Why is North Korea a problem? okay ,they've got nuclear weapons,but they surely won't use them. they are just a medium to emphasize the meaning of NK. those guys there don't have money,they are practically ruined. so they build a few nuclear weapons and say:"ho,ho,cowboys,we've got nukes. respect us and give us money!". if they used their nukes,they'd be as good as dead.

They already have a missile which can go past Japan... how far is something the US government won't tell to keep the support of the public IF they take armed action against them.

Don't forget the DPRK has a standing army of one million soldiers, and can probably double that number in an emergency. They will fight by numbers, not by the strenght of their equipment (the only airforce in the world still flying MiG-19's on a dayly basis)

The difference with the 'certain middle east countries' (iran, lybia) is that N-Korea WILL attack with nuclear weapons if driven in a corner, while the mideast countries probably won't risk nuclear suicide.

Quote:
If the US intelligence had any idea of the pressure imposed on the various dissident groups the case would haven been closed in 1991, and a lot of lives could have been spared and a lot of war trauma's avoided.

MAD again or a nuclear winter?

Who's gonna decide...

Quote:


yes i agree but so far we are following the 'korea' guidelines and anything associated

I can't speak to wether or not N Korea is actually a greater threat, but I do know this; When I was there in 85-86 the big man was Kim Il Sung and everyone was afraid that when he died his son (Kim Jong Il) would be twice as bad.  People lived in constant fear of that day.  Now he has been in power some years and that fear has yet to be justified, but from the look of things (to quote Hank Hill)  that boy ani't right...

Well, it would seem that the thread has gone a bit wayward!
But then who am I to talk about sending a topic reeling off on a tangent?...............lol I've probably done it myself a hundred times!

I agree with Felix in that the thread hasn't gotten to the 'naughty' stage yet, but I think when we start to talk about blowing up a particular country, maybe we're in danger of upsetting someone (perhaps the people from that country?).

As for the US having nuclear weapons (I assume illegal by certain treaties, is what was meant). They have been around for nearly 60 years now, and during the entire 'cold war', Korea, Vietnam and Middle east conflicts and every 'blood boiling' act of terrorism directed at the US or it's people around the world, they have never even threatened to use them (seriously, at least).
This record in itself, is enough for me to support the concept of the US being (albeit self-appointed) the major peacekeeper of the world, if you like, as the UN has shown recently how very ineffective it is and the disdain with which some governments treat it's resolutions. I believe there is a need for a trustworthy, level-headed, honest country (as the US has proven to be over the years) to maintain a small arsenal of Nukes to guard against those that would use them if the 'mutual annihilation' concept did not exist.
Let's face it. It's not an easy job and someone has to do it. The losses suffered by the US in the two recent Gulf conflicts and Afghanistan (let alone previous, more 'popular' wars) to free other nations from despots and dictators, is testimony enough to the cost of the position. I imagine that's why Australia has always been at their side whenever needed. Without exception.

i totally agree to Ivan. we cant live with the "USA ,Britain: good;Russia,Iran,Communists:bad;rest of the world:stupid" picture forever.
but that's just my opinion and now:shoot me,hang me,kill me!