"There are lots of countries around that have weapons of mass destruction. We can't presumably attack them all"

Bill Graham’s remark acknowledges the reality that the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by various countries is not, in itself, sufficient justification for military intervention. Implicit in the statement is a critique of selective or inconsistent foreign policy, particularly as pertains to international security and the rationale for armed conflict. When he points out that “we can’t presumably attack them all,” Graham highlights the paradox faced by nations, especially those with significant military power, when determining how to respond to the existence of WMDs worldwide.

The proliferation of WMDs, nuclear, chemical, or biological, remains a subject of serious concern within the global community. However, the strategic and diplomatic responses to their existence are complicated and fraught with inconsistencies. Some countries, despite having WMDs, are considered allies or integral to the strategic interests of major powers, while others, perhaps less strategically significant or out-of-step with prevailing international norms, are condemned and even threatened with military action.

Graham’s words call into question the logic and ethics of such double standards. Attacking nations simply because they possess dangerous weapons would lead to a catastrophic escalation of violence and global instability. Furthermore, military interventions carry significant humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical consequences, aspects that are often underestimated beforehand. Rather than advocating for knee-jerk reactions or broad military campaigns, the statement implies the necessity of diplomatic engagement, multilateral dialogue, arms control agreements, and non-proliferation efforts.

Ultimately, Graham underscores the limitations of unilateral action and the importance of consistency in international relations. The selective targeting of some states over others erodes credibility and legitimacy on the world stage. It suggests that a more nuanced, pragmatic approach, balancing security concerns with diplomatic, legal, and moral considerations, is required to genuinely address the challenges posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction.