I don't know why it did not come to my attention earlier, but it is revealing to read this statement in an op-ed piece in The New York Times of February 12, 2004:
'We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security — and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.'
I believe the opposite: it is totally morally understandable to prevent some states of pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction in order to save our civilization. I cannot understand why it is morally reprehensible to prevent Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Libya from producing weapons of mass destruction.
I am not at all afraid of France's nuclear power, although I am living 150 miles from its borders. I am not afraid of British WMD, living just across the North Sea. I know that these countries, modern democracies, will never use their WMD in conflict with other democracies.
But Iran? Syria? Libya? It is not morally reprehensible if these countries would pursue the development of WMD?
In reality, they are pursuing it. Libya made an end to it, but Iran is pushing harder than ever.
But it is not morally reprehensible, according to the above mentioned quote, that these morally reprehensible countries, inhuman tyrannies, are developing WMD.
According to the man who formulated this quote in his op-ed piece, we should abandon all WMD - which is like: tomorrow we wake up and suddenly overnight the world has changed into paradise - or we should stop condemning countries - which did he had in mind? - to pursue weapons to erase Israel, the USA, the whole West.
Who wrote that op-ed piece? It is IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace.