> >From what I read, given the present state of the > sanctions, if we try to > apply containment to Iraq, they may have a A-bomb or > two with a medium > range delivery capacity in 5 years. If we apply the > same principals to N. > Korea, they may have 50 with some delverable by true > ICBMs to the US West. > Is that a reasonable assessment? If so, isn't N. > Korea more dangerous? > > Dan M.
I think (and I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm just saying what I think they think) that the Administration thinks Iraq is more dangerous because it assesses the rationality of the two states differently. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate George Bush, after all, and had he succeeded he would have guaranteed his own destruction. That's irrational, and suggests that Iraq would be willing to risk destruction for fairly trivial ends. North Korea, OTOH, they seem to think is rational and thus can be deterred in a normal fashion, and is thus less dangerous than Iraq. I think you (and I) think that North Korea has more _capabilities_ to be dangerous than Iraq, and they agree with that (I think). But they assess North Korea as being less dangerous because of its intentions. I don't know enough about the North Korean government to be able to assess the quality of that judgment, so I'm defering to the Administration, which (hopefully) does, and certainly has more than I do. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
