NK Nuke test

[Ocean11 0]

There's no denying that things are getting very dangerous. But I don't think you can compare nuclear arms with guns - they have a different logic. That's why you have lots of shooting wars like Iraq going on all the time and no nuclear wars.

 

Consider also NK's big friends, China and Russia. The US will have to take them into account too. Going after NK (or Iran) will bring the US into contact with some formidible Russian rocketry, and a lot of hazard from Russian and Chinese economic retaliation. As for what the neo-cons will do, who knows. I only hope there are enough sane people left in the US military to override them at some point.

 

The Bush regime still thinks it's a unipolar world, although many other countries are working quietly to ensure that it isn't. NK and Iran are part of that effort. Personally, I think a better balance of power will ultimately be safer, although that's very relative 'safety'.

[Davo 1]

I see your point, they are different things, and yes in the past they've served to hold things in check somewhat. As to the logic of their use, while they're not a likely choice in the options of offense/defense, there is a point in military planning and strategy when their "tactical use" could be ordered. Wasn't that always the ultimate senario during the Cold War in Europe? Tactical strikes on Soviet tank divisions were part of the plan then.

 

It's extremely unlikely that the US would use nuclear weapons on Nth Korea, or anywhere for that matter. I'm not entirely convinced of the logical abilities of the current administration though. Different region of course, but it is conceiveable that nuclear weapons will one day be used to secure control over oil. The actions of the US are pushing countries like Iran into their aquisition. I doubt the safety of the nuclear umbrella in a resource hungry world which is consuming beyond its means.