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.
- U.S. Textbook Skews History, Prime Minister of Japan Says
- Recalling a Film From the Liberation of the Camps
- Skull Fossil Offers New Clues on Human Journey From Africa
- Are crude conspiracies right? Research shows nations really do go to war over oil
- Famed SC civil rights protesters have convictions erased
- A powerhouse appropriations subcommittee is now headed by a historian: Republican Rep. Tom Cole (OK)
- Slavic scholars divided over a scholarship sponsored (and withdrawn) by Stephen F. Cohen
- Claire Strom to Step Down as Editor of Agricultural History
- Joan Peters’s legacy assessed by one of her fiercest critics, Norman Finkelstein
- West Point historian says if his cadets can understand the history of war, so can Congress