Reply #68: Yes, it does sound like the Saddam option [View All]

the difference is that NK *actually* has nukes. You may disagree with me, but I think this is a salient point, and I'm not willing to take that risk.

And yes, there's a difference between selling SAM's and selling nukes, but given the fact that NK sold missiles to Pakistan so that Pakistan could build a nuclear missile, I can't be certain that NK understands that difference the way you and I do.

But even if N. Korea sells a nuke to the ubiquitous terrists, does this constitute a threat to the existence of the US?

Yes, it certainly does, IMO.

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.

NK's history of helping other nations develop missile technology. I don't Belarus is very big in the missile trade.

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.

I wasn't referring to out responding to a NK nuke attack on an ally. You're mixing up #2 with #3. I was referring to the US responding with conventional (ie. non-nuclear) military forces to a conventional military invasion of SK by NK.

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?

If we were to respond to a NK attack (nuclear and/or conventional) of SK (or an attack on some other neighbor) by lobbing nukes at NK, NK could respond by nuking Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, which would devastate our economy.

The threat is caused by the fact that a NK in possession of nukes has many more options in the way of both defense and offense.