There are several matters that merit attention, Ducky.
Firstly, there is knowledge of the status of NK nuclear development. They will not buy bigger rockets, or subs. No one will sell that type of thing to them, and if they did, it might be "accidentaly" damaged..
The sub would be a sitting target for US and other attack subs, and would be sunk the moment it looks like launching.
It is not in the interest of NK or any other state to start a war, nuclear or otherwise. It is like a 3 year old kid attacking a CVBG- impossible to countenance. Leaders of states may be evil, and mad, but not SUICIDAL. It matters not what NK's purpose is; it cannot and will not launch against the US.
"Throw a nuke on Silicon valley and texas"
That might damage the US economy, and knock out George's ranch, but the missiles are in the Dakotas, and the carrier battle groups are out there on the sea. This is so unlikely a scenario as to be sheer fantasy. Both of those generalized targets would be very far down the SIOP list of targets, or equivalent.
What I think is vastly different from the bloody League of Nations. The change in tech from WW1 to WW2 was significant, but is dwarfed by the changes since. War is different, and is fought differently. Information warfare and the use of cyberspace is a frontier just opening. There is also guerilla warfare, and low intensity conflict; by no means a new phenomena, but has been the main form of conflict since WW2.
There have been few, 'old fashioned' wars.
I ain't spouting "peace in our time" or any other League or Chamberlain or Daladier crap. I am pointing out that tactics, tech, equipment, strategy, attitudes, warfighting, all have changed vastly, and continue to do so.
If Bush is living in the past, it is a risk, but there are many safeguards built into the system. There is no button, he can accidently press during a nap; otherwise Klinton would have knocked it during the throes of Lewinsky-ecstasy, and bought about a swift Armageddon.
He will not and cannot nuke anyone without a bloody good cause. No other state is stupid enough to condemn themselves to death outright.
China and Taiwan will keep sabre rattling. that will be all for a long while.
Israel will preserve its territorial integrity against any comers, but not go nuclear in its immediate vicinity. Baghdad maybe, but not Damascus. The US would step in on Israel's side, but who would join the Arabs? Greenland? Canada? NZ?
Princip's shooting of ARCHDUKE Franz Ferdinand was just the final teensy winsy little spark to the 10 storey powder keg that was Europe. If not his deed, some other excuse would have been found. Speculation on the roles of individuals is a big "what if?", and those proove nothing?
What if Hitler had died in WW1? would nothing have happened? Maybe, maybe not.
Bin Laden having a nuke planted in America is the example of the biggest threat. I have said this before in my refutation of NMD. Nothing could stop that, and the reaction would be attacks on his whereabouts and sponsors the likes of which have never been seen. Already the Taliban are trying to rein him in a bit, and distance themselves from him. They may want to be martyred, but not if it actually means THEY get killed
Terrorism is a threat, but its reponse is not world war. Mankind has not grown wiser or nicer; they have just learnt from experience somewhat, and the world has changed. Woof.
------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev
)
