zapatos

Flying into NK airspace will likely be considered an act of war. North Koreans found with radios we give them will likely be in some serious trouble. Do we even have planes that fly at 20-30 km altitude?

Because you keep making comments pointing out that people without Asperger have problems.

No one is suggesting that only people with Asperger have issues.

Sure. And I really could have picked any nuclear powers but I chose them as they are relatively small players. In addition to iNow's very good description... The point I was making was that the approach to any nuclear power is not based on what happened with them today but what has happened with them over a longer period of time. India and Pakistan could harm the United States with nuclear weapons, but the reason we are not dealing with them like we deal with NK is because they have not been threatening us or our allies in a prolonged fashion like NK has been. While we have had spats with Pakistan, and Pakistan with India on an ongoing basis, none of the three has a history of nearly continuous threats of annihilation of the other. If someone shows you a bat and threatens to hit you with it every time you see them, you tend to act toward them like they might actually follow through one of those times.

So why doesn't The bombardment of Yeonpyeong count? I agree that I am unwilling to limit my comments to the unrealistically narrow view of the conflict that you are trying to force on the discussion. And don't complain about me insulting you when you call me a troll. It's rather hypocritical.

So give me the damn cutoff already. And then explain why the US attacking other nations is relevant but NK attacking other nations is not.

Don't blame me if you cannot adequately convey what you meant to say. "Proliferation" does not mean 'giving to other countries' whether you used those examples or not.

Absolutely not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

If you want to constrain your questions, then please do so before I answer them and not after I answer them. I assume the shelling of Yeonpyeong is also outside the scope of what you consider relevant. The current situation has everything to do with what North Korea has done in the past. There is a reason we treat North Korea and their acquisition of nuclear weapons differently than we treat India, Pakistan and Israel.

You are correct. I did not attempt to address the other part. Nor did I address a number of other questions asked by many other people in this thread. It is difficult to look at a small time slice and get an accurate view of a situation. North Korea did not suddenly begin threatening others in 2017. Acting like its previous history has nothing to do with the present makes for a poor analysis. Launching missiles toward Japan or shelling South Korean islands cannot be removed from the present analysis just because they didn't happen in the past two weeks.

That's not what you said. Read your question again. Or is this a magical goalpost thing?

1. South Korea of course. 2. Don't move the goalposts now. You asked about proliferation, not distribution. NK has both nuclear weapons (true WMD) and chemical weapons (commonly referred to as WMD).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-21710644

Without having to do any research, "Yes" on parts one and three. I don't remember them using WMDs against anyone but I'd have to do some research. I'll look later tonight.

I'm glad to see that cooler heads are speaking up.

Indeed, if we are not concerned about non-members then let's enforce a policy where you have to login in order to see content.

Even non-members are a finite number. I don't think iNow meant to imply the number was literally countless. However, I for one follow dozens of threads that I don't participate in, and I learn from nearly every one.

What goal are you trying to achieve? Is it to have more science discussion and less non-science discussion? Are you trying to reduce the trolling/soapboxing? Or is it something else?

I imagine quite often. Maybe not by the person making the original argument, but certainly by many who follow the discussion.

He wants to grow taller, not wider.

A threat must be realistic to be effective.

In some cases the number of posts in politics vs science is not a good indicator of what is happening on this site. I joined because of the science, but my knowledge of science pales to that of other members, hence I frequently read but infrequently post on science threads. I do however love debating people, and the only place I can do that here is on the non-science threads.

Your thorough and well thought out argument has convinced me! Well done!

So basically you are saying that peoples' living conditions vary across a wide spectrum. I'm fairly certain most people are already aware of this.

For how long has NK been threatening the US, and for how long has the US suggested regime change? Are you suggesting that the US and NK have been acting in a similar manner all along?