Lomax » Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:04 pm wrote:I may have misunderstood your position. When you say that Iranian objectives may "force" the US to "take action" against them, what do you mean?
ronjanec » February 2nd, 2017, 9:04 pm wrote:It's too late? Is it? I again honestly do not know what we can do about either situation, but if we just keep ignoring this it will just get worse and then create an even more untenable situation for our national security interests. Millions of people may die? You do not know that for certain, and our military capabilities are probably a lot scarier and even a lot more effective than people like ourselves realize.
-- from the CNN article linked above.North Korea nevertheless continues to make bellicose statements, including one from leader Kim Jong Un on New Year's Day in which he said his military is on the brink of testing its first intercontinental ballistic missile -- a rocket that could be equipped with nuclear weapons and is powerful enough to reach any part of the United States.
Analysts point out, however, that Kim's bluster is often more for internal consumption than an actual threat to South Korea and the US...
BadgerJelly » February 4th, 2017, 12:37 am wrote: The US don't want nations to have nuclear weapons because then they can actually fight back (a little) if attacked.
jocular » February 4th, 2017, 11:34 am wrote:BadgerJelly » February 4th, 2017, 12:37 am wrote: The US don't want nations to have nuclear weapons because then they can actually fight back (a little) if attacked.
Are they not right in this? "a little" = more like "a lot" to my mind.
I agree the question is fraught(and self serving/hypocritical) but have we forgotten about non proliferation? Has the horse bolted? Can I have one too?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests