<p>Is there a significant distinction? A couple pounds of radioactive nastiness in a truck bomb is pretty formidable. No, it won’t level a city, but it sure would kill all commerce.</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>No, the article makes clear that the program was given up to allow SA to re-establish themselves as members of the world community.</p>
<p>To quote:</p>
<p>“By late 1989, the departure of Cuban forces from Angola, the decline of the Soviet Union and the independence of Namibia, had significantly improved South Africa’s security situation.”</p>
<p>The biggest insecurity North Korea faces (besides having a single strong-man leader, good or bad, who could vanish at a moment’s notice) is the lack of food security. Luckily, that’s a relatively cheap one to remedy, if the world had the political will. Would take time.</p>
<p>About six years.</p>
<p>“The article makes clear that the impetus for giving up the program was steps taking to IMPROVE the security situation of South Africa.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t sound like improved security was an IMPETUS to give up the program to me. It was the RESULT of an improved security environment and the IMPETUS of wanting to get out of the world’s doghouse that caused them to give up the program:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>south africa, libya…north koreas nukes are either terrible or didnt work at all and they wont be able to continuously make more…i say we continue to starve the country and start to apply more pressure from their neighbors. Appeasment or even talks never work with dictators</p>
<p>How’s that starving the Palestinians working for ya, Golani? Seems that they have become more extreme, not more moderate.</p>
<p>Personally, I find the hungry Palestinians more dangerous. Punishing this way has made things worse, not better.</p>
<p>Same is true in North Korea.</p>
<p>I am glad you brought up the point of starving Palestinians after they elected a terrorist orginization to head their government and how they are becoming more dangerous. Lets look at a certain even the in the middle east prior to the election of Hamas and after Arafat turned down a Palestinian state, and even after the 2nd Intifidah. Lets look at the disengagement from gaza. After Israel essentially won the 2nd intifadah through the military, Sharon decided to give away Gaza, and what happened after? Terror immediately increased. In fact on the last day of Israel’s expulsion of Jews from that small parcel of land rockets were fired again into Israeli cities. And now that Hamas has been elected and the people are being punished, terror is not on the rise so much out of Judea and Samaria, as it is out of Gaza. And its not on the rise because of the punishment, but because now it is easier to smuggle weapons into Gaza and it is easier to shoot rockets into Israel.</p>
<p>By the way, guess who did not have nuclear weapons after a certain country bombed their facilities.</p>
<p>Fascinating comment - I think Israel sets the model to follow to see how best to treat terrorism and terrorist states. It’s either them or the terrorists and they do what they need to do.</p>
<p>Israel used to set the model now after their disgrace last summer and this summer israel will soon become too political like america</p>
<p>You have terrorists, set up in a de-facto state on Israel’s border, sending hundreds of missiles - loaded with ball bearings so as to increase harm - day after day into Israeli towns. There is disagreement on such things?</p>
<p>Maybe to send back a 155mm HE round vs. a 105mm WP round or both?</p>
<p>Well Israel should have stayed in Gaza or at least increase the force in gaza now. I can’t imagine any other country in the world sitting by idly as rockets are shot at its own people, I also cannot imagine any one complaining about retaliation unless ofcourse Israel is retaliating, in which case the word condems. Personally, I love how Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and it was condemned by everyone and even a few yrs ago the Dominican Republic brought the issue up to the UN again to have Israel punished in some way.</p>
<p>I can imagine the U.S carpet-bombing for weeks any country that sends rockets loaded with ball bearings, repeatedly, into Jacksonville, FL for example.</p>
<p>Israel should probably attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.</p>
<p>It would be extremely hard unless they were allowed to land somewhere to refuel, this would also never happen, and then there is the political fallout. No matter what Israel does it will be criticized. If Israel destroyed Irans nuclear facilities which are spread otu and better gaurded than the iraqi ones everyone would jump on the jewish country for being war mongerers or violating human rights or some other crap that they love to say</p>
<p>you cant really appease people that are insane, therefore you have to use force… just like what we did in the middle east-- and it worked… i havent heard anything out of the taliban worthwhile in a long time thanks</p>