#war
"It was explained that the North Korean matter was a diplomatic inconvenience, while Iraq's non-disarmament remained a "crisis". The reason was strategic: even without WMDs, North Korea could inflict a million casualties on its southern neighbour and raze Seoul. Iraq couldn't manage anything on this scale, so you could attack it. North Korea could, so you couldn't. The imponderables of the proliferation age were becoming ponderable. Once a nation has done the risky and nauseous work of acquisition, it becomes unattackable. A single untested nuclear weapon may be a liability. But five or six constitute a deterrent. From this it crucially follows that we are going to war with Iraq because it doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Or not many. The surest way by far of finding out what Iraq has is to attack it. Then at last we will have Saddam's full cooperation in our weapons inspection, because everything we know about him suggests that he will use them all. The Pentagon must be more or less convinced that Saddam's WMDs are under a certain critical number. Otherwise it couldn't attack him."
React to this quote
More by Martin Amis
See allResonant Thoughts
Explore Further
Related Quotes
"Fellow citizens: Today, after fifteen months of bitter fighting – marked daily by all of the anguish which …"
— Luís Carlos Prestes"We meet again upon this hallowed ground to commemorate those who played their part in a particular outbreak…"
— Calvin Coolidge"And fighting the battle of life is fighting against fearful odds, too. There are giants and dragons in this…"
— Jerome K. Jerome"Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the complicity of Co…"
— Ron Paul"The U.S.'s major strength factor and weapon is its economy. If you cripple it, you cripple the military."
— Chester W. Nimitz"Voroshilov was a hard-riding, hard-drinking military crony of civil-war days."
— Kliment Voroshilov
