Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RDixon
Considering that even you have to admit that North Korea is way more "radical" than Iran ever was or ever will be, and given that we are still in a state of war with them, why the hell did the Bush admin sit and twiddle their army in Iraq while N.K. successfully tested a nuke?
Your argument about Iran not having a need for nuclear powered electricity generators:
Well, the US sure seemed to believe that they needed reactors back in the 50s after overthrowing the government there and installing that wonderfully benevolent guy, aka the shaw of Iran. And provided Iran with them.
The "don't need because of the vast reserves of oil and gas" did not come into play then.
I wonder why?
In truth you know little to nothing about Iran.
|
You're correct about the Iranian program being started under the Shah. I guess it's ok to have nukes so long as you like the US, it's not the principle, so much as who's side you are on.
But North Korea haven't tested a nuke, but probably have one to six.
Also, Drakonix, the North Korea issue isn't being addressed. It flares up and down, but nothing is resolved and it's been going on since 1989. North Korea pose an actual military threat, with real WMD (not rusting canisters of WW1 ordinance like mustard gas). Being an actual threat, with a functional army that won't roll over and die in three weeks, it's not really an option for the U.S, which - in spite of it's tough talk about "evil countries" not being allowed to possess WMD, doesn't have the stomach for actual war. That's when two armies are fighting. Don't blame them. The only country with the power to change the NK situation is probably China, and NK serves well as a proxy to goad the U.S with from a Chinese point of view.
I agree that the Iranians aren't developing nukes for power generation. They are, like the Koreans (and probably with their help), developing them as a deterrent versus the US and Israel. Nuke's in the Middle East are a really bad idea, but then again so are nukes in the subcontinent and in cold war Europe (powderkegs).
No country is crazy enough to launch a broad nuclear attack, the outcome in most instances would end up with the total annhilation in a counterstrike by either the target or it's allies. What having nukes does ensure against is conventional war, ala the stomping of Iraq. All the nuclear armed nations, cannot be conventional invaded without the opposing army being completely destroyed. For the first time in history, security of the homeland is basically assured.
Proliferation is basically inevitable, definately not desirable.