Why WMDs?

There's a question that President Chickenhawk and his menions aren't even considering concerning the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It falls under the same heading as "Is it right to invade a sovereign nation without provocation in order to replace its government?" and "Is it right to show pictures of the bodies of dead combatants in newspapers and on television?" If it gets asked at all, the answer "We are America: Our hearts are pure" drowns it out. The question is just why nations like Iran and Korea--and I'll even throw in Iraq--would like to have active WMD programs. The answer is that they perceive a need to have the deterrent value that these weapons carry. And why do they want that deterrent value?
The answer has nothing to do with their neighbors. Their neighbors don't pose very serious threats. Iraq isn't going to invade Iran; Iraq isn't going to invade anybody. South Korea prefers to negotiate with North Korea having found that a far more profitable course. The answer has to do with the United States. They perceive us as a serious threat, a nation with state-of-the-art armed forces and an irrational leader who cannot be restrained by the legislative or judicial branches and lives in a world where all who are not with him are against him. They believe that the possibility that they may have or be close to having WMDs may restrain him. Yes, he did invade Iraq to destroy theWMD program there, but he made plenty of other claims on that one, and the real reason was that he wanted to kill Saddam Hussein for wanting to kill George I. But attack a nuclear Iran and the United States forces in Iraq are fighting on two fronts and facing a nuclear enemy. Attack a nuclear North Korea and there's a possibility that nuclear retaliation could reach United States territory.
What's amazing here, though, is that Republicans don't seem to understand this. They're the party that supports the National Rifle Association's argument that guns really deter crime because criminals are afraid to attack anyone who might be armed, and the logic here is the same. I don't want you to attack me, and there's no way that my conventional armed forces represent a serious deterrent. But if I have weapons of mass destruction, you'll have to think twice. A first strike would have to destroy them; otherwise, I could retaliate.
So what's the solution? As with so many other problems, the answer is not immediately available: President Chickenhawk and his minions have to go. We need an administration--or maybe several administrations--that make clear that the United States will always negotiate in good faith--no exceptions. None of this "We don't negotiate with. . . . ." crap. We negotiate. And those administrations need to make sure that the United States arsenal includes no weapons of mass destruction. Once that's done, we can hope that other nations follow our moral leadership, and we can assume that those that don't are maintaining WMDs for purposes of aggression, not defense.