Posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2006, at 8:05:40
In reply to Re: Nuclear testing » alexandra_k, posted by Declan on October 9, 2006, at 14:05:06
> Howard last night said that this was a test for the UN and if it failed etc etc.
Failed in what? The US is going to have to take North Korea seriously now, which is precisely what they wanted from this.
The US wants to be the superpower and wants to back that up with nukes. It is in their interests for other countries not to have nukes.
But the trouble with 'okay for us not okay for you' is that it is next to impossible for other countries to take that seriously...
Model 'nukes make you powerful' and what is going to happen? I get the impression that North Korea is fairly chuffed.
Disarmament is the answer IMHO.
But that means EVERYONE.
One has to lead by example, not by 'do as we say not as we do'. I think it is funny how Bush (and others) are appealing to an 'international affront' and going on about how the UN's will is xxx after the UN made their will clear when it came to the invasion of Iraq but the UN's (and international) will didn't seem to count for enough to halt the invasion of Iraq.
> Iran is the interesting one. If I lived there I don't know what I'd think. But they are on notice to get their bomb as quickly as possible?
Regarding Iran's nuclear desires:
They said it was about POWER.
And the US (and others) didn't believe them.
It was said they were refining plutoniom and the ONLY reason to refine plutonium to that extent was weapons as that degree of refinement WAS NOT required for power.But then:
http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10401511
Seems that wasn't right...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:693246
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20061009/msgs/693522.html