China is all talk [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 12:05 PM

Actually, they're not even talk anymore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_221;_ylt=AiqNe0MFEsM0eH9hMAmfvWGCsc EA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

And NK will consider pressure by the US a "declaration of war"?

I'm gonna need some anti-war activist to explain to me exactly why we need to sit back and do nothing while a crazy man detonates nuclear weapons.

I'm listening.

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 12:07 PM

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said North Korea should understand it had made a mistake but "punishment should not be the purpose" of any U.N. response.

Chinese officials have refused to say publicly what consequences they believe North Korea should face for its claimed nuclear test, although its U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, agreed earlier this week that the Security Council must impose "punitive actions."

So which is it? Did China hire John Kerry to be it's new foreign policy advisor?

SoonerProphet

10/12/2006, 12:12 PM

SoonerInKCMO

10/12/2006, 12:12 PM

I think what Wang is trying to say is that NK should be punished but that the intent should be getting NK to a negotiating table rather than just punishment for punishment's sake.

mdklatt

10/12/2006, 12:15 PM

I'm gonna need some anti-war activist to explain to me exactly why we need to sit back and do nothing while a crazy man detonates nuclear weapons.

I believe the commander-in-chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military.

citation (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160604611741&call_pageid=968332188492)

:pop:

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 12:17 PM

Don't think China views NK as much of threat as a nuclear power. They are enjoying watching the West squirm. Nor do I think China wants to push NK into a collapse...it would be bad for business.

I think you're right. But a couple of days ago they were spouting strong words about sanctions. Now they're flip-flopping.

Now regarding your "anti-war" strawman...what do you propose we do?

I propose nothing. I'm wondering what anti-war activists are proposing. Maybe stage a protest with "Make love, not war" signs? I dunno, I'm asking.

mdklatt

10/12/2006, 12:20 PM

So which is it? Did China hire John Kerry to be it's new foreign policy advisor?

The main priority is to disarm Kim Jong Illin'. Every move he makes is out of desparation. NK is a ****hole, and the only holding it together is his cult of personality. Would he rather pop a nuke a Seoul or Tokyo rather than lose power? Possibly. The only non-military punitive measures we have are sanctions, and we know how well those work. Even worse in this case is that more economic hardship may push the NKs into a corner from which they see only one way out.

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 12:21 PM

citation (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160604611741&call_pageid=968332188492)

:pop:

I didn't read the article, but did he say what constitutes "all diplomatic measures"? And does "all diplomatic measures" include economic sanctions? Because NK will evidently view those as an act of war.

It would be nice if China would deal with it. But it's looking like they will not. Perhaps we should just relegate ourselves to a nuclear NK? I guess that wouldn't be the end of the world. Well, hopefully.

Widescreen

10/12/2006, 12:21 PM

What could anyone possibly say to NK to get them to toe the line? The only way they'll stop is if someone makes them stop. I'm so sick of us repeating history - "Let's negotiate with the crazy dude. I'm sure it'll work this time." :mad:

And you're right, SD. China once again shows they can't be trusted. It's interesting how the world continues to be aligned as East vs. West despite all the contact between the 2 over the last 20 years. What is all this "engagement" really getting us?

Iran - Supported by China and Russia and opposed by the west.
NK - Supported by China and Russia and opposed by the west.

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 12:21 PM

The main priority is to disarm Kim Jong Illin'. Every move he makes is out of desparation. NK is a ****hole, and the only holding it together is his cult of personality. Would he rather pop a nuke a Seoul or Tokyo rather than lose power? Possibly. The only non-military punitive measures we have are sanctions, and we know how well those work. Even worse in this case is that more economic hardship may push the NKs into a corner from which they see only one way out.

I'll buy that. So what's our course of action?

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 12:28 PM

There are only two realistic outcomes to this situation.

1. NK obtains nuclear weapons.
2. Military action to prevent NK from obtaining nuclear weapons.

If I had to bet $100, I'd bet on #1.

mdklatt

10/12/2006, 12:30 PM

I didn't read the article, but did he say what constitutes "all diplomatic measures"? And does "all diplomatic measures" include economic sanctions? Because NK will evidently view those as an act of war.

I believe that's politico-speak for "our military is tied up in Iraq and I'm **** out of options".

Perhaps we should just relegate ourselves to a nuclear NK? I guess that wouldn't be the end of the world. Well, hopefully.

From a pragmatic point of view, I don't think that would be the end of the world. Kim knows that actually using a nuclear weapon would be the end of his precious regime. His main goal is to use the nuclear card as a bargaining chip abroad and a progapaganda tool at home. In the end, I think the only ambition he has is to keep his people fed just enough so that they don't revolt. Everything else is bluster. I used to think he was just crazy, but now I think he may be crazy like a fox. I hope so, anyway.

The main thing we need to worry about is NK's nuclear technology ending up in the hands of some durka durkas.

royalfan5

10/12/2006, 12:31 PM

Personally, I'm more worried about Musharraf being ousted in Pakistan, and their nuclear weapons falling into Islamists hands there.

picasso

10/12/2006, 12:35 PM

what if we slow down imports from China threatening to kill their economy? think maybe they could influence NK then?

as usual it looks like we're going to have to be the ones who say/do anything.

mdklatt

10/12/2006, 12:36 PM

I'll buy that. So what's our course of action?

Beats the **** out of me. I've read more than once that a surgical strike to eliminate their nuclear capability is not an option. An all-out invasion would very bad for South Korea, specifically Seoul which lies within easy artillery range of the border. This would almost certainly push Kim to use whatever nuclear weapons he has, and he has missiles which can reach Japan as well as SK. Plus, we barely have reserve ground forces to commit so whatever we have in SK now is what we could use.

China on the other hand....

royalfan5

10/12/2006, 12:36 PM

what if we slow down imports from China threatening to kill their economy? think maybe they could influence NK then?

as usual it looks like we're going to have to be the ones who say/do anything.
Except that would hurt our economy as well. Very badly too.

SoonerProphet

10/12/2006, 12:37 PM

China will/has publicly rebuked them, but will do very little to cause them real pain...that is why they flip flopped. The Chinese surely don't want boilerplate nonsense from Bolton types thrown at them either.

OklahomaTuba

10/12/2006, 12:41 PM

I am sure the Chinese wouldn't like us arming Japan, South Korea and Taiwan with nukes either.

Chine depends on the US as much as we depend on China for our cheap **** at wally world and our debt financing.

OklahomaTuba

10/12/2006, 12:43 PM

Except that would hurt our economy as well. Very badly too.

NK is testing missles that have the range to hit much of the US, and they just tested a nuke to put on those missles.

And your worried about the economy????

OklahomaTuba

10/12/2006, 12:47 PM

Plus, we barely have reserve ground forces to commit so whatever we have in SK now is what we could use.

I believe that is far from the truth.

We only have 140,000 serving in Iraq, out of a standing military of millions.

royalfan5

10/12/2006, 12:53 PM

NK is testing missles that have the range to hit much of the US, and they just tested a nuke to put on those missles.

And your worried about the economy????
Yep, guess I'm not a sally about people who don't like us having nukes.

The

10/12/2006, 12:55 PM

All right, I'll bite...

The repricussions of inaction at this point will prove to be devastating. It is my opinion that the Iraq war was a tactical mistake from the beginning, without producing any real results, other than killing 50,000 - 650,000 Iraqis and ~3000 Americans. While proponenets of the war claim that we are "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here", I maintain that we picked the wrong brown people to invade. (maybe where the 911 hijackers called home..., or at the very least finished the job in Afghanistan first)
As an opponent not only to the decision to go to war in Iraq, but also as an American that is absolutely horrified over the collosal blundering and incompetent manner in which our civilian leadership has decided to wage it, every day that passes without Stealth bombers flying over North Korea dropping everything we've got on this meglomaniac emboldens every rogue nation and hostile regime towards nuclear armament.

North Korea is a very real threat, not only itself, but what it symbolizes. If they get away with bulding and testing nukes with a non devastating response, then why in the world would anyone else (Iran) even consider NOT building one?

OklahomaTuba

10/12/2006, 12:56 PM

Yep, guess I'm not a sally about people who don't like us having nukes.

Just saying, the last thing we need to be worried about is our economy in all of this. If NK gets this going, its only a matter of time until Iran has the same thing.

I don't want my kids living in that kind of world.

OklahomaTuba

10/12/2006, 12:58 PM

The

10/12/2006, 01:00 PM

A threat?
for starters...

royalfan5

10/12/2006, 01:01 PM

Just saying, the last thing we need to be worried about is our economy in all of this. If NK gets this going, its only a matter of time until Iran has the same thing.

I don't want my kids living in that kind of world.
Maintaining a strong economy is of a paramount security importance. If our economy goes south, paying for our defence will get a lot harder. There aren't many secure countries with weak economies. Pakistan will be the first hardline Islamic country with the bomb, and we might as well accept that fact, and the fact that once Musharaf is gone, Iran will likely get the bomb from them. We might as well face up to that and begin to deal with that reality. Doing something to tank our economy will only make us less secure.

jk the sooner fan

10/12/2006, 01:08 PM

good article in the DMN this morning that basically says all of this by NK serves a couple of purposes - it keeps nutjob in power from within his own country....and he's worried that Bush will go after him like he did Sadam (axis of evil partners) and countries respect other countries when they have nuke capability

it went on to say that he's not as crazy as he appears and that he's actually smarter than most give him credit for (based on behavioral folks within the CIA)

Osce0la

10/12/2006, 01:12 PM

TexasLidig8r

10/12/2006, 01:13 PM

There are only two realistic outcomes to this situation.

1. NK obtains nuclear weapons which it in turn, sells to Jihadists to help NK's dead economy..
2. Military action to prevent NK from obtaining nuclear weapons.

If I had to bet $100, I'd bet on #1.

Nukes for the most part, are first and foremost, political weapons. They are used as negotiating pawns by countries to exert economic influence and power over other countries/regions. Knowing that a country has them, and has the ability, to use them is the deterrent. Since political types control them, their use on the battlefield is unlikely since the theater of operation is likely to change too quickly for their effective use.

However, if a despot, terrorist organization or country that does not value life or religious freedoms as we do obtains them through purchase let's say, then, all bets are off. Nukes then go from being used as political weapons to terrorist weapons of mass destruction. Imagine 9-11 if you will, with a nuke on board one of the planes.

It's not so much that NK will use the nukes militarily against South Korea, but that it will sell the nukes to the highest bidder for use against.. Tel Aviv? New York? DC?

Since the UN is likely to only send a strongly worded letter to NK asking them, "please, pretty please don't test any more nukes or sell them," at what point is it in America's best interest to take action? I don't give a hoot in hell what is in Frances.. or Germanys.. or the rest of the world's interest... Self preservation through strength should be our first and foremost guiding principle.

jk the sooner fan

10/12/2006, 01:16 PM

the article also said that when Clinton was president, they DID have a "surgical strike" plan to completely take out the nuclear research/production facilities...but opted against using it

and thats no slam on Clinton, because the plan is still available to Bush - i'm just not sure its a political solution at this point

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 01:21 PM

A threat?
for starters...

What if it turns out that NK really didn't test a nuclear weapon? Are you willing to risk ~3000 American lives on the intel we have?

Saddam ducked UN inspectors for 12 YEARS all the while implying that he had WMD and was trying to develop nukes. And you're ready to bomb NK after one press release?

And to clarify, I do think that NK is a threat - otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread. But I also think we had good reason to believe Saddam was a threat. It turns out he wasn't, but I still believe we had to reason to believe he was at the time.

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 01:23 PM

Maintaining a strong economy is of a paramount security importance. If our economy goes south, paying for our defence will get a lot harder. There aren't many secure countries with weak economies. Pakistan will be the first hardline Islamic country with the bomb, and we might as well accept that fact, and the fact that once Musharaf is gone, Iran will likely get the bomb from them. We might as well face up to that and begin to deal with that reality. Doing something to tank our economy will only make us less secure.

World War II

jk the sooner fan

10/12/2006, 01:25 PM

the difference between the threat of iraq and of NK.....at least as I see it.....Iraq was a greater threat to the sovereignty of its neighbors than NK is to its neighbors.....

granted NK purportedly has nukes and can create more trouble, but when push comes to shove, i think China can squash NK in a heartbeat......where Saudi and the others werent in position to do that to Iraq

jk the sooner fan

10/12/2006, 01:26 PM

and then there's that whole "NK's neighbors dont have oil"

royalfan5

10/12/2006, 01:28 PM

World War II
If Germany has a strong economy in the 1920's instead of hyper-inflation do you think Hitler gains power?

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 01:33 PM

If Germany has a strong economy in the 1920's instead of hyper-inflation do you think Hitler gains power?

Good point. So we are agreed that a country doesn't need a strong economy to wield military power.

Scott D

10/12/2006, 01:33 PM

I'll express my opinion after I learn what Rush has told william favor to believe ;)

royalfan5

10/12/2006, 01:35 PM

Good point. So we are agreed that a country doesn't need a strong economy to wield military power.
Germany had a strong economy under Nazi planning, you didn't see the Weimar conquering people did you? And I bet they wouldn't have mounted much of fight if someone tried to take them in the 20's.

The

10/12/2006, 01:43 PM

What if it turns out that NK really didn't test a nuclear weapon? Are you willing to risk ~3000 American lives on the intel we have?

Saddam ducked UN inspectors for 12 YEARS all the while implying that he had WMD and was trying to develop nukes. And you're ready to bomb NK after one press release?

And to clarify, I do think that NK is a threat - otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread. But I also think we had good reason to believe Saddam was a threat. It turns out he wasn't, but I still believe we had to reason to believe he was at the time.

Good point! However, the evidence for North Korea's possesion and actual use of a nuclear weapon is almost certain. Saddam said a lot of silly things, as do a lot of dictators.

Point being...it is odd that there has been no radiation abnormalities detected so far ( I don't know the specifics of such science anyways), however, the available evidence is a LOT more clear and, well, evident, not only for our government, but for the whole world to see, while the "evidence" of Iraqs weaponry came mostly from Iraqi defectors (re: people who had something to gain).

If Iraq tested a nuclear weapon, then the proper course of action was to level the country. Millions of dead civilians in days - country wide carpet bombing. This would serve not only to eliminate the immediate nuclear threat, but serve as a grim warning to the citizenry of any other nation that while we may be wishy-washy about a LOT of international issues, we WILL NOT stand for nuclear proliferation. This would take away the incentive of building nationalism with nuclear weapons, and show our cards as being crystal clear on this point.

My opinion of war is if your not going to wage it - don't wage it. The last time we half-assed war was Vietnam, and by all accounts, it looks like we're half-assing it in Iraq. (no commentary on our soldiers, of course, but the politicians)

mdklatt

10/12/2006, 01:46 PM

NK is testing missles that have the range to hit much of the US,

Are you serious? The worst-case estimates I saw for that missle gave it barely enough range to hit the West Coast. Assuming it didn't blow up after going 60 miles. Which it did.

and they just tested a nuke to put on those missles.

Even if they have nuclear weapons, they're probably not small enough to put on a missile.

mdklatt

10/12/2006, 01:49 PM

I believe that is far from the truth.

We only have 140,000 serving in Iraq, out of a standing military of millions.

Notice I said ground forces, of which "just two or three active-duty combat brigades—7,000 to 10,000 soldiers—are fully ready to deal with a crisis that might erupt elsewhere in the world. (http://www.slate.com/id/2150337/)"

Stoop Dawg

10/12/2006, 02:07 PM

Good point! However, the evidence for North Korea's possesion and actual use of a nuclear weapon is almost certain. Saddam said a lot of silly things, as do a lot of dictators.

Point being...it is odd that there has been no radiation abnormalities detected so far ( I don't know the specifics of such science anyways), however, the available evidence is a LOT more clear and, well, evident, not only for our government, but for the whole world to see, while the "evidence" of Iraqs weaponry came mostly from Iraqi defectors (re: people who had something to gain).

I'm no expert, but as an average citizen of the United States who tries to stay up on world affairs (somewhat) I can say that there was plenty of "evidence" from both the CIA *and* British Intelligence that Iraq had WMD (not nukes). It was also very clear for the entire world to see, including Moron Blix, that Saddam was trying to hide something (or, as it turns out, he was trying to hide nothing in order to make it appear that he had something) and it was widely assumed that that "something" was nuclear capability.

If Iraq tested a nuclear weapon, then the proper course of action was to level the country. Millions of dead civilians in days - country wide carpet bombing. This would serve not only to eliminate the immediate nuclear threat, but serve as a grim warning to the citizenry of any other nation that while we may be wishy-washy about a LOT of international issues, we WILL NOT stand for nuclear proliferation. This would take away the incentive of building nationalism with nuclear weapons, and show our cards as being crystal clear on this point.

The US spends billions creating weapons that *avoid* civilian casualties. We go out of our way to avoid it and prosecute soldiers who do it. And we STILL get harsh criticism from our freakin' ALLIES. No, I think the possibility of carpet bombing a country has vanished.

My opinion of war is if your not going to wage it - don't wage it. The last time we half-assed war was Vietnam, and by all accounts, it looks like we're half-assing it in Iraq. (no commentary on our soldiers, of course, but the politicians)

I think you're right and I think that's a common belief. And the US did invade Iraq with overwhelming force. However, occupation (Iraq) and half-assing a war (Vietnam) are two different things. Again, I'm no military expert, but that's how I see it.

OUstudent4life

10/12/2006, 02:17 PM

My opinion of war is if your not going to wage it - don't wage it. The last time we half-assed war was Vietnam, and by all accounts, it looks like we're half-assing it in Iraq. (no commentary on our soldiers, of course, but the politicians)

We didn't half-arse the war in Iraq...we did exactly what we wanted = regime change.

Our leaders were just too short-sighted to see what would come afterwards and weren't prepared for the ensuing civil-war-like place our guys are stuck in now.

Oh, and as to this:

If Iraq tested a nuclear weapon, then the proper course of action was to level the country. Millions of dead civilians in days - country wide carpet bombing.

It should never, ever, EVAR be the policy of the United States to purposefully slaughter civilians. We would be no better than our enemies, in any regard.

The

10/12/2006, 02:19 PM

SD,
I think we basically agree....

We need to be 100% sure before we commit is what I'm saying.
And as far as criticism to the harshness of military action.... If we have a 100% airtight case that North Korea (or if Iraq had) has developed nuclear weapons, then we have the moral high ground. I think that a lot of the international outcry came from the basic fact that they felt the Iraq war was unwarranted in the first place.

Nuclear proliferation can not be accepted, under any terms. If we say to the world "This is what happens when you cross the line.", we can hope to contain the spread. The Iraq war doesn't help our case with perception when we REALY need it, like now.

mdklatt

10/12/2006, 02:19 PM

We didn't half-arse the war in Iraq...we did exactly what we wanted = regime change.

Our leaders were just too short-sighted to see what would come afterwards and weren't prepared for the ensuing civil-war-like place our guys are stuck in now.

Then we obviously half-assed something.

The

10/12/2006, 02:22 PM

OUstudent4life

10/12/2006, 02:29 PM

Then we obviously half-assed something.

Oh, I totally agree :D.

More than half...

Of planning, execution, and follow-through...we might have done OK with...well, 1/3 isn't so bad...

Octavian

10/12/2006, 11:15 PM

Security Council (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear)

UNITED NATIONS - Key U.N. Security Council members neared agreement late Thursday on a U.N. resolution that would impose sanctions on North Korea for its claimed nuclear test.

The United States reported significant progress in bridging differences with Russia and China, which had sought to moderate the tough sanctions proposed in the U.S. draft resolution.

The upbeat message came after more than two hours of closed-door negotiations among ambassadors from the five permanent council nations — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — and Japan's ambassador who is the current council president.

The U.S. said it hoped a vote could be held on Friday though close ally Japan said Saturday was more likely.

"We have made very substantial progress," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters after the meeting. "I don't want to say we've reached agreement yet, but many, many of the significant differences have been closed, very much to our satisfaction."

A new draft of the resolution was sent to capitals Thursday night so ministers can examine the latest changes. Bolton said the full Security Council is meeting Friday morning.

In the latest version, the United States dropped the idea of a weapons embargo against North Korea but proposed imposing economic sanctions and a naval blockade to punish the isolated country for exploding a nuclear device in defiance of international warnings.

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya agreed that "good progress has been made" in improving the text. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said there had been "a number of improvements" and, importantly, council unity "is in good shape."

"We should act with a cool head and moderation and also do everything to achieve a political, diplomatic outcome of this problem — and this is the spirit we had in those discussions," Churkin said. "It's not assured we're going to get there, but the mood is good and the effort is good, too."

North Korea warned it would have a firm response to sanctions, Japan's Kyodo News Agency reported from Pyongyang.

"We will take strong countermeasures," Kyodo quoted Song Il Ho, North Korea's ambassador in charge of diplomatic normalization talks with Japan, as saying.

The U.S. draft calls the situation in North Korea, in particular the test the government claimed, "a clear threat to international peace and security" and authorizes sanctions under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter.

China opposes any mention of Chapter 7, which allows punishments ranging from breaking diplomatic ties and imposing economic sanctions to naval blockades and military action.

But Wang reiterated Thursday that sanctions should be limited to the non-military measures authorized under Article 41 — which is part of Chapter 7. They include economic penalties, breaking diplomatic relations or banning air travel.

A previous U.S. draft called on all states to undertake and facilitate inspection of cargo to and from North Korea to ensure compliance with sanctions. The new draft would allow states to inspect cargo "as necessary."

The latest U.S. proposal also drops a call to freeze assets from other "illicit activities such as those related to counterfeiting, money-laundering or narcotics."

"We're almost there," said Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima.

Ike

10/12/2006, 11:31 PM

NK is testing missles that have the range to hit much of the US, and they just tested a nuke to put on those missles.

And your worried about the economy????

didn't both tests fail pretty miserably? I mean their nuke test was less than a kiloton (in other words, supa )...their missile fizzled out not long after takeoff. I'd be more worried if they ever had a successful test.

Also, with regard to sanctions...I think economic sanctions would only speed up the timeline that a nuke falls into the hands of the jihadiis. It might also prompt them to invade SK as well, just because they are bitches.

nanimonai

10/13/2006, 04:34 AM

It should never, ever, EVAR be the policy of the United States to purposefully slaughter civilians. We would be no better than our enemies, in any regard.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind there.

The

10/13/2006, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by OUstudent4life

It should never, ever, EVAR be the policy of the United States to purposefully slaughter civilians. We would be no better than our enemies, in any regard.

99.9% of the time, you are spot on correct with this. That .1% comes from anything nuclear related, in my own humble opinion. The spread of nuclear armaments is a direct threat not only to the security of the US, but the entire world. With every new nation that acquires them, the likelyhood that they will be used increases.
And that's a bad thing. A very, very bad thing.

Widescreen

10/13/2006, 10:03 AM

I'm not terribly worried about NK striking the US with a nuclear-tipped missile. If they ever make a missile capable of reaching our shores, I think we'll be able to knock it out of the sky before it reaches us. I'm more concerned with the threat against Seoul and any future invasion of NK we may deem necessary.

OklahomaTuba

10/13/2006, 11:16 AM

didn't both tests fail pretty miserably? I mean their nuke test was less than a kiloton (in other words, supa )...their missile fizzled out not long after takeoff. I'd be more worried if they ever had a successful test.

Also, with regard to sanctions...I think economic sanctions would only speed up the timeline that a nuke falls into the hands of the jihadiis. It might also prompt them to invade SK as well, just because they are bitches.

I'm more worried they are testing this stuff to begin with. How long before this stuff is successful? No one knows.

No doubt Iran, Syria, Hizbollah or AQ are drooling at the thought of getting their hands on this thing.

Oh well, the world will be a much better place once our liberal friends take over the government. Then and only then will we forget this silly global war on terror and get to the important stuff such as impeaching Bush, repealing the patriot act, censoring the word God, gutting the US economy to fight global warming, raising taxes to fix the Bush Depression, and of course cutting and running from every major hot spot on earth so that we can cut our military spending and use it for more entitlements for the poor.

Only then will we be safer at home, and more respected in the world.

OklahomaTuba

10/13/2006, 11:21 AM

99.9% of the time, you are spot on correct with this. That .1% comes from anything nuclear related, in my own humble opinion. The spread of nuclear armaments is a direct threat not only to the security of the US, but the entire world. With every new nation that acquires them, the likelyhood that they will be used increases.
And that's a bad thing. A very, very bad thing.

I agree, 100%.

WMD, in the hands on any nation such as NK, Iran, Syria, etc, is unacceptable.

We should ask China if they would like Taiwan, Japan and SK to be armed with a nuke.