US Conducted 1054 Nuclear Tests

Unfortunately, you are correct. But since you are an idiot, you do not even realize why you are right.

Let N.K. have their Nuke. Once they become a threat to our security, there is no reason for us to care.

Even if they hit Swissyland, not our concern.

If they hit the US, then they are to be destroyed.

That attitude is precisely why North koes wants to protect itself.

Fine. Explain who they want to protect themselves from. Certainly not the US. We have no interest in their country, nor are they of any economic use.

What is your point?

If the point is that it's hypocritical, you're simply wrong. The US has never said that no one may have nukes. Our position is that certain very high risk regimes may not have nukes, e.g. unstable dictatorships.

CNN

North Korea just put the screws to US plans to invade Iran.

It will be hard for Bush to sell an invasion of Iran because it might someday make nuclear weapons when North Korea definitely has them now.

Bush has to attack North Korea before Iran, and who will support an attack on a nation that actually HAS nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I am certain that the GOP is grateful to Kim Jong Il for driving fondle-gate off of the front pages, but if you think about it, this is a political black eye for Bush, who despite his tough talk was unable to convince North Korea not to go ahead with their tests. So, this is a foreign policy failure. And Bush is left looking impotent.

Now the reality is that even with nuclear weapons, North Korea is not a threat to the United States for two reasons. The first is that the US still has the world's most formidable nuclear arsenal and North Korea is no more likely to attack the US than Iraq or Iran would even if they had nuclear weapons (which they don't).

The second reason is, of course, more important. The US is the only nation that has actually used nuclear weapons on civilian populations, and North Korea has no reason to think the US Government is not capable of such an attack now.

Count on the mainstream media to make this story the headline for the next week but the reality is that after much posturing and tough talk at the UN (which is suddenly relevant again), the US is not likely to start a war in North Korea, because they did not win the LAST one in that part of the world, and that was against a North Korea that did not have nuclear weapons. An attack against North Korea would be very foolish, because the whole point to having nuclear weapons is to have the ability to inflict great damage on an invader. That is the whole point to deterrence.

North Korea will not attack the US without provocation because we have a nuclear deterrent. Conversely, the US should not attack North Korea because they too now have a nuclear deterrent.

The DPRK Kim Dynasty is stable enough to have lasted over half a century. Stable does not necessarily mean that a nation/group/regime can be trusted with the terrible destructive power of nuclear weapons. Mere possession of nuclear weapons by some nations is enough to create such serious risks that other nations are forced to respond.

Possession of a small nuclear arsenal by either the DPRK or Iran is no real deterrent against any of the existing nuclear powers. Both of these two outlaw nations want to possess nuclear weapons to blackmail and coerce their neighbors. Either might very well embark upon a game of nuclear "Russian Roulette" that could plunge the world into the most destructive conflict since WWII. If either were to detonate even one warhead, they would risk instant and total nuclear destruction in retaliation. Even if the United States were led by pacifists who side with the Iran and the DPRK, other nuclear powers would not be constrained. A DPRK nuclear detonation against ROK, or Japan, might very well provoke a nuclear response from the PRC, or Russia. An Iranian first use of a nuclear device would not go unpunished by Israel, Britain, or even the French. Iran is the more dangerous of the two because it wouldn't take very much to set off a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, both of whom claim that their nuclear arsenals are only held as a deterrent against aggression by the other.

The use of nuclear weapons is so dangerous to world peace that all responsible governments are dedicated to prevention of a new nuclear arms race and the risk of a wider nuclear exchange.

Who says that Bush plans to invade North Korea? It's too late now. You have just described exactly why Iraq was invaded - because we couldn't take the chance on it achieving the virtual invulnerability that North Korea now possesses.

North Korea having a nuke can be spun, and accurately, as yet another failure by Democrats (Clinton and Carter) to manage a foreign policy problem.

I think the CIA encouraged NK to do the Nuke test to raise the "terror alert" for the Mid-term elections.

Re: US Conducted 1054 Nuclear Tests


Thankfully. And thanks to the great Ronald Reagan, we may also have a missile defense system that at least has a chance of knocking an incoming missile out of the sky. The very fact that any potential enemy may realize we may have the defense system is likely an additional deterrent to launching, because with that realization is the further realization that additional time is given for launching retaliatory strikes back.

The alternative to us not having any successful tests or any nuclear capability would very likely have been our fall to ruthless dictators long before now.

What a peace loving world we live in isn't it?