USA academic under fire for criticizing USA foreign policy 3556

Not the question. Would you, in a threatenting environment, give up your weapons if you knew a potentially dangerous opponent in the same location said he would lay down his weapons on the condition you did so first? Would you trust him to do so and put yours down, thereby leaving yourself with no way to respond should he decide to attack once you were disarmed?

That would take a great deal of faith.................or stupidity.

However, since you mentioned

YOu will not be able to use anything to get those two countries to give up nuclear weapons. What about France, England, China, and Russia as well? When are you going to call for them to give up their weapons?

Sure they are.

Also admit that the US has never admistted the truth

That's false. We admit our SSNB's are armed with nuclear weapons as well as some missile frigates and most anti-submarine vessels. Ditto with land based ICBM's. What we do not disclose are the numbers and types of warheads available to each.

After The Chinese cam in when the NKA was pushed back past the 36th Par. by McAuthur.

I doubt it. North Korea cannot even feed its own people and hasn't for quite a while. Sooner or later, they either have to invade South Korea in hopes of getting the 'rice bowl' there, or face a revolt by their own peasants. In either event, they are toast. One, the government falls to its own people, or the government winds up dead with most of their people. Il hasn't many choices.

Insurmountable? Perhaps, perhaps not. We've had debt before. I'll also remind you that if we go down, most of the World's economy goes with us economically. During the Great Depression, we were the first to go down and the first to get back out. With today's economic ties between nations, the effect will be even worse today.

Perhaps. Of course, you discount the fact that Islamic persons were attacking us prior to Bush's election and during Clinton's term as well.

Teflon