[DeepSpace9er]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html

[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6356481.stm

[DeepSpace9er]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?

[Nuke]

i think every country should be allowed to have the bomb, so as to increases the probability for global thermonuclear war greatly.

[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?

Yes.  The whole point they started the sabre rattling was over the issue of oil/fuel aid being cut by the US combined with economic sanctions.  NKs leaders would probably rather save the money (not for their people, of course, but for more stupidly large statues and golden toilet seats).

[Charismatic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?

Yes.  The whole point they started the sabre rattling was over the issue of oil/fuel aid being cut by the US combined with economic sanctions.  NKs leaders would probably rather save the money (not for their people, of course, but for more stupidly large statues and golden toilet seats).

Hey, whats wrong with hudge golden toilet seats?

[WeatherOp]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?

Yes.  The whole point they started the sabre rattling was over the issue of oil/fuel aid being cut by the US combined with economic sanctions.  NKs leaders would probably rather save the money (not for their people, of course, but for more stupidly large statues and golden toilet seats).

Hey, whats wrong with hudge golden toilet seats?

Dang right!

Aldo must be biased or jealous or something.

[DeepSpace9er]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

Yeah we should really trust what the totalitarian dictators say, when they tell us that they 'promise to be good.'

[Fineus]

I have to bring this up as I'm sure (well.. I hope) that there's a good reason, but...

Why should America be allowed the bomb, but not North Korea or Iran or Russia or any other country for that matter? Who is any one country to impose that sort of limitation on another? What makes America any safer with it than N. Korea that they can have it but N. Korea can't?

The phrase "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" springs to mind. The Western world may see America as the good guys, but that's just one perspective.

[DeepSpace9er]

Why should America be allowed the bomb, but not North Korea or Iran or Russia or any other country for that matter? Who is any one country to impose that sort of limitation on another? What makes America any safer with it than N. Korea that they can have it but N. Korea can't?

The phrase "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" springs to mind. The Western world may see America as the good guys, but that's just one perspective.

Maybe because America isnt crazy enough or dangerous to use it as a first strike weapon against another country. When Iran, on a weekly basis threatens the destruction of Israel, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the world to make sure they dont posses weapons that can do it.

North Korea is a communist dictatorship, with a starving population, that wants to wipe out and take control of South Korea.

Believe it or not, despite your moral reletavism, there are countries that if they possesed the bomb, would kill millions of people and would destroy your way of life. There are people out there that want to kill you.. yes you personally, because you are not part of their ideology and religion, you are a westerner, and want to take everything you have away from you.

"Who are we to tell them they cant have the bomb?" Try the worlds lone superpower for starters...

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, Iran has ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so technically it's against their own laws to develope nuclear weapons, unless they withdraw from the treaty.

Curiously, North Korea has officially withdrawn from said treaty (albeit after breaking it, apparently). Israel has never signed nor ratified it. So it's technically within international law for both NK and Israel to have nuclear weapons... although Israel doesn't officially have those, and NK claims they have but probably don't have them, at least very many.

But in general idea, it's a perfectly legitimate question: If the current nuclear weapon states don't plan to use their weapons, why are they still having them? I mean, it's most illogical attitude. Certainly having the nuclear weapons indicates that there are some situations that the governments of those countries would deem it appropriate to use the weapons? If they would categorically think that nuclear weapons shouldn't be used in offense or in defense (which is also most lillogical thought), why not just toss them into lunar orbit and explode them there? Perhaps for a new year's fireworks, would be cool to explode all of them in one spot on the moon.

[aldo_14]

It's pretty obvious that neither Iran or North Korea have the capacity, need or even will to commit such a self destructive act as a first strike.  For both these isolationed regimes, nuclear weapons (assuming Iran wants them, of course, as NPT countries are allowed civillian nuclear power under the treaty) are a valuable political tool for forcing concessions on numerous issues, aside of course from their value as deterrents against a US increasingly operating a 'strike first, ask later' strategy.

The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.

[IceFire]

I think even a few years of the bitter reality of both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons have softened their positions.  If they go to war and one side nukes the other then the other side will be nuked too.  Its MAD all over again...thats probably (although you could never prove it) prevented a few wars.

Trouble is that with too many people's fingers on the trigger...someone is bound to blink.

[NGTM-1R]

The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.

India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.

Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.

[Kosh]

The Western world may see America as the good guys, but that's just one perspective.

From what I have been hearing, I don't think that is true anymore.

Maybe because America isnt crazy enough or dangerous to use it as a first strike weapon against another country.

It is the only country in the world to use it against another country. Now it does talk about developing more nukes, and also about using said newly developed "mini nukes".

[Nuclear1]

It is the only country in the world to use it against another country. Now it does talk about developing more nukes, and also about using said newly developed "mini nukes".

So, two atomic bombs, or hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties against an enemy that didn't surrender?

Compared to the other option, it seems that the US dropping the bomb was the best way to go.

[NGTM-1R]

It is the only country in the world to use it against another country.

If you've ever done any research about what Operation Coronet would have been like, you'd realize how stupid that statement is. The most conservative contemporary planning for the invasion of Kyushu alone put the probable casuality figures for US forces between 1 and 1.5 million. The cost in Japanese lives would have been at least several times that size. Had it been necessary to invade Honshu as well then things would have become immeasurably worse. When historical literature describes the general expectation that an invasion of the Home Islands would have become a "blood-soaked apocalypse" they are not kidding.

Yes, nuclear weaponry makes possible annihilation. But it also exists to prevent annihilation. Even in its use, it has done the latter.

[Herra Tohtori]

Yes, nuclear weaponry makes possible annihilation. But it also exists to prevent annihilation. Even in its use, it has done the latter.

...So what's the big problem with countries like Iran and North Korea having them?

[MP-Ryan]

Yes, nuclear weaponry makes possible annihilation. But it also exists to prevent annihilation. Even in its use, it has done the latter.

...So what's the big problem with countries like Iran and North Korea having them?

*hands Herra a bigger soup ladle*

You're going to need this is you keep stirring the pot

[Kosh]

It is the only country in the world to use it against another country. Now it does talk about developing more nukes, and also about using said newly developed "mini nukes".

So, two atomic bombs, or hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties against an enemy that didn't surrender?

Compared to the other option, it seems that the US dropping the bomb was the best way to go.

I'm not saying the US was wrong in a situation like that, but don't ever say the US is "not willing to use nuclear weapons first". The Bush administration has openly talked about using tactical nukes "first" in warfare several times over the last few years.  It is this love of the nuke that will be the doom of us all.