Yet another temper tantrum by North Korea

[reality_hammer]

Continuing its years-long tradition of public displays of immaturity, North Korea stomped away from from the six-nation talks and once again promised to hold its breath until someone, somewhere paid attention to it.
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Thursday that recent remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney about ruler Kim Jong Il,

Comments

[hunterkirk]

But all nations should be equal... everyone should be allowed to play the "MAD" game we played during the cold war. Just kidding. What I think is so stupid is that Kim Jong Il is seeking Nuclear Weapons, a technology that is almost 50 years old and most of the large nuclear powers already have developed procedure on how to counter, in the first place. I mean if your a evil dictator, which he is, then why not use your resources to develop new technology. Thankfully this guy buys that nuclear weapons are instant pass to his rules survival. It didn't work for the USSR why should it work for him?

[pfchidron]

How would the larger nuclear powers counter a nuclear warhead? As I understand, there has yet to be a successful implementation of a missile shield.

The prime strategy of the large nuclear powers has been to maintain the balance of power, or rather to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of nations like North Korea in the first place.

As long as the powerful nations maintain a monopoly on nuclear arms, they can't be used against us, and even if a smaller state did obtain nuclear weapons the chances that they'd use them would be remote because they would face annihilation from any counter strike.

Since these states can't act openly or directly (unless they have a death wish), the real threat from these nations is the chance that they might give these weapons to terrorists who will in turn use them on the United States or her allies.

A missile defense shield will not protect against a nuclear warhead smuggled into New York harbor in a cargo container.

[hunterkirk]

" they can't be used against us, and even if a smaller state did obtain nuclear weapons the chances that they'd use them would be remote because they would face annihilation from any counter strike."

That is exactly why these weapons are pointless for them to devolop.

"the real threat from these nations is the chance that they might give these weapons to terrorists who will in turn use them on the United States or her allies."

Again see above... should we learn that the terrorist who had done the attack gained this weapon from this nation or that nation we would be justified in vaorizing the nation responcable for this.

[pfchidron]

If we did learn who terrorists a nuclear weapons, then yes the result would be the same if that nation state had attacked us openly. To that, I merely offer another hypothetical situation. What happens if we never learn where the weapon came from?

What if instead of being sponsored by a nation state, terrorists instead stole a nuclear weapon from a nation such as Russia who can no longer afford to maintain adequate security for their vast nuclear empire? Do we retaliate against Russia?

A nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb no matter where it comes from, and it is still a threat if it falls into the wrong hands.

I agree with you on that matter that nuclear weapons do not pose much of a threat in the conventional sense, but it is still in the best interests of the larger nuclear powers to limit the extent of nuclear proliferation.

I would also like to know what you meant when you mentioned counters to nuclear weapons earlier.

[felinoid]

Let them have nukes while we develup ways to cause those nukes to trigger while still in the silos.

[sisiphus]

Too late to spank North Korea with a nuclear warhead.

[the_infamous]

no it's not

:-)