Bush thought of using strategic nuclear weapons against N. Korea?  Isn't anyone upset?
443285
No, if you study history, you will find that many a president has considered using nuclear weapons at one time or another.  Johnston thought about using them in Vietnam, but didn't.  Kennedy was ready to if the Cuban missile crisis escalated.  Harry and Ike both wondered if they should in Korea the first time.  Thinking about it and actually doing it are two different things.  Besides, I really doubt if they would be allowed.
726560
Not going to go in-depth due to lack of information in your question.\n\n- N.Korea was a member of the NPT which gives them certain nuclear rights\n- 2001 Bush removed the USA from the ABT: antiballistic nuclear weapons treaty (that's long range ones)\n- 2002 Bush states in his state of the union speech, N.Korea was on his axis of evil, as well as, Iraq and others\n- 2003 Bush invades one of the axis of evil countries, Iraq\n- 2003 Feeling threatened, N.Korea annouces it will remove itself from the NPT and restarts its nuclear weapons development program\n\nSo my pt is, can you blame them...
267308
No. It could seem that way because of Truman's policy of communist containment. Actually Kim Il Sung song-and-danced Uncle Joe Stalin into believing that an invasion of South Korea from the north would be a pushover, and only take a couple of months to prosecute. He also convinced Stalin that the USA would not retaliate to save South Korea.
341405
I think I'm gonna go in the yes column for this one. I don't really see China getting involved, not openly anyway. I think a conflict with NK is approaching quicker than anyone is imagining. When, not if, when we strike Iran the die will be cast. At that point we are left in a giant nightmare of our own design. The mideast in turmoil with our assets being sucked dry and Kim Jong-Il looking at his pie chart of the axis of evil. Iraq down, Iran down, time to hit the button. I'm thinkin' he's not a man to bluff. He has openly stated he will use his nukes pre-emptively against the US.
728364
Nobody at all should have nukes. How can the US and other nuclear powers yell at these upstarts that want the same nuclear weaponry that the current nuclear powers have access to?\n\nIt's like a parent telling his kids not to smoke while puffing away on a cigarette.
1123442
North Korea hates the United States since the end of WWII, not because of Bush. North Korea was supported by the then Soviet Union and the South by the United. So the hate goes back to the Communist-Democracy tensions. \nI do not believe that North Korea will start WWIII because it does not have the capability of executing it. If it launches a missle, that means North Korea will have to face the militaries of the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Given that, they'd pay dearly if they launched a missile.
735437
I don't think America would like to be the ones to let the Genie out of the bottle again. See, we used the bomb to end WW2 and saved not only American Lives, but Japanese lives too. It was estimated that over a MILLION people would die if we invaded Japan.\n\nThe trouble with nukes is they are area wide weapons. It takes out everyone, good people, kids, bad people, and anything else in that area. America would much rather try to do things conventional if they could.\n\nI think that we need to send the message, world wide, that if a nuke goes off, or a dirty bomb in the US, what ever country support that group that committed that crime, will be visited by us. We will bring the million degrees of heat and they supply the sand and we will turn their country into a glass parking lot.\n\nWe cant let terrorist run our country, even with threats of attack. We have to stand strong, or bend over and kiss it good bye cause, they will come after us if we leave Iraq undone and incomplete.\n\nAre you listening Democrats???? Then who are you going to blame for that attack????
623239
It's called non-proliferation, and it's a good thing.  We don't WANT every nation to have nukes.  It would be BAD. That's like having 10 kids in a room and one has a gun.  Chances are, he won't use it unless he has to.  Now, picture all 20 with guns.  Chances are, one of them is gonna go off half cocked.  Especially with all the fanatics in the world.\nGet it???
1170679
Another provocative question from Nicholas "meathead" Rage. Liberals as you call us are not quick to defend that piece of sh't, we just want our leaders to thoroughly think out any military operation regardless of reason. The cowboy Bush mentality (shoot first ask questions later) has cost us thousands of our "kids" lives and for what? Meanwhile North Korea is testing  long range missles that could hit Alaska or Hawaii, Good job Georgie Boy, we feel much safer now.
384352
I think any person (including President Bush who I happen to think is the best president since Abe Lincoln) who is under a lot of stress of running a country or some large class of social setting is bound to be a closet-case.  I doubt very much that Bush is the type to hide things in the closet, but I found out this morning that he plans to nuke Iran's political leaders' bunkers so that the people will overthrow the government and accept a diplomatic government setting.  I don't think this is the wisest thing to do, but it is far better than doing nothing.  And even after Bush's term is over, people will never cease to find things that he did wrong.  But if people are so charged up about the fact that there is no right or wrong, how can they be so emphatic that somebody is wrong?  And if you're supposed to tolerate people despite their opinions of right and wrong, then Bush is doing just that.  I have mixed feelings over nuking just anybody.\n\n  For one, he is openly declaring war on another country with a separated (but linked issue of possible terrorist actions) topic.  It is not totally unlike him because unlike the Afghanistan issue in which he thought that there were weapons of mass destruction, Iran has openly told the rest of the world that they have these weapons and in fact plan to use them.\n  But on the other hand, he had already declared global war on terror to stop terror in countries outside the US before they have a chance to strike inside.  Before the US dropped the H-bomb on Hiroshima, they had given the Chinese several explicit warnings to 'cease fire' or measures would be to force them to stop.  Bush's stand on nukes has been to seek them out and stop them from being made.  Now it seems that he has resigned to the answer of the popular question in the political category: Is bombing the Middle East the answer to solving the war problems?\n\n  I don't think it is.  I don't think that any one person can decide whether a war can be stopped or decide to take actions to keep a war from starting.  I admire any person who decides to keep a war from starting.  I haven't found any man (including Bush) who declares war on a country for reasons that seem right at the moment and then turn foul afterward.  The war that was declared after 9/11 was a retaliation.  The war on Iran would be a preventive action taken to try and keep anything bigger from exploding.  One thing is certain.  There will always be a war of some sort at all times.
40761
Is this a question, or a US bashing, I'm not sure. I often ask myself that same question though. The most honest answer might be because we can control our technology, and we have the power to control proliferation too because we see it as a danger. In general, it's probobly not a good idea for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have Atom bombs. Do you really think nothing bad would happen if every country had enough bombs to destroy the planet? Yea that would be swell. \n\nI do have to admit there is a certain irony to the United States being so controling about nukes. We say we can't trust others to have them, but who's the ONLY county crazy enough in the history of the world to actually use one... Yep.
475125
I think this is how Bush sees it. This is an analogy. Iran, Osama and N Korea are all school yard bullies. Osama comes and punches you square and hard in the face and runs away and hides, N Korea is just yelling verbal threats but other than that is doing nothing, and Iran is slowly walking to wards you cracking his knuckles, now who would you see as the immediate threat? George sees it as Iran, I dont know about you but thats just from one "Repub"
1092910
it is hard to tell that little guy is a nut job, but if it is real, it could send a nuke to the united states, japan, or europe. not a good thing for a nut job to have at his control. and it could result in another korean conflict, though this time i think we would win.
799162
First, if anybody believes we're going to invade either North Korea or Iran, then they are complete fools.\n\nSecond, if anybody believes that NKorea or Iran are going nuclear because of the foolish idea we'd invade them, they're even bigger fools than the complete fools.\n\nNKorea and Iran started their nuclear programs long before there was any threat from the US.\n\nWhy is the rest of the world so ignorant of simple historic fact?\n----------\nUh, what evidence? You somehow have detailed knowledge of the NKorean nuclear program? Perhaps it slowed until Clinton gave them 2 nuclear reactors.
989890
North Korea does not have ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in the US -- yet!!!  Plans to test the first such missile appear to be in go-ahead stage, but until a successful test launch and subsequent successful test launches, they will not have demonstrated a reliable long range missile system.  We also have no credible evidence that North Korea has produced a weapon capable of being mounted on the missile.  We also cannot confirm that North Korea even has any nuclear weapons at all, although we know they have sufficient plutonium for several devices and we suspect they have built several devices.\n\nKim Jong Il postures in a risky game of brinkmanship by permitting this test prep to proceed.  The missile was fueled Sunday, June 18, which is usually an indicator that the launch will go forth.  (Removing fuel is a hazardous procedure, so fueling usually means a go-ahead status.)\n\nIf the test proceeds, it will be Korea's first launch attempt of a long range missile since its unsuccessful 1998 launch of a missile over Japan.  That missile's third stage failed to engage and the missile broke up and fell into the Pacific.  Analysts fear Korea has improved the missile design since then.\n\nIf there is a launch and it is successful, we will enter a new era, and we'll see nuclear brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban missile crisis.\n\nComparisons of Korea and Iraq are not valid, and solutions will vastly differ.  \n\nIn the post-USSR era, the US stands more likely to be targeted with a nuclear weapon or weapons by terrorist organizations.  Such stateless organizations have the ambition to make such attacks, and are unhampered by any fears of retaliation, as there would be no nation-state against whcih to retaliate.\n\nNorth Korea's Kim Jong Il is fettered by his nation, and is well aware of the stakes.  \n\nI suppose, in my weary last words here tonight, I'd say that I don't think that Kim Jong Il will launch a nuclear weapon against the US because our response will not be a tactical air and ground campaign.  It will be a nuclear response.\n\nI'd like to write more, but it's late and I'm tired.  I hope what I did write makes sense and is at least somewhat informative.  I don't pretend to know how this will all play out in the coming months and years.\n\nI'm sorry to be seeing the situation develop, but that seems to be the theme of the post 9-11 world as I know it.
207668
Well, I'll clear up all the bias here.\n\nWhile it would be a good idea (we certainly shouldn't let them keep nuklear weapons) to invade Iran, I personally think that Bush is too unpopular now to start another war. If he's going to do that, he needs to spend a year or so after this war focused on internal problems. His approval rating is pretty low.\n\nI would also suggest he put more of the actual combat on the shoulders of the UN, since they would definitely be behind us in this endeavor.\n\nIn case you're wondering, I am a very conservative person, and I approve of what Bush has done so far. But I realize what must be done. Wars begun with a low approval of the leader have a tendency to turn out badly.\n\nEdit: And to the post above mine, thank you for not realizing how nuclear power works. A nuclear reactor is far more complex to construct than a bomb. A reactor needs cooling, containment. A bomb just needs two chuncks of enriched Uranium and a couple sticks of dynamite.\n\nNow, if *you* were a sect of radical Islam bent on killing all of those who weren't your belief, and you had the option of spending a few million dollars to build a bomb or a few dozen million to develop a reactor, which one would you choose? Which would be more helpful in your present situation?
451004
The President of Iran has been saying things like this at least once a month for awhile now.  It's obvious that he doesn't like Israel (not many people in the Middle East do) but the only thing he could do about it would be to use chemical weapons against them, since that's all they have right now.  He may be trying to provoke either the US or Israel into a war, or maybe he's just trying to get attention.  I personally think that the only reason they're doing this nuclear program is to deter the US.  Once they have a nuclear weapon, they know that we won't want to mess with them (to avoid a nuclear war).  They've seen how it worked for North Korea, and since they're second on Bush's "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) they may be just trying to defend themselves against an invasion of their country.