Peggy Noonan poses a good question about the current debate (not the meta-debate over politicizing the Iraq issue):

The opponents of war, it seems to me, must face the questions that flow from what we know.

If you know Saddam is wicked, know he's gathering weapons of mass murder, know madmen are likely to ultimately use the weapons they stockpile, and know, finally, that he wishes America ill, then why not move against him? And why not now? Wouldn't inaction be irresponsible?

But the administration still has questions to face, too. Among them: What has stopped Saddam from using the weapons he has, and has had for some time? Isn't it deterrence--the sure knowledge that if he launches missiles weighted with weapons of mass murder he can wave goodbye to Baghdad, to his own life and those of many, many of his countrymen? The era of Saddam the Great would end.

If we move against Saddam now, this inhibiting incentive is lessened or removed. What will stop Saddam from going out in a great blaze of "glory"? He can kill millions.

Why is deterrence no longer operable?

I would answer that it's not a question of deterrence being inoperable now, but whether it will be operable when Saddam gets nukes. Most countries who develop nuclear weapons are impressed enough with the destructiveness of them that they only use them as deterrents. But Saddam is crazy. Considering what he did with Kuwait's oil fields when he was forced to give them up, one must worry about what he'd do with a nuclear weapon. Sure, he has poisons and biological weapons, but they are pretty useless as a weapon, and they don't do as much damage as one would think. They are their own deterrent because they are likely to blow back in your face, whether they do any damage to the enemy. But nukes are a different matter. I'm not sure that he could be deterred from using a nuke after he's been defeated once again. Bombing Tel Aviv would make him a hero in the Muslim world, even if he dies as a result, and that might be enough for him.

Secondly, I'm not sure that this country would really make him "wave goodbye to Baghdad, . . . and those of many, many of his countrymen." There would be all kinds of pleas in behalf of the innocent victims we would have to destroy to get to him.