DrewDad wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:parados wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:It's moot. Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there might have been workable WMD, and we couldn't take the chance.
Brandon proves once again that he does not understand risk management.
Really? Can you support this assertion, or is it just a lot of hot air?
You proved it in your 5 point assessment of the situation.
You failed to address any of the possible downsides of an invasion. That is a pretty common error by people that don't understand risk management. They play up the issues that support their preconceived conclusion while ignoring or playing down anything that doesn't support it.
This statement is your downfall right here.
Quote:4. One single use of one of some weapons of this class could annihilate hundreds or thousands of people.
It is nothing but an emotional appeal. You even highlighted it in red to make it more emotional.
No, it's a practical appeal. I'm stating what the stakes were. We actually don't want a superweapon to annihilate one of our cities, so any non-negligible possibility that an evil dictator might acquire the capability must be treated with the utmost seriousness.
parados wrote:Yes, a single weapon can kill thousands but you have failed to address if he has them or not....
No, I have not failed to address it at all. My point is that based on the history there was some reasonable probability that he was in the process of acquiring them.
parados wrote:...and how he could possibly deliver any such weapon to do damage.
I have addressed exactly this issue over and over again in posts on this board. He could have agents smuggle the components of the weapon into the target city, reassemble the components, and detonate the weapon from inside. Fascinating that you tell me that I have failed to address something that I have addressed numerous times in posts.
parados wrote:Nor have you dealt with any possible countermeasures. The risk of any weapon being used effectively by Saddam is actually quite small and there are many countermeasures that could be undertaken that would cost less and be more effective in the long run.
What countermeasures would you propose against a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear and/or biological weapons?
Your logic has holes large enough to drive Abram's tanks through.
A. You provide no rational analysis of the danger. ("We estimate x number of deaths in y years.") Without this, you cannot calculate any sort of risk management plan. Saying there is "a danger" does not quantify the danger.
B. You present a false dilemma. It is not simply a choice between invade or risk a nuclear bomb.
These points have been made again and again to you; I have no hope that you will "get it" this time.
These are some of the facts:
1. An evil dictator, in the habit of trying to annex his neighbors, had development programs for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
2. He promised by treaty to disarm, but instead lied, blocked, and obfuscated for years.
3. Now, a dozen years down the road, he was once again claiming cooperation. He claimed to have destroyed the weapons and programs, but had no really convincing proof. One couldn't really say whether he was telling the truth or lying again.
The inevitable conclusion was that there was a non-trivial probability that he was still hiding WMD programs and still lying about it. There was also a non-trivial probability that he was now, finally, telling the truth, although oddly, he had no convincing evidence, like the remains of the destroyed weapons, film of the labs being disassembled, etc.
You say:
Quote:Saying there is "a danger" does not quantify the danger.
How much danger was there? Even a small chance of nukes and bioweapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein would be a colossal danger, and clearly there was a reasonable chance that he was continuing to hide the weapons and programs. In the real world, you can't always quantify the danger with numbers, but clearly the incredible lethality of weapons of this class create a very large danger, even based on, say, a 5% chance that he had them (I am not saying this is the number, only giving a for instance.) The idea that if someone cannot put a number to the danger, there is no danger is baloney.
You say:
Quote:You present a false dilemma. It is not simply a choice between invade or risk a nuclear bomb.
No, it's a real dilemma. There were only just so many possible solutions. We could have continued to rely on the inspections, even though a dozen years had yielded no conclusive result. However, there was a range of possible scenarios, and had Hussein been stalling for time until his development programs reached fruition, the world might have paid a terrible, terrible price.
Furthermore, as technology marches on and WMD come within the reach of less sophisticated groups, this scenario will play out again and again, and some of the time, people who promise that they are not seeking WMD, will be doing so in secret, as the North Koreans did.
