North Korea annouces they have nuclear weapons

[The_Tracker]

They are pulling out of the six nation talks and site the aggresive stance by the bush administration as their need for a nuclear retaliation.

What can be said about this? bush is in Iraq digging for oil, but thankfully got all the weapons out of saddams hands. And now are beating the war drum over Iran, who may or may not have a nuclear program.
His plan to control the mideast oil has trumped the fact that we have a very real and dangerous threat in N. Korea a short shot away.
If you didn't know this, N. Korea has missiles that could easily reach the west coast of the US with a nuclear payload.

Go bush! On to Iran!

[Felix_Nietsche]

Telling the truth has not be North Korea's strong suit...

They may be lying hoping to avoid a first strike by the USA...

[Il_Mostro]

I remember reading an article a while ago stating that NE was rumoured to have bought a nuke from someone, probably a russian one.

Not proof, obviously, but there seems to be a fair amount of circumstantial evidence in favor of them actually having the nuke.

[guller]

I though NK's two stage missle they tested a few years back just made it over Japan and thats it. As far as I know they can't reach the USA. Am I wrong, please site?

On a side note if they already have them then it's too late. A good plan should be to stop the spread. So Iran it is.

[sam h]

I wouldn't take anything North Korea says at face value. Not only do they have a history of deception, but the logic of deterrence is such that it is in their interest to have the Bush administration believe they have nukes.

[Il_Mostro]

The problem of course is that it's almost impossible to stop the spread. Especially sinse the current nuclear powers are not exactly decomissioning any nukes. Insted they (at least the US) are trying to make new models (bunkerbusters and whatnot). Thus, the people who belive they have things to fear from the states are more anxios to get their own.

[mojorisin24]

Explain to me how oil is not an imperative natural resource worth fighting for. Seriously. I want to know how the US economy, which literally runs on oil (as do most industrialized nations with large automobile usage), survives without it. Oh, and please tell me why gas prices haven't changed, and where all that Iraqi crude is. The platitudes you use to describe the ongoing situation in Iraq just sound stupid.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how oil is not an imperative natural resource worth fighting for

[/ QUOTE ]
All wars are about resources. And oil is the, by far, most important resource there is.

Oil obviously has a part in the Iraq war, the US is not there to "steal" the oil, such ideas are plain silly. I would say that part of the reason for the war is manouvering by the government in order to get a firmer grip of the oil supply from the ME. This is increasingly important since almost all regions in the world except ME is in decline when it comes to oil production, they have already peaked. ME still has some spare capacity, how much noone really knows.

Since ME will peak, as well as total production, I would have prefered the US to not fight for the last scraps but pushing ahead trying to find alternatives. Because if we don't find viable alternatives to oil (and there are absolutely none now) life as we know will simply not exist in 100 years.

[tolbiny]

"Explain to me how oil is not an imperative natural resource worth fighting for."

Oil is a non renewable energy source. That is why. The US (and other countries) is going to have to change thier energy dependance within the next 50 years. Quite probably much sooner than that. By continuing to rely on oil our forgien policy is forced in certain directions, generally expensive destabalizing directions. And we are going to have to come up with a solution at some point in the very near future (within the lifetime of most of the posters on this board). Our policies should be directed at avoiding dependance on other cuntries when possible.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
I though NK's two stage missle they tested a few years back just made it over Japan and thats it. As far as I know they can't reach the USA. Am I wrong, please site?

On a side note if they already have them then it's too late. A good plan should be to stop the spread. So Iran it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/Media/2003/06/North_Korea/article02.shtml

I may be incorrect. It looks as though they are still in development. Another 10 years supposedly for the continental US. Alaska and Hawaii may be potential targets as of now however.

[Cyrus]

I don't think you fellows are quite up to scratch with the brilliant diversionary strategy of General Dubya. Which carries on in the tradition of strategies employed by Generals Bill Clinton and George "Shoulda-have-worn-a-condom" Bush.

General Dubya sees an attack on the US by Arab terrorists and promptly picks up a file from the drawer titled "Threats" and the file is for "Iraq". So he attacks Iraq! (Never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, 9/11, anti-American terrorism, or WMDs. Watch closely because this is one tough game-theoretic concept!)

So in the same briliant, randomized vein, Dubya should pick another file from the "Threats" drawer and (my money is his aides have it placed very near the top) ...draws "Venezuela". OK, now the president of Venezuela is chummy with Castro, they have lotsa petroleum under 'em and they're Latinos, for crying out loud! They are walk-overs! The whole set-up is ready already, we can make the switch in an hour. In the immortal words of the Tony LoBianco character in French Connection, What are we waiting for??

Attack, VENEZUELA, I say.

This will send a very strong and very clear mesage to North Korea.