Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (151151)	11/5/2004 6:17:48 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Why should a nuclear Iran bother US?

To: KLP who wrote (151151)	11/5/2004 8:38:40 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

Given your "had the guts to talk about it" comment, can I infer that you'd be in favor of rapid escalation to miltary confrontation - in all its pre-emptive glory? Maybe I'm naive but: North Korea can now strike the United States with a missile that could deliver high explosive, chemical, biological, or possibly nuclear weapons. Currently, the United States is unable to defend against this threat. Seems a bit alarmist. Surely North Korea knows that upon launch of any missle, of any type, aimed at the US or an allie, that N. Korea will become a nuclear dustbin. Surely they know that? Having such technology does keep others from considering invading the North Korea doesn't it? That was my point.

To: KLP who wrote (151151)	11/6/2004 11:33:29 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

# North Korea is one of the world's leading suppliers of ballistic missiles and missile technology, and has developed, produced, deployed and exported a broad range of missiles (see Fig. 1.1). By selling complete missile systems, components, and missile technologies to Iran, Syria, (b) Egypt, and (a) Pakistan, North Korea undermined regional stability in the Middle East and South Asia. Interesting. Hopefully a) Pakistan is being held to account but somehow I doubt that the US really has that much influence over Musharef - probably more the other way around. Even more interesting is b) Egypt is the second largest recipient of military grants - almost 2 billion each year of taxpayer funds go directly to Egypt. Somewhat over 2 billion in grants go to Israel annually too. Surely State or Defence have some clout over Egypt at least? Or is this merely a case of bad marketing - i.e. are we sad that Boeing isn't getting the contracts? Albright should review it now. Perhaps she should speak to it, and answer why she didn't acknowledge it in 1999...or 2000.... The big question is, what to do about them? Their military may be big in head count, but most of heavy rolling equipment dates from the 40's, 50's and 60's. Most of their airforce is ancient. They are fuel and food constrained. Economically broke. They sound very much like Iraq - a paper tiger. They are, no doubt, led by someone crazier than Saddam though. Husayn at least had oil, at times, to generate currency for his country. North Korea, having cut it self off from world investment has little but missile technology and drugs to sell for hard cash. Mind you, Afghanistan to this day still produces a lot of drugs. If not for the potential of those nukes - a deterrent to overt US military action (not to mention China) - I wonder if Bush would have ordered the attack already? Somehow I doubt it. Little to gain economically and not that much to gain strategically.