Its seems North Korea has used the bomb.
Our world has gotten a lot more dangerous
and as usual the bush administration
has totally failed us. About a year ago
NK, (North Korea) had agreed to 6 party talks.
Then the U.S. by its actions of V.P chaney and rumsfield,
increased the sanctions on NK, which managed to sabotage
the talks, because they walked. If the U.S had simply gone
with the flow, the talks would have been conducted.
So NK test is a direct consequences of the bush administration
actions.
In terms of capital, what does the bush administration and the Carslysle Group (I recommend research in their corporate ties) stand to gain in the prevention of a nuclear holocaust? Other than the fact that you can’t spend money on a dead world, I mean.
If you were raised by money-hungry narcissism, would you want peace and love?
Phaedrus: What should Bush have done, Pete? Invaded N. Korea? Somehow I doubt that would have pleased you."
K: the North Koreans were ready to talk about a year ago,
until this current administration (chaney and rumsfield)
sabotage the talks with an increase in the sanctions on
north Korea. Talks are good, it was not a one on one talks,
it was a 6 nation talks, and could have lead to
a solution to this situation. With the help of china and
russia, it could have easily been dealt with a year ago.
(by the way, john bolten was a key player here until
condi rice made him go away for interfering too much)
Impenitent: he should have sold them the technology to make a better missile like clinton did"
K: and the GOP party stand of personal accountability never seems
to be applied to the GOP. Accepting personal responsibility would
be a great start for the GOP and bush personally.
Well, that seems a bit naive to me. I do think the leader of N. Korea is fucking crazy, and I don’t think Bush or anyone else can manipulate him easily. All the nations of the world seem to want their peice of the Atomic Pie. And why shouldn’t they? They look at American & Russia, sitting on over fifteen thousand nukes between us, and they say what’s good for you is good for us, too.
Probably we’d be far better off if no one had any nukes, but isn’t it a bit hypocritical for the nuclear nations to say “we have ours, now let’s all stop”? We have a right to the Bomb, but Iran & N. Korea do not? Naturally it’s in our self interest to keep as many as we can while preventing others from attaining that capapility. But surely it’s a selfishness that’s completely transparent to the rest of the world.
Anyways, do we even have the right to prevent others from using nuclear energy? It’s the power that makes the universe run. The technology is sixty years old by now, and a bright high school student could figure out how to make it work with all the info already out there. Fission & fusion are inherent processes in nature- isn’t trying to prevent others from harnessing the atom as futile as trying to keep them from using fire?
The squabble isn’t so much about making fire, but where the fire is being made… That there are designs for so-called “suitcase” nukes puts the capabilities in the hands of every nutcase with a stomachache. Given the porosity of any countries borders, it does create a bit of concern…
No doubt. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that the whole issue reeks of hipocracy. I don’t want our “enemies” to have nukes, either. Hell, it’d probably be better if we didn’t have them. You can talk about nukes “in the wrong hands” but you could argue there are no right/correct ones.
So yes, it’s not good, it makes the world more dangerous, and it will probably get worse before it gets better. It’s probably impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
As an aside, even when the world teetered on the brink during the darkest days of the Cold War, the concept of MAD probably did preserve the peace. With most of the weapons in the hands of just a few countries, and ones with some measure of political stability, things were probably safer than they are now. Stalin was evil, but he was practical. Kruschev wanted to crush us, but he didn’t want to be annihilated in the process. I don’t get that same feeling from the governments of Iran & N. Korea (although the latter is the most worrisome to me).
“Back in the day” I never worried that the US or the USSR would just say “fuck it” and fire. There was a sense that actually using the Bomb was near unthinkable, that we would never fire first, but only in retaliation. And I felt the Russians probably felt the same way. Ironically, Bush may be the most dangerous leader since Stalin to actually have “the football.”
I’ve commented in a couple of threads that N Korea and Iran are insane. With our military stretched as thin as it is, any further threat to our “national interests” makes the tactical nuclear option look plausible. I can just hear Cheney and Rummy saying, “They left us no choice”.
Yeah. And before the invasions of Afganistan & Iraq, Bush stated flat out that “no option is off the table” and that he’d consider the use of tactical nukes as bunker busters. Scary.
That there are designs for so-called “suitcase” nukes puts the capabilities in the hands of every nutcase with a stomachache. Given the porosity of any countries borders, it does create a bit of concern…