Confused about WMD and the premise for War

I'm a little bit confused about weapons of mass destruction and who is allowed to accuire, develop and have these various forms of WMD's

Primarily I am talking about nuclear weapons, but chemical and biological weapons are also covered. This topic is way too big for one post. And anyones help on the topic would be appreciated.

First off I do believe that Saddam Hussien was a delusional madman and the best thing for the people of Iraq was to remove him from office.
How ever I do not agree with the current occupation and how the war was waged.
We all know what the pretense for military action in Iraq was by the USA and coalition of the willing. Iraq possessed and was devolping WMD's and was involved with the September eleven 2001 incident.

What I am confused about is the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" which is aimed at stopping the spread of neclear weapons around the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

189 countries around the world have signed this treaty with five of those counties having nuclear weapons in their possession.

Three countries, India, Israel and Pakistan have never signed the treaty, North Korea signed the treaty but withdrew after violating it and are all believed to have neclear weapons.

According to leaked intelligence, Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona.
The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons, although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu—later abducted and jailed by Israel—revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 1986.

Now lets look at what they say about Iran.

The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities.[50]
As recently as October 2007, IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported that IAEA inspections had not found any evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons.[51]
Russia further said in November 2007 that it had not seen any evidence of Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon.
[52] In February 2008, the IAEA reported that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for. However, the IAEA also reported that it was working to address "alleged studies" of weaponization, based on documents provided by certain Member States, which those states claimed originated from Iran

Please take note of the last sentence as I find it quite interesting.

However, the IAEA also reported that it was working to address "alleged studies" of weaponization, based on documents provided by certain Member States, which those states claimed originated from Iran

Certian member states, I would really like to know who supplied this info that originated from Iran.

Now lets look at the bigger picture.
Israel has never signed this treaty and is known to have nuclear weapons.
Iran have signed this treaty and are devoloping nuclear power for peacefull reasons.
So why all the fuss over Iran and not Israel?

The way Israel is acting, it should be named a rouge state and treated as such, they think they can get away with anything and act as such.
If the USA has the right to invade and occupy Iraq for WMD's, The nations of the world have the right to invade Israel and occupy it aswell.

Peace will never be attained in this region of the middle east with Israel acting the way they are. They dont really seem to want peace. Israel is a failed nation that should never have been implemented in the first place. The United Nations needs and must do some thing to fix the problem the League of Nations and England caused.

The day that Israel uses nuclear weapons, will be the day it is too late to fix the problem. The crimes against hummanity that are being commited now show us how the Israeli government and military think, do you think its a safe world with them having nuclear weapons. I don't.

reply to post by TheKingsVillian[/url]

Biological Agents should, at best, be classified at a long term, strategic asset and not as weapons of mass destruction.

Chemical Agents are, on the other hand, a battlefield weapon best suited to gain a short term tactical advantage and again, should not be classified as weapons of mass destructions.

It is America and George Bush Snr who classified them as WMDs prior to Gulf War One.

Nuclear weapons are the true WMDs and [they] can now be delivered to any target, anywhere on the face of the earth and probably even to space.

They are both strategic and tactical in their use and their use should be seen as a last resort, though there are some people who would say that a nuclear war is winable providing the First Strike eliminates all their targets.

America is only country to have used them - on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Some would say that America committed war crimes when she dropped the second atomic bomb but, as we all know, the winners always right history.


Please have a look at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. That should help you to understand this vast and complex subject.

www.un.org...

[edit on 25-1-2009 by fritz]

It's kind of simple, the US and the UN decide who gets to have arms and who doesn't. I've NEVER seen any evidence supporting that Iraw HAD or were developing WMD's at all. I know he did use chemical weapons but they were by no means MASS DESTRUCTION weapons.

What the US is supposedly doing is trying to disarm all countries who possess WMD's and try to remove Nuclear weapons from the equation. But really WMD's are used as a means of control over certain populations who do not have them.

DO what we say or we'll Nuke you. That's why Iran wants they, so they have a bartering tool, and to stop getting pushed around by the various nations who threaten them.

Really the only un-safe group of people to own WMD's are the North Korean's and well Israel already has them soo....