Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

We must take out Saddam now, before he's as invulnerable as Kim Jong-il

By Des Moore - posted Tuesday, 18 March 2003


By invasion? He'd take down with him at least Seoul and a good part of Tokyo and US bases in the area; and China would be up in arms, perhaps literally, at the prospect of sharing a land border with what would become a US protectorate.

By surgical strike, like Israel's on Iraq's Osiris reactor, on Kim's nuclear weapon and missile holdings and facilities? He has said he would take that as an act of war and respond with all the means at his command. In other words, he would make a suicide bomber of his whole country.

By sanctions and other controls, such as inspections, on what he can import and export and produce? He has said that, too, would be treated as an act of all-out war.

Advertisement

By bargaining our aid for his weapons and inspection of his nuclear and other facilities? That would be appeasement and has already been tried without lasting success.

By every nuclear power giving up its nuclear weapons, as the Canberra Commission foolishly recommended and the ALP is considering pursuing? That is an impossible and indeed dangerous dream, not least because at the first sign of big trouble hostile powers would, if they could, reconstitute their nuclear armories lest the putative foe do so first.

So none of our options is promising. Which is a reason for taking out Saddam now, before he acquires Kim's mantle of invulnerability. And which is why the USA is hesitant about settling on a policy for dealing with North Korea. The US is hesitant because the choices are few, narrow, hard and probably unavailing - not as one Canberra-based commentator has suggested recently - because the USA really does not want to solve the North Korean conundrum.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

An edited version of this article was first published in The Age on 10 March 2003.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Des Moore is Director, Institute for Private Enterprise and a former Deputy Secretary, Treasury. He authored Schooling Victorians, 1992, Institute of Public Affairs as part of the Project Victoria series which contributed to the educational and other reforms instituted by the Kennett Government. The views are his own.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Des Moore
Related Links
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Department of Defence
Institute for Private Enterpise
Photo of Des Moore
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy