New York Times on the Web Forums
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a
nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a
"Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed
considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense
initiatives more successful? Can such an application of
science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable,
necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a new
Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published
(5467 previous messages)
- 01:42am Nov 5, 2002 EST (#
5468 of 5478)
The United States tested its first H-bomb in 1952, seven
years after its first A-bomb. China, France, Great Britain and
the Soviet Union have tested H-bombs much sooner after testing
their first A-bomb. India has tested a booster bomb - a
precursor of H-bombs. Israel most likely has H-bombs. Any
nation that can made booster bombs can make H-bombs as well.
North Korea's 31.5 kg of plutonium, assuming that is all North
Korea has to work with, would mean at least 30 H-bombs. If
this is true, one can no longer pooh pooh North Korea's 1-2
'primitive' nukes. North Korea's 30 or so H-bombs can do
serious damage to Japan and the United States.
Kang Sang Wuk told Kelly, Bush's special envoy to
Pyongyang, that North Korea has not only 'nuclear programs'
but also, more "powerful' weapons. Other North Korean
spokesmen have in the past alluded to waging thermo-nuclear
war with the United States using nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Is it
possible that they are not bluffing?
- 01:54am Nov 5, 2002 EST (#
5469 of 5478)
Hope you guys were able bear with me on the long article
posted... I for one do not believe NK is bluffing on this one.
Though eccentric and dictatorial regime it certainly is on
many matters, they have been rather consistent in their
assessment re: US nuclear doctrine. I think they are well
aware that they better be able to back up their words with
deeds on this type of stuff in the age of Bush doctrine that
we live in.....
So my humble suggestion to you, Robert, is that maybe what
we need more of now is good old fashioned "real politik" and
damm good one at that rather than appeals to humanistic and
historically sensitive cumbaya mumbojumbo sessions...in other
words, just for this one, give me the real Kissinger not
wannabes such rummy and chenny or starry eyed liberals.
- 07:58am Nov 5, 2002 EST (#
5470 of 5478)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click
"rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for
on this thread.
I think you need both the most competent military
and "realpolitical" approach possible AND enough
discourse that possibilities of comfortable resolution are at
The N. Koreans are no more crazy than MAD -
mutual assured destruction - - and I think there's some
comfort to be taken in knowing that deterrance often has
worked in the past. There's a nice image associated with
. What, Me Worry About Insults? By
THOMAS VINCIGUERRA http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/03/weekinreview/03WORD.html
-- and as any fool can plainly see, Alfred E. Neumann is
scared out of his wits - but trying to put a brave face on it.
We might consider the same stance - at least a little.
I've assumed that the NKs had the H bomb - because the damn
things are so easy to build - the NK's can't run a decent
economy - or even feed their people - but they aren't
totally screwed up - - they ought to know enough to
I think Rummy and Co might be militarily more effective if
they considered some stuff on this board - I'm not a prude
about killing people. I'm thinking about reposting some of it
- if I think it is stabilizing to do so, on the assumption
that both the North Koreans and some halfway reasonable
Americans may be reading it. Haven't decided yet, but expect
Military functions can be absolutely essential, for reasons
that are never going to change - so long as man remains
But sometimes, talking is necessary too , if there
is to be any possibility of a good outcome.
This time, for all the risks - a lot of the situation looks
hopeful to me.
And I don't have to like or trust the NKs to think so.
- 09:45am Nov 5, 2002 EST (#
5471 of 5478)
I agree...in fact I would argue that Clinton plan (which
was in fact a recommendation by William Perry, probably a true
heir to Kissingerian fame if any) was probably the only course
available then and available now...which Bush will eventually
take as well in his second term (like Clinton did after
exhausting all the options). Another little prediction of mine
which I am sure Mazzas of this world will quickly forget true
to their form.
(7 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums