
Details of the continual bombing of Iraq by USA forces can be viewed at:
- Details of the USA’s chronology of warfare since 1776 can be viewed at: