Although at present he may seem a most unlikely recipient, George W. Bush still has a chance for the Nobel Peace Prize. If he has the wit to see it, his "final solution" for Iraq carries within it the seed for a kind of worldwide peaceful transformation for which many human beings have yearned for a very long time.

The US campaign to compel Iraqi disarmament has inadvertently created the logical possibility for the United Nations to push for the disarmament of any nation that threatens world peace. Why stop with the regime of Iraq?

Let's face it - as long as there are any weapons capable of inflicting terrible destruction upon any wholly innocent human beings for any reason, there will exist very real threats to world peace.

Therefore, the peace-loving citizens of planet Earth should take this opportunity to insist that the process of disarming one nation and inspecting it for weapons should be pursued to its logical conclusion. Would not the potential for world peace be enhanced if not only Iraq, but Israel, Russia, China, North Korea, the UK, and the good ol' USA also, if all nations, agree to dismantle every last cannon, bomb, missile, mine, and bazooka as soon as humanly possible?

OK, maybe we will have to let the US be the very last to disarm since it is such a benevolent protector of the peace (ha!) and such a big baby about being more secure than anyone else is. But, in the end, even the US would have to melt down its huge stock of destructive hardware and dispose of all of its weapons of mass destruction - if the people of Earth could have the temerity to get together and demand it.

It is not likely that the United States will ever take the initiative for setting in motion such a process. Yet, if the rest of the UN Security Council and the rest of the UN General Assembly insist upon it, if it becomes clear that all nations will agree to disarm, then how can the US resist joining the effort?

The oversight of this process, the requisite inspection of every potential technological and manufacturing facility on the face of the planet would be a huge undertaking but it can be financed out of resources we will have saved by not creating armaments. It also seems clear that never before in the history of the world has there existed the necessary technical means for verifying worldwide compliance of such massive disarmament. A single URL and phone number known to every citizen of the planet can alert weapons inspection teams to any neighborhood factory or backwoods weapons cache. At least for a short period of time (10, 20, 50 years?), we can live with the uncertainties and indignities of having any technology or manufacture accessible to such inspections.

If no other country has weapons, what is the point for our having them? Who could harm us if no one is permitted to possess the means for perpetuating harm?

Bill Davis (electronic mail, December 12, 2002)