So has the United States of America, last I heard.

So, it follows that every nation should have them? Or were you just being flippant?

Irreverently casual [img]smile.gif[/img]

Is this news? I thought N Korea has had them for a while. If they use them, they get blown off the map. Problem solved. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Nucular proliferation is baaaad, mmmkay?

I find it funny that countries still make weapons that inherently will damage themselves. :D I believe somewhere there is a hydrogen bom that would kill the planet if exploded. ;)

So what ? It'll probably blow up right in their own faces, just like everything else seems to mysteriously explode in that godforsaken country lately.

<font color=plum>I find it ironic that thier representative states outright to the U.N. that North Korea is openly violating their commitment and promise to not develop nuclear weapons - yet there is no international outcry about North Korea being a dangerous threat to World Peace or any other criticism or condemnation of their actions.

I also liked Kerry's response that Bush focused on Saddam instead of North Korea, which represents a far more "real" threat. So, exactly what would Kerry do about this North Korean threat? Does he believe we should have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq? If the threat is far more real and serious from North Korea, what plans does Kerry have to neutralize that threat.

What plans would he suggest that would be effective without contradicting his criticism of the intervention actions taken by Bush in Iraq?</font>

I'm afraid that actions against North Korea could lead to an all out war with China, and i don't think anyone is looking forward to that.

China wouldn't dare. But, what China would do is veto any UN legitimization of such action -- meaning it'd be another instance where the US and any allies would have to "go rogue" if there were a conflict.