North Korea at it again..

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The third reason for building a bomb:

 

To dissuade an opponent from using military force against you.

 

If Iran had had the bomb in 1980, would Iraq have attacked? If Iraq had had it in 1990, would the international coalition led by the US have driven them out of Kuwait?

 

That threat's only as good as the number of bombs you have. If you have one or two, it's not that much of a threat when your opponent has dozens or hundreds. There's no MAD when you don't have an equivalent arsenal.

[finknottle]

That threat's only as good as the number of bombs you have. If you have one or two, it's not that much of a threat when your opponent has dozens or hundreds. There's no MAD when you don't have an equivalent arsenal.

 

Are you nuts??? You would go to war thinking "I'll lose millions overnight, but it will be ok because I'll wipe them out"? Complete destruction is a requirement unique to the Cold War. In today's world, the west considers the loss of a single city as totally unacceptable. That's why the military option was taken off the table by the Clinton administration - NK already had enough conventional artillary (and, it was calculated, the will) to level Seoul in the event of a US strike.

 

And I can pretty much guarantee that in the first Gulf War, Saudi Arabia would never have staged the coalition on their soil had Saddam had even one bomb. None of the neighbors would have.

[DC Tom]

The third reason for building a bomb:

 

To dissuade an opponent from using military force against you.

 

If Iran had had the bomb in 1980, would Iraq have attacked? If Iraq had had it in 1990, would the international coalition led by the US have driven them out of Kuwait?

 

Fifth reason: greater standing at the negotiating table. Don't underestimate the political dimension of having membership in the nuclear "club". North Korea, for example, would expect (and be not unreasonable in doing so) that a nuclear capability would give them greater standing than South Korea and Japan, and put them on a more even level with the US, Russia, and China, in six-party talks.

[Ramius]

Who fires the first shot?

 

1)NK

2)US

3)SK

4)Israel

5)Iran

6)Japan

7)Other

8)None

 

Winner gets a bowl of Kimchi Ramen

 

Nice to see you've bounced up and back in the saddle after your miserable failure in your "swine flu" predictions.

[Dwight Drane]

Nice to see you've bounced up and back in the saddle after your miserable failure in your "swine flu" predictions.

 

What did I predict? I said it was created in a lab. There were articles a week after asking if it was created in a lab.

 

I did put the odds of a pandemic at 10-1 by 2012 late last year.

 

 

I have no clue what will happen in Korea. Japan is getting an itchy trigger finger but how likely are they to do something? Japan hits NK....and NK goes into SK and WWIII is official. I have been focused on Pakistan and Iran/Syria/Israel for the official start. What happens here.....no clue.

 

Here's a prediction.......Vikings in the SuperBowl. Adrian Peterson 2,000 yards rushing.

 

And I guess you don't want to win any Kimchi either.

[DC Tom]

I said it was created in a lab. There were articles a week after asking if it was created in a lab.

 

You honestly think that makes you somehow perceptive?

 

 

You're a nut.

[Dwight Drane]

You honestly think that makes you somehow perceptive?

 

 

You're a nut.

 

I am perceptive

 

You're projecting

[AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS]

Fifth reason: greater standing at the negotiating table. Don't underestimate the political dimension of having membership in the nuclear "club". North Korea, for example, would expect (and be not unreasonable in doing so) that a nuclear capability would give them greater standing than South Korea and Japan, and put them on a more even level with the US, Russia, and China, in six-party talks.

 

North Korea is already on an even level with our dear leader the messiah Barack "The Socialist" Obama!

[DrFishfinder]

Who do you mean by 'they' in the first sentence? Why would Iran start a war??

 

I guess I am rejecting the assertion that they are being built to be used as a chip in negotiation. What is there to negotiate? Nukes keep them safe and allow them to conduct their affairs as they see fit without fear of military retribution, and that is seen as more important than the lifting sanctions of dubious impact and staying power.

 

If Iran and North Korea felt anything not related to their nuclear programs were worth negotiating, wouldn't they be proactive in bringing it up?

I mean Iran in this case.

Why would Iran start a war? Well, because there is a dangerous, unpredictable leader who does not think in traditional western terms. The culture he comes from glorifies death for specific causes and the so-called Islamic extremists have no qualms whatsoever about sacrificing their own innocent citizens to achieve their goals. The concept of being a suicide bomber is utterly foreign to western culture, but embraced, encouraged and glorified within Islamic extremism. They do not think as we do in those respects, therefore westerners have an intrinsic deficiency in trying to understand why. Why would the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor from thousands and thousands of miles away?

 

It has been 64 years since a nuclear weapon was used in war conditions. Apart from Pakistan, no Islamic based nation has had nuclear weapons. That scenario will soon change with Iran. Since Ahmadinejad has espoused the complete eradication of Israel to the entire world, something that no world leader has done since Hitler's timeit is possible that in his mind, launching a nuclear tipped missile or two into Israel will galvanize the middle eastern countries that are governed by Islamic extremists. After all, Israel looks like a book of matches on a football field. The truth of the matter is that we don't know what Ahmadinejad is thinking.

 

Nuclear weapons have served as a deterrent since Hiroshima. But presently, nothing seems to be deterring Iran from pursuing its present course to acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has continued to conduct its affairs as it sees fit, without nuclear weapons. Once it has them, all bets are off.

[DrFishfinder]

I think this is a dangerous misunderstanding of their intentions. They do not want to start a war.

 

They want to be free to

- extort money, sell missile technology, and engage in counterfeiting (NK), and

- gain political hegemony by destabilizing their neighbors (Iran)

without fear of military retribution.

 

That is the objective, not attacking their neighbors.

I would not argue with your statements. I would point out however, that you are thinking in traditional western terms. That may, I emphasize MAY, turn out to be a mistake.

[DrFishfinder]

Only Ahmedinijad knows what Ahmedinijad wants, in all fairness. Everybody else can just speculate. Now the North Koreans...they're about as transparent as can be for a hermit state. I think you're dead on with them. They may be off the chain, but at least they're not zealots.

They are so close to Seoul, and are so heavily armed, that any act of aggression against NK stands a very high probability of causing massive collateral damage to Seoul.

[DrFishfinder]

I don't think Ahmedinijad is crazy. I think he's following a logic based on Shiite Islamic eschatology that calls for a global conflagration before the hidden imam can return. He truly believes in this stuff, in my opinion, and is willing to sacrifice millions of lives and the peace to achieve the goal he has in mind.

 

So do I think he'd use a bomb? Absolutely. I don't think he'd give it away to Hezbollah or anybody else, but I do believe that one builds bombs and missiles for one of two reasons: to use them, or to keep someone else from using theirs. Like you said, iran could be building their one nuclear weapon to keep Israel from using their hundred or so. But I doube such a lop-sided equation has any merit.

Crazy in western terms. Western thinking would equate Iran using a nuke on Israel as suicide. It would be a mistake to automatically assume that Ahmadinejad thinks the same way, whether it is true or not.

[DrFishfinder]

North Korea is already on an even level with our dear leader the messiah Barack "The Socialist" Obama!

Hardly. Please.

[Taro T]

I mean Iran in this case.

Why would Iran start a war? Well, because there is a dangerous, unpredictable leader who does not think in traditional western terms. The culture he comes from glorifies death for specific causes and the so-called Islamic extremists have no qualms whatsoever about sacrificing their own innocent citizens to achieve their goals. The concept of being a suicide bomber is utterly foreign to western culture, but embraced, encouraged and glorified within Islamic extremism. They do not think as we do in those respects, therefore westerners have an intrinsic deficiency in trying to understand why. Why would the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor from thousands and thousands of miles away?

 

It has been 64 years since a nuclear weapon was used in war conditions. Apart from Pakistan, no Islamic based nation has had nuclear weapons. That scenario will soon change with Iran. Since Ahmadinejad has espoused the complete eradication of Israel to the entire world, something that no world leader has done since Hitler's timeit is possible that in his mind, launching a nuclear tipped missile or two into Israel will galvanize the middle eastern countries that are governed by Islamic extremists. After all, Israel looks like a book of matches on a football field. The truth of the matter is that we don't know what Ahmadinejad is thinking.

 

Nuclear weapons have served as a deterrent since Hiroshima. But presently, nothing seems to be deterring Iran from pursuing its present course to acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has continued to conduct its affairs as it sees fit, without nuclear weapons. Once it has them, all bets are off.

Tis true that the suicide bomber gets glorified. It's also true that VERY few of the leaders over there end up suicide bombers. I'd be very surprised if Ahmadinejad intentionally put in motion a plan that would nearly guarantee his inclusion in the millions lost as collateral damage.

[Ramius]

What did I predict? I said it was created in a lab. There were articles a week after asking if it was created in a lab.

 

I did put the odds of a pandemic at 10-1 by 2012 late last year.

 

 

I have no clue what will happen in Korea. Japan is getting an itchy trigger finger but how likely are they to do something? Japan hits NK....and NK goes into SK and WWIII is official. I have been focused on Pakistan and Iran/Syria/Israel for the official start. What happens here.....no clue.

 

Here's a prediction.......Vikings in the SuperBowl. Adrian Peterson 2,000 yards rushing.

 

And I guess you don't want to win any Kimchi either.

 

A couple dozen deaths hardly qualifies as a pandemic.

 

Based on your track record, i'd be stupid NOT to bet my life savings against the vikings this season.

[Dwight Drane]

Based on your track record, i'd be stupid NOT to bet my life savings against the vikings this season.

 

Just a word of warning....Vegas doesn't accept rolls of coins.

[DrFishfinder]

Tis true that the suicide bomber gets glorified. It's also true that VERY few of the leaders over there end up suicide bombers. I'd be very surprised if Ahmadinejad intentionally put in motion a plan that would nearly guarantee his inclusion in the millions lost as collateral damage.

You are still thinking in western terms. Can you guarantee that Ahmadinejad thinks like that? Islamic extremists have no problem whatsoever in sacrificing tens of thousands of their own people. They already have and continue to do so for their own ideological reasons and goals.

[Taro T]

You are still thinking in western terms. Can you guarantee that Ahmadinejad thinks like that? Islamic extremists have no problem whatsoever in sacrificing tens of thousands of their own people. They already have and continue to do so for their own ideological reasons and goals.

No, it is not thinking in Western terms.

 

Show me which top dogs led suicide missions of their own. It's a pretty short list. They may have little regard for OTHER human life and "their own people", but they do seem to have regard for themselves.

[pBills]

North Korea is already on an even level with our dear leader the messiah Barack "The Socialist" Obama!

 

 

Hatred will get you no where.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Are you nuts??? You would go to war thinking "I'll lose millions overnight, but it will be ok because I'll wipe them out"? Complete destruction is a requirement unique to the Cold War. In today's world, the west considers the loss of a single city as totally unacceptable. That's why the military option was taken off the table by the Clinton administration - NK already had enough conventional artillary (and, it was calculated, the will) to level Seoul in the event of a US strike.

 

And I can pretty much guarantee that in the first Gulf War, Saudi Arabia would never have staged the coalition on their soil had Saddam had even one bomb. None of the neighbors would have.

*I* wouldn't go to war thinking that. But I think Ahmedinijad would.