good for them. every country has a right to defend itself
2006-10-05 07:59:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by newmom 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
With the current political instability in the world who can blame them for wanting a nuclear defense option. What they seem not to have understood from the last 50 years is that it's a false form of defense.
Who would use them and why? If you really think that using them as the final option is going to deter an aggressor then I'd suggest that the people you are trying to protect would be better off under the control of that aggressor.
What I find irritating is that the US has started making threats against a country whose internal policy is nothing to do with them. Who gave them the right to say what country can or can't have nuclear weapons? Is the leader of North Korea any more unstable than G.W?
I think if the US want to try and persuade other peoples about how to live they should lead by example. The US doesn't exactly have a very good history with regard to doing the right thing!
2006-10-05 15:16:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by MrClegg 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The sad fact is that they are going to get away with it. Their example will inspire other dictators to abrogate their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT).
Example for Other Countries:
Within ten years, we may see another five countries test and deploy nuclear weapons. Sooner or later, one of those weapons will be used. At that point, I can only hope that things won't escalate.
Scary Trend:
And few countries voluntarily disarm themselves of their nuclear weapons. We see a plausible trend: occasionally some countries abrogate the NNPT, but few revert to non-nuclear status. Eventually, everyone will have nuclear weapons.
Long Term Outlook:
If you study statistics, you know that low probability events are guaranteed to occur, given enough opportunities. There is only a small chance of nuclear annihilation, but if you let a lot of time go by, it will eventually happen.
If, for example, every year we run a 1% chance of nuclear annihilation, then we only have a 50-50 chance of surviving the next 69 years. Of course, no one knows what the actual annual chance is.
Unless someone "pulls a rabbit out of a hat", the civilized world has taken another step towards potential annihilation.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
To those of you who think it is hypocritical of nuclear-armed nations to try to stop nuclear proliferation: the terms of the NNPT are (simplified and summarized):
-- Non-nuclear nations will not try to gain them
-- Nuclear nations will reduce their armament levels.
The US and Russia have complied with the agreement by reducing their arms depots.
2006-10-05 15:18:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tom D 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Given a senior US official has turned and said North Korea has two options namely : a future without nuclear weapons or no future, it's obvious they are not going to be allowed to proceed much further. North Korea, if they are being realistic, will realise this. They are simply posturing (on a dangerous level) to obtain as much advantage in the negotiations as they can.
2006-10-05 16:40:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by bob kerr 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hmmm Well loads of other Countries have Nuclear weapons so why are we so worried about korea?
2006-10-05 16:24:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mark 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think we should prepare for that eventuality and be ready to level every military installation in the country within 24 hours of such a test.
2006-10-05 15:00:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Liter Biker 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
we cant live with a nuclear North korea, so says dr rice
2006-10-06 02:48:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by acid tongue 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
when a country has so many other countries against them then i dont blame them for having nuclear weapons.who are we to dictate and dont forget the only race of people on earth to drop an atomic weapon on their fellow human beings are the yanks.
2006-10-05 15:05:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is not good but it is a bit hypocritical for the UN to forbid them when so many of its member states have nuclear armaments. Also, it isn't really a good idea to make them angry!
2006-10-05 14:58:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by hysteria_fox 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
They most likely don't want to bomb anyone. But we certainly would love to bomb them. They are acting this way because we are threatening them with attacks, sanctions and more. What would you do if the country with the most bombs in the world, already involved in inivading, occupying and threatening countries all over the world was at your door step with a threatening message.
2006-10-05 15:19:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Whatever 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm glad i'm not in Japan right now, or south korea.
2006-10-05 14:57:48
·
answer #11
·
answered by OneDay 3
·
1⤊
0⤋