posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:29 PM
Sounds like John Bolton is having problems moving on intellectually after the Cold War - which makes him only 20 years behind the times.
Let it be understood that the US and Russia still have such overwhelming nuclear power when it comes to all the rest of the world combined, that there
is zero threat of annihilation to either the US or Russia except from each other. Unless you want to argue that the UK or France will launch a
surprise attack on one of them; which is like supposing that Mexico will order its military to invade the US next month.
So in the current nuclear club, the US or Russia can annihilate anyone or everyone if they so choose, while the UK and France could definately destroy
just about anyone except the US and Russia, and China's force is still so relatively rudimentary, that their nuclear forces truly are only a
deterrent to attack on itself. Of the rest: Israel, India, Pakistan have what we may call a Regional nuclear force, while North Korea is
Obama continues the nuclear arms reduction actions initiated by my favorite US president Reagan. In doing so, he is simply carrying out a reasonable
strategic policy for the US - as agreed by every president and congress since Reagan. So anyone trying to paint Obama as a treasonous commie pinko is
doing so while ignoring the actions of three other Republican presidents and one other Democrat - not to mention the majority Senates for both
So why is the US reducing its nuclear arms, along with Russia? Quite simple. Thank the gods that be, that somehow we got past all our philosophical
differences and realized that the most likely threat to any particular country or the world in general is NOT from a responsible national government
(whatever its ideology) deciding to launch a self-sacrificing nuclear attack (as the inevitable retaliation will come soon thereafter), but rather
from the possibility that a rougue actor, or break away group might use one as a giant suicide bomb for irrational reasons. Therefore it follows that
reducing the number of weapons, enhances control, as there are simply less of them to lose control of.
The world came far too close to having a rougue nation gain control of sophisticated nukes after the break-up of the USSR when Chechen separatist
threatened their nuke hiest and planned sale to Iran. None of the current nuclear powers (with the exception of N. Korea) ever wants that to happen
Which brings us back to the OP's original topic: North Korea. While N. Korea does have a nuclear capability, its not really a threat outside the
Korean peninsula or possibly Japan. Which means that while they may be able to inflict devastating loss on S. Korea and the US forces there, that such
an act would be suicidal in the worst way. It would trigger from the US the most complete annihilation of a nation/people the world has seen since the
Spaniards vs the Incas or Aztecs.
How so? Its a difference in the types of nuclear weapons. N. Korea has weapons roughly comparable to the bombs the US dropped in WWII - city busters,
with unrefined power. The US (and its allies and Russia) have weapons that can be delivered from a globe away with relative pinpoint accuracy, and
controllable elements of destruction (Blast, Heat, immediate and residual Radiation, and EMP). So while N. Korea could destroy Seoul, the US could
retaliate in a manner that destroys nearly every technologically significant aspect of N. Korea while keeping unwanted residual radiation to a
Having said all that, it is still no guarentee that a fanatic leader like Kim (or Ahmadinejad) wouldn't use one if he thought it accomplish his
twisted version of victory.