North Korean nukes?

[IcemanCometh]

They don't have oil tho so no matter (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040911_1461.html)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

People always make comments like that about NK, but really... what are you expecting Bush to do about NK?

The moment we cross the 38th parallel their psycho prez. pushes the buttons on the nukes he does have.

[ChumpDumper]

Who's to say ol' high hair won't launch a missle without being attacked?

Are we just going to wait around for him to attack like Osama?

What have we learned?

[MannyIsGod]

I say he's not going to launch without being attacked.

Stop trying to fear monger just like the right does with every other situation.

The fact is that if we'd simply let south korea handle this and take the drivers seat, we'd be much better off.

Stop making NK the threat it is not.

[ChumpDumper]

Well I guess we did learn something -- build more nukes!
Congress this session will take up the question of whether the U.S. should continue its post-Cold War policy of lowering its military nuclear profile or instead embrace a new Bush administration program to research and develop a family of tactical nuclear weapons intended for use against terrorist enclaves and hostile nations.link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=2027&e=1&u=/chitribts/20040911/ts_chicagotrib/debateragesonplantodevelopnewnukes)

So do we hit Kim with a robust nuclear earth penetrator (sexy!) before he thinks about selling something to someone somewhere?

Call it now.

[Nbadan]

Other than to kill millions of South Koreans, I don't see Lil Kim motivated to set off any nuclear weapons on the Korean punninsula any time soon. Besides, with all those new fuel rods, every 6 months that passes the North Koreans build another 5-6 nuclear weapons. Better for them, worse for us if the DMZ ever collapses.

[MannyIsGod]

this country will never adopt a policy of using nuclear weapons first because of the danger (even though remote) of leting the "genie out of the bottle"

[Nbadan]

Developing low-yield nukes will only encourage their use and using nukes should only be a very last resort. We have conventional weapons that have managed to get the job done thus far with more powerful earth-penetrating missiles still on the drawing board.

[Hook Dem]

Some of you "experts" should be in Washington at the Pentagon. You're wasting your time here and this country awaits your arrival with anticipated excitement! :lol

[SpursWoman]

a robust nuclear earth penetrator


Oh, damn. Do they carry that at the Megaplex? :shock

[MannyIsGod]

tactical nukes have been around forever dan. during the 60s and 70s almost any weapon we built was built with a nuclear capability. we had air to air nukes, surface to air nukes, nuclear artilery shells, and all kinds of shit like that.

i know we still have the artillery, but thats bout it.

honestly, the weaopns our military have now are so damn precise and effictive that nukes in a tacticle situation are not nessecary. they are more political weapons than anything else.