It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I wonder if the French government will be involved in this "international pressure" to be brought to bear on North Korea. That would be amusing after their underwater nuclear explosion tests at Mururoa Atoll in the mid-90's. At least NK has the balls to do it on their own soil.
From Time Magazine Jan 01
On the campaign trail, Bush had dismissed the treaty's provisions as unverifiable and unenforceable, although his defense secretary nominee, Donald Rumsfeld, goes a lot further. Rumsfeld's complaint is that the CTBT would restrain the U.S. from developing a new generation of nuclear weapons — which is, of course, exactly what the treaty is designed to do: stop the arms race
U.S. ponders resumption of nuke-weapons test
"The administration is chipping away at the barriers to a resumption of testing," said Kimball. "They are doing their best to establish a rationale to resume testing, either for reliability problems or for new weapons. The reality is that there is no scientific nor military basis for a resumption of testing, and to do so would be an enormous strategic blunder that would invite a wave of proliferation that could swamp the entire non-proliferation regime."
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
NBC television, without citing sources, said the US military has drawn up plans for a possible preemptive strike against North Korea should Pyongyang appear ready to test a nuclear weapon.
Words cannot express how insane that would be. No sources quoted hopefully means that this is complete BS. I'm speechless.
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Would everyone sit back and clap as Bush nuked North Korea when their is no immediate threat to the U.S., and hence possibly spark a war with China?
Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Then again.. There are no more elections in George W. Bush's future.. Perhaps a mandate for war is not needed!
What has he to lose now?
Originally posted by Samiralfey
I find it a bit funny that at the same breath some people talk about how Kim Il is a child and at the same time talks about how Iran must be turned into glass. Like from a mouth of an angry teenager
Originally posted by Vitchilo
In a ``traditionnal war`` with tanks, planes, all those things, North Korea is able to defeat US. So let them have nukes and stop trying to organize the world like you want it to be.
this has NOTHING to do with nukes and everything to do with keeping "inferior" countries down where they belong, to be ruled by those that are better then them.
blogs.guardian.co.uk
Let's not have any stupid illusions about the reason for this war. It's not about oil, or terrorism, or liberation.
It's a deliberate attempt to break the UN just as Mussolini broke the League of Nations with his invasion of Abyssinia.
Don't believe me? Fortunately one of the war's leading architects, Wolfowitz's evil twin Richard Perle AKA the Prince of Darkness, then Chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon, actually boasted of it in a Spectator article he wrote just before the invasion.
“Saddam Hussein...will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The ‘good works’ part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions."
He went on..."This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France."
Quite simply, US Republican ultra-nationalists have concluded that the US's declining economic power will eventually leave it a second-rate power in a peaceful world held together by common conceptions of legality.
Thus, they argue, they should seize the "unipolar moment" (their phrase not mine) afforded by the fall of the Soviet Union, when they supposedly have a vast military edge, and remould the world into a reality where weapons count for more and economic power for less. Then they'll attack any country that develops serious weapons - their new stated policy.