The North Korean "Threat"

[Luke Weiger]

Ian wrote:
> That's a bunch of hooey. There'd eventually be a conflict with Israel and
> the US. Saddam could no more redraw the map with nukes than without them
> because non-intervention in the ME by the US and Israel is an
> impossibility. The types of intervention could be argued over, but
> non-intervention ain't happening.

Full-scale war against a nuclear power is unprecedented.  If it were to
happen, the chances of a nuclear war would increase exponentially.

Justin wrote:
> Not at all. Nukes don't give you unanswerable power.  Ask Russia, India,
Pakistan, etc.
> People with nukes can be deterred.

OK, Justin, how exactly would Saddam be deterred from attempting to conquer
Kuwait, or from going to war with Iran again?


> Moreover, SH doesn't have the forces to redraw anything.

At the moment, no, on account of the Gulf War and the sanctions that
followed.


> I am also dumbstruck by your equanity towards unanswerable US power to
invade
> everywhere and change regimes at will.

I'm not a unilateralist.  I agree with Joshua Marshall that the damage done
to the UN by going it alone might well be greater than the costs of failing
to oust Hussein.

-- Luke