For those who don't know it, North Korea has now been suspected of having a nuclear explosion near their one border along the north-western area, I do believe.

Today I read an article that says that the South Koreans, who originally said that it was a nuclear explosion, are now saying that it might not have been.

Any thoughts as to what it might have been?
I'm of the thought that it wasn't a nuclear explosion, but rather nothing more than an ordinary event which might have gone wrong, and they're attempting to use it to acquire more hatred or distaste for the North Koreans.
Propoganda is the greatest weapon in a war.

To make a cloud like that? An oil refinery explosion...a forest fire...a train wreck...it could have been a lot of things. Considering how near to the Chinese border it was, I highly doubt it was nuclear. Last thing you want to do is piss off your only major ally.

I'm not going to speculate.

Either am I. However at least we're comforted by the fact, that President Bush will not instigate any war with this country, since they really do have WOMD.

Actually common thought on modern warfare is that the common posession of WOMD's will act as a stalemate to their usage, but not as a stalemate to war between two countries with WOMD's period. Just because one country you're attacking doesn't have nuclear capabilities or something similar doesn't mean that if you used said weapon on them that there would be no retaliation from other countries. Those are considered global atrocities, things like the Geneva convention outlawed usage of such weapons, so you'd have people to contend with whether or not the singular country you attacked had them.

The scary thing about this WOMD stalemate we have is what's known as a Mexican standoff. A popular thought is that if one is fired, no matter who at, it will cause a chain reaction, everyone will lose their inhibitions and take down whoever they're holding a grudge against.

So are you saying you believe that attacking countries with no capablities of attacking with at least WOMD, is justified? I've never heard referring the "Mexican Standoff" you described before..Could you maybe provide me with an example, so I could understand the concept better?

I don't "beleive" anything, except in being prepared. That line of logic is from "The future of war" by the Friedman's, but no, it wasn't supposed to express that attacking anyone without WOMD capabilities is justified, quite the opposit. It suggests that the risk of WOMD's being used are not compounded (that much) by attacking a country without them, that no matter who you attack the threat of those weapons being used is about the same.

Again, not something I totally beleive in. I think that the mere fact that there would be two contries with WOMD's in conflict with one another would compound the chances by there being two countries with the ability to end the stand off instead of just one. Fuck, I know I'm not articulating this very well..

And a Mexican standoff is where a bunch of guys have guns point at each other's heads. If one fires, they all fire, even the ones that die will manage to squeez off a round before they go down. That's kind of how we are right now with WOMD's.

Here's an example:
China hates the US. They decide to launch nukes at the US. The US, of course, returns fire, along with whatever allies she has that are willing to do the same. China now sends other nukes and/or it's allies nuke towards the U.s.'s allies.. like I said, not totally beleivable, but it's within the realm of passability.

Well, I agree with you on that aspect. I don't think attacking a country will diminish the threat of WOMD.

And alas, wouldn't the mexican standoff just gradually lead to ww3 then?

Such a case would most certainly lead to WW3, but WW3 would not neccisarily lead to such a case. An intenational nuclear war would lead to a nuclear winter, the end of the world, I'd say that qualifies as WW3. But if WW3 comes around, that doesn't mean that we'll deffinately see the apocolypse. The standoff is a stalemate, as long as the stalemate remains in place, everyone's safe. It's funny, like children (average weapons) fighting under the shadows of their big brothers (WOMD's). If one big brother gets involved, the rest are going to as well. The scary part I was refering to is that if this theory is correct, all it takes is one small country that just happens to have nuclear capabilities to not realize the consequences of it's actions and launch. Many people think this is not very likely to happen, but in the 70's when China was invading Tibet, the U.S. lended help to Tibet unofficially, supplying them with weapons and intelligence (Anything to fight the commies, right?). During this, certain militias (yes, militia monks) of Tibet actually requested nuclear weapons from the U.S. government. They had heard that nukes were being used in modern warfare, but had no concept of exactly how this had an impact on the world as a whole. I mean, they're monks, they stay out of politics, so how would they know? This has always been an issue for me whenever anyone refers to Tibeten monks as "enlightened", how can anyone not in contact with the rest of the world be considered enlightened? Bah, I'm digressing... where was I?

Ah, yes. So all it takes is someone ignorant of global politics to get their hands on a nuke, and they put the rest of the world at risk. What countries could I name like this? South Africa comes to mind, but that is only an assumption on my part as I haven't looked very far into it... that's a lie, I haven't looked into it at all.

*Goes to look into it.*

The claims coming from Sth Korea, are what's making this story 'interesting'...
Maybe Sth Korea had something to do with the 'explosion'...?

And why is Nrth Korea claiming it was a "planned" explosion for a "hydroelectric project"

So the basic timeline of events...
Sept 12: Sth Korea reports an explosion just across the Nrth Korean border.
Sept 13: Nth Korea report the explosion linked to a Hydroelectric plant.
Sept 17: Sth Korea claims the "explosion" never took place WHERE they though.. (they think they were approx 100kms off)

and to add the final (complete) conspiracy twist...
Sept 17: Sth Korea now reports an "explosion" never occured.

You whats always puzzled me though? How incredible it is, that we never really paid attention to the threat on terrorism until it happened to us. Whether or not, the goverment had been aware of the threats, or that it was going to happen, despite all of that..I mean, The last two presidents, that came previously before Bush had the opportunities, but niether really make any improvement. You know what I never looked into? I've been curious, but never have? President Bush's fathers presidency. I mean, I probably know a little bit more than the next person, but I've never researched it in depth. So I have no idea, on whether the accusations against him are right or wrong.

So...exactly how much time did you save in your typing by removing the vowels from 'north' and 'south?'