Does It Trouble You To Know That North Korea Has Nuclear Weapons?

[arwalden]

[noamnety]

1. It troubles me that ANY country has them

USA included.

[arwalden]

4. Why Should We Be Any More Concerned Today, Than Yesterday?

[Cleita]

16. Me too and quite honestly

I am more worried that Bushamerica has them.

[MemphisTiger]

2. It bothers me that any country has nuclear weapons

[Tyler Durden]

3. A better question.

"Does it SUPRISE you to know that North Korea Has Nuclear Weapons?"

Nope.

[bluestateguy]

5. I oppose nuclear proliferation

Whether it's North Korea, Israel, Pakistan or the United States.

Having said that I don't see North Korea using nukes for anything other than defense. They would be signing their own death warrant if they used them for offense or passed them along to terror groups.

[Speck Tater]

6. What troubles me is

...that anyone actually believes their claim to have nuclear weapons.

[indepat]

7. I would especially trouble me if someone has not been keeping their eyes

on the ball as other more pressing dangers are being dealth with.

[denverbill]

8. The USSR had enough to kill everyone in American twice.

We lived with that for 50 years.

China has enough nukes to do some serious damage. We've lived with that for at least 20 years.

No country would launch an ICBM at the US knowing that they would face utter devastation in return.

No nation would give a nuke to a terrorist group, knowing that if it was ever traced back to them they would likely face devastation as well.

About the only way we would ever be hit with a nuke is if we attacked a nuclear armed country.

[arwalden]

12. So Is That Why Bush Is Concerned? He No Longer Has The Option To Attack>>>

... or invade North Korea? The actual threat they pose is less important that our ability to impose our will upon them by military force?

Makes sense to me.

[Wright Patman]

9. What troubles me

is that anyone DIDN'T believe Iraq when it and the UN said it didn't have nuclear weapons.

What also troubles me is that the only area of the world about which we seem to worry about proliferation is already inhabited by our "democratic ally"— the world's foremost rogue proliferator.

[Solly Mack]

10. No

Not alarmed yet.

[Silverhair]

11. Not really. Kim isn't THAT crazy.

This will get me flamed but the history is that nuclear countries tend to be more careful about getting in a conflict with another nuclear power.

India and Pakistan used to fight often. Now that both are nuclear, they are careful to resolve conflicts with each other short of shooting.

Kim will discover that he has spent a lot of money on a status symbol that he can't use.

However, I absolutely do not favor the ultimate extension of that arguement - which would be to nuclear arm all nations. As the number of nuke nations grows, sooner or later, somebody WILL be crazy enough to use them.

Therefore, I am against any more nations getting them.

[mattclearing]

13. Nope. It ensures we won't attack them.

Deterrence is a beautiful thing.

[robertpaulsen]

14. With the Chimp in the White House? Hell yeah!

I live in LA. I've heard that North Korea is working on missiles that can reach the West Coast. Even if they don't, I'm sure a missile strike on Alaska would blow radiation my way.

I think this is a very real possibility considering how the PNAC has been able to fulfill their agenda through their control on the White House. And taking on North Korea is something in the works for the second term:

Hawks Tell Bush How to Win War on Terror
by David Rennie in Washington

President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1231-01.htm

Can you picture Kim Jong-Il backing down like Khruschev going eyeball to eyeball with the Chimp?

Here's what I picture:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[blm]

15. No surprise. NK said they would do this after Bush's axisofevil speech.

Who's pre-empting who, here?

[DrWeird]

17. Nope.

Not at all.

[mahina]

18. Tell you what, I feel like we have a big target on our ass out here

in the middle of the pacific. I really do, have for a long time, but not because of what they could hit us with, but what they would hit.

That being said.

It frosts me that the admin acts like nobody ever thought about this before, like it just occured to them there might be a problem.

There are whole fields of academic research on this topic going back decades. Clinton's (outstanding) advisor on this and on energy issues, John Holdren, formerly of the Harvard school of public policy, now runs Woods Hole Oceanographic institute. The top universities have been researching and thinking about this for a long long time.

And asshat finally wakes up and decides the prudent approach is to start throwing threats around.

F'ing Glueheads.

[mahina]

19. They would hit S. Korea, or Japan, not us,

and then they would be gone.

So ya, it troubles me, but this admin's idiot policies trouble me about a thousand times more.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.