In this other thread of mine (which interestingly enough of devoid of answers from some specific sides of the debate), Blalron made a comment I thought was interesting:
What do you all think? True? Important? (I ask this last because I’m not sure whether or not it’s moot, even if true; I have a feeling that the majority of “two bit dictators” are trying to get nukes ANYWAY.)
Thoughts, anyone?
What can they say?
Disarm Russia by giving each country in the world 3 nukes. Small countries will be real nice to everyone, Big countries won’t do things to piss off the whole world. Since everyone hates the U.S., we get to keep our several thousand 
In the last two issues of Harpers magazine, Jonathan Schell has written extended essays demonstrating how Bush’s doctrine of “pre-emptive war” (including “usable nukes”) encourages nuclear proliferation.
North Korea is solid evidence for the validity of this argument.
Hmmph. That’s right, back in 1994, North Korea knew that Al-Qaeda would attack the WTC and the Pentagon seven years later, and that 18 months after that the US would attack Iraq. So they built their first bomb then, to prevent the then-not-elected Bush II Administration from attacking them in 2003.
'Cause, you see, North Korea’s intelligence agencies are that good.
Sua
Perhaps lout was implying:
Dubya’s policy toward North Korea is solid evidence for the validity of this argument.
A year ago I would have said it was a bad idea for France to get nuclear weapons back in the days, but today I have to say that it was a good idea, or else France and the rest of Europe would have been entirely at the mercy of the USA and Russia during the cold war.
As much as I dislike nations inventing and stockpiling nuclear weapons, this selective starting of wars on nations without nuclear weapons really seems to be an incentive for everyone to get them. When the cold war ended, the fear of a nuclear war decreased. That all may change thanks to Bush’s clever foreign policy.
Suasponte, while North Korea didn’t know in advance, the current news do give validity to the argument, in hindsight.
Actually, horizontal proliferation - the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations - is nothing new. Experts have said that it is one of the greatest threats to international security for decades. Once nuclear weapons were possible it was certain that many nations would want them. Nations like, say, Pakistan: facing a larger neighbor with a significant territorial dispute.
North Korea is a perfect example of how Bush’s policy has little to nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. North Korea has both a plutonium and an enriched uranium bomb program, has for years. This is Bush’s fault? I think too much is made of Bush pointing out what a terrible regime exists in North Korea. The North Koreans say worse about the US all the time.
As for Kim Jong Il being “safe” because he has nuclear weapons. That remains to be seen.
Iraq is expected to go down easy. North Korea is presumed to be an extremely hard nut to crack. There’s the explanation.
I think the more relevant example is Iran, who seeing what is happening to Iraq is trying to arm themselves with a nucular (sic) weapon system
Is this considered a new thing, or has every dictator always tried to acquire the most weapons he could? As in Panzers and Luftwaffe?
Or should we publicly promise not to invade any country without nukes? Even if they invade Kuwait?
Regards,
Shodan
Say, that would be a great line of argument for North Korea. Because, really, everybody who’s anybody wants to invade Kuwait. 