America's Bid For Global Dominance

[Shi Huangdi]

Having Nukes by their very nature increase your political power. The USSR wouldn't have had the same influence if it was without nukes. If Saddam has the ability to say "Don't do this or else I will give a nuke to Al Qaeda" or "Don't do this or I will destroy Israel" that is of course going to increase his power. A nuclearized Iraq could provide a counterbalance to US power in the region.

[chequita guevara]

Not much of one. Plus the case still hasn't been made that Hussein is tupid enough and insane enough to hand over an a-bomb to those who would just as soon use it against him. That leaves the Israel threat, and frankly, that would be suicide. The bomb's only valid function is defensive, don't invade or I'll use my bomb. Well, we shouldn't be invading anyway.

[chequita guevara]

And no one's proven they have the capacity to make a bomb. The Administration's just BAMing.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not much of one. Plus the case still hasn't been made that Hussein is tupid enough and insane enough to hand over an a-bomb to those who would just as soon use it against him. That leaves the Israel threat, and frankly, that would be suicide. The bomb's only valid function is defensive, don't invade or I'll use my bomb. Well, we shouldn't be invading anyway.

I don't think Saddam would just secretly hand over the bomb to Al-Qaeda, but he could threaten the US "Don't do this or I will give the bomb to Al-Qaeda who will destroy you". And I think it's alot more likely OBL would nuke a western country then Iraq.

Right now we have the ability to prevent Saddam from doing stuff we don't want him to do by threatening to take military action. If Saddam gets the bomb, we lose that threat and Saddam can run free. Other countries in the region will also then have ability to ally with Saddam and then be free from US influence similarly.

If the USSR didn't have the bomb, do you think it would have been able to project the power it did? Don't you think NATO could have been alot more agressive and threatening if the communists didn't have the ability to nuke us? Having Nukes makes it easier for you to project power, not just be free from invasion.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And no one's proven they have the capacity to make a bomb. The Administration's just BAMing.

We know they definitely have been trying to acquire one, and they haven't been cooperating with UN inspectors. And many intelligence experts would disgaree with you, it's not as hard to get the bomb anymore- even Iran is working on it. There was a thread a while back on Poly that had an article detailing Saddam's efforts to get the bomb...

[The Mad Monk]

In response to the thread title:

Waddaya mean, 'bid'?

[GePap]

A Saddam with nukes is not a threat to the US, or US interest in the Gulf. Period. The theory of deterence worked just fine with the USSR, it works just fine over Taiwan, and it would work just as well with Saddam. Until someone proides a game theory arguement, backed with evidence, that Saddam with nukes could not be dettered, I will continue to think that the WMD arguments is crap, utter and useless crap.

The 'war on terror' is a horribily incorrect name: it is a war with Al Qaeda, nothing more, nothing less; and since the admin has failed to show worthwhile evidence of Saddams connections to Al qaeda, a war with iraq has nothing to do with our war with Al qaeda.

North Korea is the great show of the problems with the Perle argument. Men such as him overestimate the US's direct power. The weakness of our direct power is exemplified by the slow, deliberate pace of the anti-Iraq campaign, in which the US has had to use its soft power to try to cajole individuals into joining us. And DPRK (a far greater nuclear threat, with more advcanced nuclear and ballistic programs than Saddam could hope for) is simply an even greater proof. The US can't force Japan, china, Russia, or even S. Korea into a more aggressive stance (in fact, what was done sort of boomeranged in Korea in this last election) so we are left with an drifting response, while unable to step back since the top dog mentality at the Pentagon makes such a stepping back, and negotiating politically damaging.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by GePap
Men such as him overestimate the US's direct power.

I agree with most of your statement, except for this sentence.

First of all, US raw power IS vast, no doubt about that. Second, this wouldn´t be much of a problem unless coupled with political analphabetism of most Americans.

This may sound harsh, but it is proven by the fact that they let agents of a foreign power (Israel), such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Fleischer etc run the show.

[Az]

oh, look who the cat dragged in.

[GePap]

What is the practical evidence of this great power? By this I mean not a simple regurgitation of equipment lists or force structure, but the ability of the US to create favorable political outcomes with its direct (military, and direct economic) power.

There are many limits to US power. One huge one is internal politics. The american people, as a whole are reluctant to use large scale miloitary forces without some given provocation. Now, an admin. way strech the meaning of a provocation as they have done with 9/11, but an act is still crucial to get the american people to support large scale action. If the admin decided tommorrow to invaed Venezuela, would it find any political support at home? Hardly.

When thinking about US power, most people ignore nukes as a pratical thing: why? Not becaue anyone doubts the ability of the US to devastate vast regions of the world, but because this power would bring with it no political gains. Russia shares this ability to devastate the world, but its real political power has declined greatly since that ability means nothing in the realm of politics.

Take DPRK: no doubt the US could beat the DPRK in any war, but only if it has access to Korean bases and japanese bases. Now, can the US, with it great power, be able to force any Japanese of S. korean regime into allowing the US to use its bases, for lest say, a pre-empive war against N.Korea? NO. The US couldn't sail a couple of carrier groups up to Japan's coast and say: we demand you allow the use of your bases so that we can invade N.Korea. Back in the 19th century imperial [powers could do so, but the realities of nationalism makes the political effects of direct threats much lower than before. Which means that event he global 'hegemon' is contrained by political considerations that would have been meaningless just 100 years ago.

[Comrade Tribune]

Yes, world opinion matters, in the sense that the US cannot simply invade anybody without any preparation. But they can still use money and subversion to undermine states like Venezuela, and if they really want to go to war, they will create an incident. If resistance to war is truely a problem, an 'incident' is going to happen, and the White House will say that Iraq did it, without any proof, as usual. And the war will start. It´s as simple as that. It worked for Hitler, why shouldn´t it work for Bush?

[ranskaldan]

On the other hand, what exactly do you think is happening in Iraq, in Afghanistan? Why do you think Saudi Arabia is trying as hard as possible to get cozy with the West? What is it that kept China away from Taiwan for over 50 years?

Each hegemon (and I use this word without quotes) has had its problems. No hegemon can do whatever it feels. But on the other hand, no other superpower has ever been able to turn every single culture of the world into working for itself. But America has. How many Middle Eastern regimes support America in the face of massive populous disapproval? How many East Asian nations depend on America for investments? How many European country(s) still fight among themselves along ideological lines? This is the definition of hegemony - not worldwide Empire, but worldwide, irresistible influence and dominance.

The age of global wars is over. America can no longer embark on massive wars of conquest that Alexander and Caesar managed to do, because America has found tools that are far safer and more lucrative in our day and age. With commodities and markets, nukes and diplomacy, America dominates.

[Kramerman]

A Saddam with nukes is not a threat to the US, or US interest in the Gulf. Period. The theory of deterence worked just fine with the USSR, it works just fine over Taiwan, and it would work just as well with Saddam. Until someone proides a game theory arguement, backed with evidence, that Saddam with nukes could not be dettered, I will continue to think that the WMD arguments is crap, utter and useless crap.

See, that is the point. The last thing we want is Saddam to have a deterence. See, the deterence thing works both ways. With Nukes covering him, he would have much more freedom to do what he wishes. Perhaps invade Kuwait again.

And for earlier posts, who said that by giving an a-bomb to terrorists, he would be giving one to OBL or Al Quieda. He could give an a-bomb to a massive list of American enemies and terrorist groups to where there would be no threat of a backlash to Saddam. He could also give an a-bomb to a long, long list of those who would wish to use it against Israel. If done secretly, never would enough proof be found to link the bomb with Iraq in order to invade with the world's consent. As, the evidence in hand presently that he in fact has a nuclear program is still seen as insufficient by many to even just merely send in inspectors...

Also, one of OBL big things against America is how we have troops, or "infidels" stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, tainting the holy land. He uses this fact to rile up much hatred and antipathy against the US and other western nations among the Muslim populace. Why are these troops there? they are there to protect Saudi Arabia and kuwait from another Iraqi invasion. With saddam gone, and a more friendly Iraqi government in place, these troops could be removed, appeasing much of the hatred in that region.

kman

[Lonestar]

In all seriousnous of a question, what is so "Bad" about an American Hagemony? I thought America's job was to look out for one thing; Number 1. (# 1 being America).

Getting rid of an asshat like Saddam Hussein (and, I might add, ridding us of Saudi oil Relience and setting the stage for putting the screws on them) is simply a nice sideeffect.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Kramerman

Perhaps invade Kuwait again.

Perhaps with nukes Saddam becomes more of a player in the eventual Saudi Succession Sweepstakes.