In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...

I'm sorry to hear you're so easily baffled. I'll try again; maybe this
will
clear things up.

It was categorically stated as fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons.
I'm
pointing out that, since they haven't actually tested one yet, this
statement
falls into the category of unproven assumptions, not known facts.

No - by their admission, it now falls into category of fact.

Obviously it is nothing of the kind. Without a test, or some other form of
independent confirmation (such as an on-site inspection by experts), there's
no proof. It's still an unverified claim.

What if they
tested one? What would that prove?

Obviously it would prove that they had at least one, and, more importantly, it
would also prove that they have the ability to make them.

The one they test could be the only one
they have. After it was tested - which is your standard of proof, they'd
really have none - so your proof would have failed you.

Obviously not. If they can make one, they can make others.

So, they haven't
tested one yet with a big boom. So what? Does anyone really believe that
in this day and age a country does not posess the technical skill to develop
a nuclear warhead?

Making the warhead isn't difficult. It's producing the fissionable material
that presents the challenge.


But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the
President
did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by
*not*
invading North Korea.


That is not at all what the preceding statements suggested. You need to get
your logic receiver tweaked Doug.

Hmmmm.... then what *was* the point of referencing the invasion of Iraq, in
response to a statement regarding whether NK has nukes or not?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?