[brytlea]

I understand your worry fatigue. However, this is a REAL threat. I cannot see how it's not now inevitable that someone is going to nuke someone else. I don't sit around and get my stomach in knots over it, since I know where I'll be immediately afterward if I am killed by one, but it's definitely a concern.
susie

[elkfersupper]

this is a REAL threat

Well, then maybe we should have been concerned about "REAL" threats all this time rather than who is smoking, drinking or eating what, where, or when.

Then, we could have a "REAL" reaction.

[sefarkas]

The best deterrent is uncertainty. I'd like some feedback on this idea: (1) Package up a few DVDs with the drawings, documents, and computer simulation codes needed to build a small nuke warhead that could fit on a missile. (2) Announce at the U.N. that one copy will be going to the Japanese, another to the R.o.K, and the third to Taiwan.

It is more likely that these three countries would use the bomb on the DPRK before U.S. dithering about where the bomb came from has been concluded. If we cannot stop the enemy from developing weapons, why not aide the friendly nations in building their own umbrella? Without a deterrent, the DPRK can blackmail anyone of the surrounding countries. Bombing the DPRK is pointless because the communist leadership could care less about the safety of its citizens. I fear that the DPRK will set up a nuke-land-mine (for lack of a better description) on the main invasion paths forestalling a land invasion of the DPRK. Then the DPRK has two or three left to threaten Japan or the R.o.K. into whatever deal the DPRK wants to make on that occasion.

The DPRK will show Iran how to make bombs and conduct blackmail. It should not be up to dithering Americans whether or not such threats will produce a result the DPRK wants.

If the U.S. failed to nuke the Taliban on 9/12/2001, it is unlikely that the U.S. will ever have the political will to nuke anyone.