July 27, 2007 https://totalwonkerr.net Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:46:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 168692888 DPRK National Anthem https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/dprk-national-anthem/ https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/dprk-national-anthem/#respond Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:46:13 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/dprk-national-anthem/ Oh, man. North Korea has issued a “newly arranged” version of its national anthem.

Audio file “here.”:http://www.kcna.co.jp/07DPRK%20NA.mp3

]]> https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/dprk-national-anthem/feed/ 0 357 Comments https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/comments/ https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/comments/#respond Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:32:38 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/comments/ Sorry for those whose comments have been approved in a less-than-timely fashion. For some reason, they haven’t all been coming to my email as they should be.

I generally allow comments to go through, unless people are being really offensive or stupid. I have a pretty high threshold for the former; less so for the latter.

]]> https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/comments/feed/ 0 356 More on NNSA And Nuclear Forces https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/more-on-nnsa-and-nuclear-forces/ https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/more-on-nnsa-and-nuclear-forces/#comments Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:35:25 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/more-on-nnsa-and-nuclear-forces/ A colleague pointed out a passage that I had failed to notice in the NNSA document I “blogged about”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1488/nnsa-report-on-us-nuclear-strategy the other day.

I’m not sure that this was intended, but the passage reinforces the notion that US nuclear weapons are for a lot more than deterring or responding to nuclear atttacks on the United States.

According to the NNSA, “an operational” U.S. nuclear force of 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads

bq. will demonstrate to allies and adversaries alike that the United States has the necessary means, and the political will, *to respond decisively against aggression and the use of weapons of mass destruction.*

Note that the bold part not only includes chemical and biological weapons, but it also seems to draw a distinction between those weapons and “aggression” – presumably, the use of _conventional_ weapons.

Guess you _can_ say something meaningful in three pages…

*Update:*

Jeffrey has “more”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1591/nuclear-strategy-follow-on-white-paper on the forthcoming follow-on to the NNSA paper.

]]> https://totalwonkerr.net/2007/07/27/more-on-nnsa-and-nuclear-forces/feed/ 3 355