<p>parent2noles:</p>
<p>There are few things that irritate me more than unfounded comparisons to pre-WWII Germany and Hitler. Germany was among the most militarily able and heavily industrialized countries in the world with (IIRC) the largest population in Europe. They then made SEVERAL aggressive land grabs backed by sabre-rattling threats. I can be sympathetic to a Europe that found a repeat of WWI unthinkable enough to acceed to his demands. But sympathy extends only so far. Allowing a country with a history like Prussia’s/Germany’s to slowly acquire land/population/industrial capacity was criminally stupid. </p>
<p>Using the loaded term “appeasement,” which is strongly linked to WWII and Hitler, for any other situation in the world today is absurd. There IS no country remotely like Germany in the world today in terms of relative population, capacity, military acumen, and aggressive stance. The Soviet Union was enough like Germany to qualify. China may someday fill that bill (though I sincerely hope not). But N. Korea, Iran, S. Hussein’s Iraq, or any other country that may emerge as an enemy in the near future (i.e., Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, or even India at this stage) do not even remotely qualify. </p>
<p>I would laugh at those who tremble uncontrollably at the thought of the Iranian Army destroying the US Navy and using its 6,000 troop transports, 100 aircraft carriers, and handful of early-nuclear-age-yield nukes to set its HUGE population onto US shores and deprive us of our God-given right to eat pork … if those Americans weren’t so @#$%$ dangerous!!! </p>
<p>Look, it would have been appeasement had we allowed Sadaam Hussein to take Kuwait and its oil fields without responding. Allowing him to have that much oil capacity, with the threat of acquiring Saudi Arabia’s oil capacity as well, would also have been criminally stupid. But it’s not “appeasement” if there is no land grab. N. Korea hasn’t mounted a land grab since 1950, and that was with the backing and at the strong urging of both the USSR and PRC!!! N. Korea is not much of a threat to S. Korea or anyone else at this point unless China lets them off the leash, and that’s not bloody likely. If there’s a strong shift in the international environment, then N. Korea could be a handy ally for China to have, and they’ll protect them for now for that reason. But N. Korea is not a credible threat outside of that situation developing. And if that happens, we have much larger problems on our hands than S. Korea.</p>
<p>What IS it about so many nations that they simply MUST have or manufacture a significant outside threat? For a goodly chunk of my life, we had a legitimate fear of the Soviet Union. That was a REAL threat. But once the Soviets seemed no longer very threatening, we Americans seem to climb up on a chair and scream “EEEEEK!!” every time some mouse comes near.</p>
<p>Now, for the second part of your question: What should we do?</p>
<p>We should @#$%$% relax. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and has been for some time. For crying out loud, PAKISTAN has the bomb!!! OK?? If Pakistan can get it, anyone can get it. We need to live and deal with a world in which, increasingly, aggressive warfare, other than limited conventional, regional wars, is not a viable option because neither side can “win” without unacceptable losses.</p>
<p>We need to negotiate treaties in which nuclear weapons are carefully inventoried and cannot be made in super-portable sizes. The treaties will have teeth because no one wants nukes in the hands of those who have nothing to lose. If one country can sponsor terrorists with nukes, another can as well or, for that matter, level any country even suspected of supplying nukes to terrorists.</p>
<p>I grew up in a world of fear, where “The Chinese aren’t rational. They don’t value life like we do.” and “The Russians are fanatics who would cheerfully destroy the world to make it safe for commies.” I’ve read enough to know that, in the early years of the nuclear age, both the USSR and the US felt nukes could be used productively and planned to use them. I also know that Mao felt willing to accept a nuclear attack if necessary because he had no clue about what thermonuclear weapons could do. That was the dangerous age.</p>
<p>The proper thing to do with N. Korea is to go through China to point out the realities of life (and China can’t be overly happy about having yet another nuclear power on its border, even one that is a sort-of friend at this point). The reality is that N. Korea is not going to be able to expand. The world is not going to allow an aggressive takeover of S. Korea, nukes or not. If N. Korea uses a nuke, they should know that the world will respond in kind and that we have a LOT more nukes, and a LOT more powerful nukes than they have. If we get the slightest hint that N. Korea might provide nukes to terrorists, then we will take aggressive action. We simply can’t allow that to happen.</p>
<p>In return for being good, N. Korea will get much of what it wants. If that’s to be left alone, then fine. If it’s to open up trade (doubtful), then fine. If N. Korea wants to become an active, respected, vibrant member of the world community, then the world community will help. And if it wants to go into a fetal position and suck its thumb, then that’s perfectly all right so long as it presents no threat to others. Both sides get what they want.</p>
<p>The real danger of nukes at the present is that they fall in the hands of terrorists. I’m not worried about governments unless those governments seem willing to provide nukes to terrorists. I don’t think any government, even one as weird as that in N. Korea, would do that on purpose. I’m WAY more concerned about individual generals selling nukes for profit because the nukes aren’t well-guarded and/or well-inventoried. I think it’s much more likely that terrorists will get a nuke from back-door Russian channels than from an emerging nuclear power.</p>