Reply #59: Thanks [View All]

Your #1 is the Saddam option. Seems I've heard that song before... Somehow I think there's a difference between selling the ultimate weapon and selling, e.g., SAMs like those ones the US interdicted, then let pass, on their way to Yemen. I confess I could be wrong about this. But even if N. Korea sells a nuke to the ubiquitous terrists, does this constitute a threat to the existence of the US? That's the question I'd like answered from the "yes it's a threaters." If you're talking about threat of a terrist attack, I suppose N. Korea is, along with 20 or 30 or 40 other nations. I'm just curious what makes N. Korea so special as a potential nuke market. Belarus still has nukes, I believe, and they're pretty strapped for cash.

Your #2 and #3 simply posit another version of the nuclear glass scenario. What in god's name makes you think that the US would respond to a nuclear attack on Japan or S. Korea by inserting conventional forces to be an easy target for additional nukes. The Fierce Warrior Chieftain and his band of rogues are itching to pull the trigger on some nukes. Why ever would they hesitate to defend their allies by lobbing a hundred or so of the US stock of 10,000 to respond to a N. Korean nuking of an ally?