Topic for Debate
If true, is this a good or bad thing? And would the world now be a better or worse place if Iraq had had enough nuclear bombs to defend against a US attack in March 2003?
comments powered by Disqus
Jonathan Dresner - 6/9/2005
I think the statement is a priori evidence that Vice-Foreign Minister Kim Gye-gwan doesn't understand either the US, military power or the use of nuclear weapons. Does he mean that NK has enough weapons to destroy the US and the means to deliver them? That's not plausible, though it's possible that he thinks that's the case. Does he think nuclear weapons have some sort of defensive utility: say, by creating a radioactive cordon across the DMZ that would be difficult for (ground troops) US forces to cross? Or is he thinking of them as a dead-man device, useful for denying attackers "the prize" of useful, occupied territory?
Fundamentally, the concept of nuclear weapons as "defensive" needs some real reconsideration.
- Economist disputes Nial Ferguson's claim that the Fed is to blame for the stock market’s volatility
- Hero Marine Dad Will Unleash Hell Itself If Daughter’s World History Class Says Muslims Are Real
- Historians Against the War joins peace activists in pressing Congress to support a diplomatic solutions to conflict with Iran over nukes
- Despite new hires, Yale history department retains vacancies
- African-American Professor: Reagan Did More To Help Black Education Than Obama