08-23-2017, 10:14 AM
(08-22-2017, 05:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(08-22-2017, 04:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-22-2017, 07:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I would argue that Mr. Kim knows that a state which has nuclear weapons won't be attacked. The difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he has now these weapons and has the ability to produce more whereas Saddam never had that ability--his game was to keep Iran from crossing the boarder.
Kim's game is to shake his missiles for rice and antibiotics to keep from being overthrown.
I find underestimating the rationality of political actors is as dangerous (and stupid) as overestimating them. What one must look at is the real situation based on resources, wealth, intellectual capacities of population and other sundry "dry statistics".
As my signature says: It really is all mathematics.
So let's review the Nuclear Club:
Someone on this list will use another one eventually, then Katy bar the door.
- USA -- the first member,
- UK -- part of the Manhattan Project, so certainly the second to have one
- France -- may be third or fourth,
- USSR (now Russia alone, I hope), before or after France
- Israel -- 5th?,
- South Africa --- Israel's partner, so they must have at least one or two,
- China -- 6th,
- Pakistan -- 7th or 8th,
- India -- 8th or 7th,
- PDRK -- 9th.
And of that list which has been attacked by an other nuclear power?
How stable are the nuclear regimes in these countries is a better question. James Clapper is actually worried that Trump, who can launch at will, may do so just to cover his ass. Even if that's unlikely, how many of our adversaries on that list are content with his stability?
Nothing happens until it does, so past is not necessarily prologue.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.