Instapundit links to some meaty (finally) articles about war with Iraq.
Charles Krauthammer makes the point that once Saddam has a nuclear capability his ability to be a successful aggressor in the region would be notably enhanced. Like Pakistan recently with India and the US in the European Cold War, nukes can effectively deter conventional attacks. Saddam with a nuke becomes a Saddam with nothing to fear. That would not be good.

But is immediate invasion the only way to keep this from happening? Brendan Nyhan offers alternatives that may delay or hinder Saddam's nuclear development with the possibility of an invasion being the enforcement mechanism.

I think the inspection regime should be along the lines of "If we can not inspect it today, it goes on tonight's target list."

But seriously. Until Saddam does something particularly egregious outside his own country it is all speculation. And is it appropriate to invade on speculation? It certainly makes sense to do all that we can do to hinder if not forestall his pursuit of WMD. I would support overt or covert strikes on suspect facilities. If he doesn't want it hit he needs to let it be inspected. Otherwise there may be some mysterious explosions. The opposition needs time to organize just as Saddam needs time. Despite the dangers, I don't think we need to be hasty.