The United States would not invade a country that actually had effective weapons of mass destruction.

First off I think the US would if it's people decided it was necessary.

Second I think that the current administration would do it if the delivery mechanisms weren't there. If the delivery mechanisms were there I don't think they'd have the balls.

But asking the American people? That's a different matter.

Like Churchill, I believe that you'd do it when it was necessary.

We would invade, but only after bombing the heck out of the country just to make sure they couldn't use their WMDs against us.

They would not... Try and start it with a powerful country and boom we are all dead

Effective nuclear countermeasures are but a matter of time. As soon as a country has them it will be free to invade wherever it pleases assuming it has better arms.

slow down there, ryan -- effective nuclear countermeasures are going to made... ho? and proven how? and have to be what % effeective to be considered close enough?

i just hope we all make it past all this huffy puffy politics and get our heads together on the more important issues.

sure, if they thought they could prevent said weapons from causing any harm.

oh, and nic: "I think that the current administration would do it if the delivery mechanisms weren't there." -- i'd argue that without a delivery mechanism, it isn't a weapon; it's a part of a weapon.

What I mean specifically is the Korean issue.

PDNK might have a nuclear bomb... but it sure as hell wouldn't reach Chicago.

"PDNK" -- pronounced Podunk, no doubt.

but so you think we'd send troops who might all get nuked on the battlefield, as long as the battlefield was far enough from our purple mountains majesty? could be... but I have my doubts. even about this administration.

Vynce: maybe not a huge movement of troops initially, but we would send them in after they had been bombed back to the stone age by our fleet and planes.