Interesting

[darkbenny]

No doubt by now you've all seen somewhere in the news a little something about North Korea testing a nuclear weapon and being condemned by just about everybody that has a voice.

From what I gather, the general consensus in the international community is that the test was somewhat of a failure, while the test explosion being far weaker than a conventional nuclear bomb. North Korea does not have the miniaturization technology readily available to actually mount one of their cumbersome devices onto a missile, yet it is capable of dropping a nuclear payload from a conventional bomber.

Many alarm bells have sounded over this development, mostly due to the fact that a "rogue" nation such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea may deal off nuclear secrets to countries labeled as part of the "axis of evil" (and terrorist groups) or that another arms race is set to begin. One nuclear power has never invaded another to my knowledge, making this a very sticky situation indeed.

I ask you, what sort of developments do you all believe will occur in the next few weeks? Will the UN cripple N.K. even further with sanctions, or is there too much of an element of fear in the air now? Will N.K. attempt a preemptive strike in the future against one of its neighbors in an effort to show that it mean business? What sort of role will/do you think -your respective countries shall play?

Discuss.


keep the stupid out of my thread please

[funkyass]

keep the stupid out of my thread please

im giving it 5 posts.

[AntoineWG]

The test was aparantly about as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb, about 14 kilotons of TNT. They did threaten to fire a nuclear-tipped missile at the US if we don't agree to face-to-face talks. Bush said we won't be intimidated by them and will only agree to group talks, I believe with the rest of the UN Security Council, and even China is pushing for group talks. Whether they actually have an ICBM that could reach the US or not is a matter of debate and their 14 kiloton test, assuming that's the best they have to offer, is a firecracker compared to what we could drop on them.

As far as selling nuclear secrets, any 8th grader with access to refined fissionable material could make a nuclear weapon. Refining uranium, assuming you have it as a natural resource or you can find a country willing to sell it to you, or manufacturing plutonium, on the other hand are out of reach to most nations on the "axis of evil", but that's not to say that the materials are unavailable.

Is this the start of WWIII? Probably not. An upcoming arms race? Definitely not. We won that before the arms race with the Soviet Union even started and we definitely still hold the lead. North Korea is trying to show off it's rather small nuclear penis and it's going to backfire. I wouldn't be surprised if China breaks off relations with them and their entire government and economy collapses within the next year.

[Nightcrawler]

I'm only lightly into politics and may not know what I'm talking about, but can someone please explain this to me.

WHY do we(US) go around parading that these other countries should disarm themeselves and get rid of their nuclear weapons when we don't do so ourselves?

That's a double standard if you ask me. Why do we get to keep our nuclear weapons, but nobody else can have them?

[PFUNK]

Come on Nightcrawler it's because we're such a civilized country that knows what's right for the rest of the world! Keep 'em nukes out of those fureigners hands.

Butt, the real reason is spurred by fears of the ethnic infighting I suppose. If the ruling ethnicity of some split country controls a nuclear device, I'm sure the minority ethnic group is dead in the water. The UN won't intervene because of the threat and really that's that. Also, see religion. Turn to page 25 of the book "Israel is a Jewish nation allied with the U.S. whom Islamic terrorists and North Korea don't like." So the presumption is that the U.S. won't act rashly with nuclear weapons because our government is slow acting, free from religious constraint, et al ... Ok damnit if you don't understand by now, please elaborate on why you don't because I'm tired of thinking.

[Joe Camacho]

I'm only lightly into politics and may not know what I'm talking about, but can someone please explain this to me.

WHY do we(US) go around parading that these other countries should disarm themeselves and get rid of their nuclear weapons when we don't do so ourselves?

That's a double standard if you ask me. Why do we get to keep our nuclear weapons, but nobody else can have them?

Nuclear Deterrence and first strike capability.

[Cyrus]

I'm only lightly into politics and may not know what I'm talking about, but can someone please explain this to me.

WHY do we(US) go around parading that these other countries should disarm themeselves and get rid of their nuclear weapons when we don't do so ourselves?

That's a double standard if you ask me. Why do we get to keep our nuclear weapons, but nobody else can have them?

Nuclear Deterrence and first strike capability.

Yes because the USA has always made the wisest choices. And I'm sure Japan can agree. And now with a president like Bush, what could possibly go wrong?

[whicker]

I'm only lightly into politics and may not know what I'm talking about, but can someone please explain this to me.

WHY do we(US) go around parading that these other countries should disarm themeselves and get rid of their nuclear weapons when we don't do so ourselves?

That's a double standard if you ask me. Why do we get to keep our nuclear weapons, but nobody else can have them?

Nuclear Deterrence and first strike capability.

Yes because the USA has always made the wisest choices. And I'm sure Japan can agree. And now with a president like Bush, what could possibly go wrong?

Score -1, Flamebait

[Deathlike2]

keep the stupid out of my thread please

im giving it 5 posts.

Are we there yet?

Most of the nuclear talk is completely fear driven. Really.... unless you think the short+insane dictator of North Korea isn't a greater threat than Fidel Castro... at least I don't think the US was responsible for putting him into power (unlike Saddam Hussein). I'm sure living in a country that has a media that writes to its dictator would be awesome.... not

Yes because the USA has always made the wisest choices. And I'm sure Japan can agree. And now with a president like Bush, what could possibly go wrong? </sarcasm>

Fixed.

[kevman]

Oh, no, we haven't disarmed at all. The amount of nuclear weapons we have has plummetted in the last quite a few years. We also INVENTED them. 60 years ago. Should we still have them? Probably not, but we're not making any anymore, and you don't just toss the current ones in the trash.

The United States is a stable first-world country that, believe it or not, will never use nuclear warheads against anyone unless WWIII becomes desperate. I do not care what you think of Bush; it ain't gonna happen. Never.

Can you say the same thing about North Korea? They seem to be looking for a reason to launch nuclear weapons. And how is a country that can't even feed her own people gonna keep terrorists from hijacking weapons?

You can hate Bush all you want. He's just one man in a republic. No one would let him use nuclear weapons against anybody, and we have the strength to keep our borders without them. North Korea is a DICTATORSHIP where they people sincerely believe that the US is the sole reason they have no food on the table. Would they mind him causing a few nuclear fallouts over it? Nope.

I'm just sick of people going "roooofflllllesssss Bush means that America will go blow world up with 100,000 nuclear missles." Its just not true.

[darkbenny]

Whether they actually have an ICBM that could reach the US or not is a matter of debate and their 14 kiloton test, assuming that's the best they have to offer, is a firecracker compared to what we could drop on them.

I don't think who could hurt who more is really the issue.



For the record, I think I would rather Castro had access to nuclear weapons over Kim Jong il any day, despite his proximity to Canada and the USA.

[kevman]

Yeah, at least Fidel feeds his people, though they're hurting pretty bad down there. I heard you can tip cabbies down there with spark plugs and they'll love you, becuase they haven't gotten or build any cars since the 60s or 70s and are having trouble keeping them going.

[AntoineWG]

Whether they actually have an ICBM that could reach the US or not is a matter of debate and their 14 kiloton test, assuming that's the best they have to offer, is a firecracker compared to what we could drop on them.

I don't think who could hurt who more is really the issue.

I was just trying to make the point that A: North Korea's nuclear weapons are about 50 years behind ours and 2: they probably don't have too many of them and III: in the unlikely scenario that they did fire a nuclear weapon at the US, we have the ability to make North Korea cease to exist, all of which should deter them from trying to fire anything, nuclear or not, at the US.

[corronchilejano]

My three cents:

1.)If North Korea is getting armed, it's because they want the world to take 'em seriously. I mean, really, can you really fight against the US's "diplomacy" with conventional weapons? Hell no.

2.)With all due respect to the guys from the US that visit this forum, I think the US goverment got a little over himself. On WWII they helped, that's cool, but that doesn't give them the right to police the world as they want. They ignore most international treaties if they think it doesn't work for them (like Kyoto) AND force countries to do as they please.

3.)If there's gonna be a nuclear war, EVER... I think it'll be when somebody thinks the US can defend themselves against such attack.

[Joe Camacho]

I'm just sick of people going "roooofflllllesssss Bush means that America will go blow world up with 100,000 nuclear missles." Its just not true.

Of course not, they will only blow those parts of the world that disagree with them.

You know, I would really like the US government if it were a bit more honest with the world. Like, the message that Bush gave to the UN after the news of the nuclear tests.

"North Korea's actions threat WORLD PEACE." I mean, what the fuck? A country does nuclear tests the US did during the 40's, and they are threating WORLD PEACE? What do they call making military operations in foreign countries and overthrow their governments.. Ah, I forgot! "GIVING THE PEOPLE THE GIFT OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!"

America.. FUCK YEAH!

[Deathlike2]

I'm just sick of people going "roooofflllllesssss Bush means that America will go blow world up with 100,000 nuclear missles." Its just not true.

Of course not, they will only blow those parts of the world that disagree with them.

You know, I would really like the US government if it were a bit more honest with the world. Like, the message that Bush gave to the UN after the news of the nuclear tests.

"North Korea's actions threat WORLD PEACE." I mean, what the fuck? A country does nuclear tests the US did during the 40's, and they are threating WORLD PEACE? What do they call making military operations in foreign countries and overthrow their governments.. Ah, I forgot! "GIVING THE PEOPLE THE GIFT OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!"

America.. FUCK YEAH!

Well, we did use it in defense of our country, and stopped when the Japs stopped attacking. I have no issues with that. Though, hypocrisy exists a lot on the US... in the form of elected leaders. It won't just change overnight though...

[Joe Camacho]

Well, we did use it in defense of our country, and stopped when the Japs stopped attacking. I have no issues with that. Though, hypocrisy exists a lot on the US... in the form of elected leaders. It won't just change overnight though...

And, isn't North Korea doing it in the same self-defense? You have the US and lots of other countries pointing their fingers at them, calling them commies and that they have a dictatorship, that they are "enemies of freedom" and stuff. Aren't they trying to defend themselves from a possible invasion?

Would the US actually *invaded" Irak if they had *real* source of the presence of biochemical weapons? How about nuclear ones?

[PHoNyMiKe]

have no fear, bush won't step foot in N.K. cause they ain't gots no oil! duh!

I'm with Nelson, nuke the whales!

[AntoineWG]

have no fear, bush won't step foot in N.K. cause they ain't gots no oil! duh!

I'm with Nelson, nuke the whales!

FYI - the US still isn't importing any Iraqi oil yet.

And I sincerely doubt the US would invade NK without them making the first move. Doing so would only piss off China and nobody really wants that.

[Echoecho]

I'm only lightly into politics and may not know what I'm talking about, but can someone please explain this to me.

WHY do we(US) go around parading that these other countries should disarm themeselves and get rid of their nuclear weapons when we don't do so ourselves?

That's a double standard if you ask me. Why do we get to keep our nuclear weapons, but nobody else can have them?

Nuclear Deterrence and first strike capability.

Yes because the USA has always made the wisest choices. And I'm sure Japan can agree.

Now I'm not defending attacking civilians and certainly not defending the present US gov't but this you said is apples to oranges. That was a world war and Japan's govt at the time wanted a bloodbath as US forces would invade the mainland. And they would have had it, and I'm not just talking about US soldiers, so I guess even more civilians dead from regular weapons than from the bombs woud have been better? The nuclear bombings weren't a considerate choice, it was a war choice.

Pardon me for sounding like a foxnews pundit lackey moron for a moment (though I assure you I'm far from that - the Bush administration is tragic) but I would rather have the US having nukes than some set of a-holes from the dark ages who's religious devotion and sole reason to fight is to worship their own death to harm their enemy.

[kevman]

Yeah, to compare North Korea today to the US in World War 2 is an utterly stupid fallacy born of trying to find fault with the US no matter what.

Yeah, I know that Bush is bent on world domination, has started World War III and is throwing every Muslim in a concentration camp, while the British are trying to claim Europe has thier own and are blowing themselves up with grenades, but North Korea certainly can't be considered stable enough to think rationally about the use of nuclear weapons. And this need for "self defense," I would think, could be considered slightly greater when you fighting a war against HALF THE GODDAMN WORLD and people who are MASS MURDERING civilians, using them as human shields, and have made it clear that they will not surrender.

I am sure that the people who felt that the US dropping the bombs in Japan was a big mistake and just us excercising power and whatever have studied the outcome of the bombings in Japan and its death toll and carefully compared it to the amount of people estimated to be killed before the US and Japan before the US and its allies had completely taken over the Japanese islands and forced them to quit fighting. Or, perhaps, we should have just handed the world over to Japan and Hitler? I wonder how many would have died then.

How did we threaten World Peace in the 40's, Joe, when the "World Peace" consisted of something known as a "World War"? Back then, "World Peace" meant "and end to the war," which needed to come quickly to save lives. And guess what? The war ended quicker becuase of the bombs.

Did it suck that we bombed Japan? Yep. But it sucked when 6 million were thrown in concentration camps, sucked when we killed each other in the Civil War... WAR SUCKS. Does Iraq suck? Yep.

And are you saying that our actions of the past dictate what we can do now? What if a large country suddenly decided to have slavery again, and killl, torture and force into labor an entire race in their country? I would guess that you woud call us hypocritical over that , too, since we had slavery back in the 1800s.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to take blame for, and being called a "hypocrit" over, something that happened decades before I was born. You can't think of the US, or its government, as a 200-year-old person. It doesn't work like that. Of course, you can think of the North Korean government as one person, becuase it is.

When did anybody even start talking about invasion of North Korea? Actually, no one has that is in any position to do anything. No one. Not the US, not China, not Britian, not North Korea. Nobody. Even if you can find the briefest mention of it, it was after the nuclear testing began. So, what self defense? Do you know what the official stance of North Korea is? Basically, if they don't get to talk to the US privately, they'll take it as an act of war. Yes, that makes sense.

In summary: What echoecho said.

[Joe Camacho]

First of all, I call the US *government* hypocrate, not the country. And I called it Hypocrate, *NOT* because of the issue that happened years ago, but with their stance of:

"We have nukes, but we only want them for defense reasons. You want nukes? You can't! Oh? You also want them for defense reasons? No, you will use them *against* us."

This is the issue that nuclear deterrence and First-strike capability represents, which is a bitch to solve in itself.

"North Korea's actions threat WORLD PEACE, Ah, we are fighting a war in the middle east? Ah, that's not threating WORLD PEACE, we are giving FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY to nations that don't even want them, oh, and we *might* reactivate our economy with this actions, but don't forget! We are here for FREEDOM."

Those things, are happening right *now*. Not during the 40's or during the 1800's.

And I used the nuclear tests as a form of empathy: Sometimes you need to see things from the *other* side of the issue. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and other socialist/extreme military regimes (Not that I agree with them, but bare with me on this) have been pin-pointed, harrassed, secret agents inflitrated, etc. For the past 30 or more years. They are fearful, and I really think that they have evidences that the USg doesn't like them.

If someone threats to destroy the way you live, wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself? In the same terms? What about defending yourself from the biggest guy in the block that doesn't sweat to disobey the guy that supposedly "takes care of all of the neighbors" (See UN) to obtain their own goals? I would.

Hell, the USg blew the UN to hell when they didn't "allow them" to attack Irak, and they still did it! But now the USg wants the UN to sanction North Korea for a nuclear test? Can't you see my point?

Those nations see *THIS* time, as a time of WAR, hell, people in the US think this is time of WAR too. And they are preparing for one.

Seriously, I'm the first to tell you that muslims have some of the most archaic and strict laws and customs, but they can't be mad for *nothing*. People around the world judge a culture because of the actions of a group of people (Just like the US, and the US government, Mmm?), wouldn't that make you mad? My post sure did.

And even if the USg (Or any other government for that matter) doesn't *plan* to invade Korea (Or any other country for that matter), that doesn't mean they wouldn't want to defend themselves, during *peace* or during *war*. Specially, when the guys around the neighborhood *don't* like you, calling you a dictatorship, a murderer, "someone who doesn't care about human rights", etc.

I understand the USg, they want their country to progress, but they should be more honest with the way they act, I don't try to justify them, but I do understand them.

I understand those countries that "oppose" the USg, their way of production and government systems are obsolete, but that's what they know, I don't justify them, but I understand them.

North Korea is as stable as any other country that feels threated. The US hasn't been very stable this couple of years, I know, I cross the border a couple of times a year. I have a friend how is Mexican, but has a beard and his name is "Fahrid", they didn't let him pass when he had a trip to Phx Az. Hell, sometimes they stop us to check our car because it's "Too nice for a family of Mexicans.", I don't care, we are in their turf, but I could see that people would get pissed off...

Those are just security reasons? Well, some others might think, that the only way of feeling safe is being able to be equal to the threat. Armed robbers? Weapon permits and guns in your home. It's just the same thing, only in a macro scale: The largest threat (USg) has nukes, to be able to face them, they need nukes too.

I understand that you get all defensive, I would too if you would judge the actions of Mx; but could also be one of the first to admit that we have made lots of mistakes. But hey, *everyone* loves Mx. (Except those who are looking for the american dream, but let's hope the wall keeps them at bay. )

If you think I'm still insulting you, well I apologize, but the USg has a long history of influence in the form of military regimes and coupes in central and southamerica, I wouldn't be surprised they would try to do the same in the middle east.

And seriously, you can't impose "democracy" and "freedom" to a bunch of people that don't realize and embrace those ideas by themselves first.

[Echoecho]

lol. North Korea is stable? Sure, because it doesn't shift much from the routine of being a rogue state where it's people aren't allowed to leave and have no rights to anything whatever, and a government which spies on, harasses, abducts and kills it's own people and that of neighboring countries. Well sure, from time to time it fuctuates a little bit between dire state of it's people and downright famine. But that's it.

You say you're not on the side of North Korea, so then what are you arguing? Leaving them in "peace" to do as they please and build hazards for others? No, maybe just you want to acknowledge the massive mistakes done by the US government recenty? Who's denying that here? Build an essay, broadcast commercials on every airwave about what a hypocrite the US government is for all I care. But nothing the US government did or does makes null the dangers of N. Korea nor the dangers of their selling nukes to the wrong people.

[funkyass]

Triade about NK defending itself via the magic of nukes and american hypocracy

So South Korea doesn't matter? The fact that NK has a million-man army, all of it pointed at Seoul has no bearing on this Stalinist state having nuclear capability, or the fact the Korean War isn't offically over, just a cease-fire for the last 53 years?

The fact that it devloped these weapons inviolation of the Nuclear Non-profileration treaty before it withdrew from that accord? Have you paid any attention to this issue at all?

[Joe Camacho]

I am just saying that any outside influence will only increase the threat of North Korea, if North Korea will change, it needs a reform from the *inside*. Not from the outside.

Examples: Spain after Franco and the USSR with Mikhail Gorbachev. Both countries had military regimes, and they were able to end because of the people inside of said regimes, any way of influence from the outside was considered an act of war or a threat against them. Hell, I could even use Mexico as an example, but it was more of a revolutionary central-left to a right shift.

But it wasn't until the people grew some balls and, some important people rose and changed the regime. Not because a foreign army came out of no-where, destroyed the institutions they knew and managed and stablished a new one, which they weren't familiar with. And it wasn't political influence from the outside either, maybe they helped, but it was the inside what tipped the balance for the shift of the regime.

And there you go again, stating that they are a threat, that they "shouldn't" have nukes, that they sell them to the wrong people, that they put people in danger. Can't they think the same of the US? Can't you possibly imagine that they *might* consider the US a threat?

What did the USg do when they financed the military coups, in Chile, Panamá and even Cuba, they were giving equipment to kill other people too. Why are those operations different? Because they were fighting against socialist regimes? Those countries are still fucked, no matter what political regime they have, because no one should impose a political regime to another country.

What about the aid given to Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen during the 80's?

I say that *no one* should have nukes, but a lot of people have them now, what can we do about it? Why should the people that don't have nukes shouldn't have, while others do, an even worse, that those that do, do what they please with other countries.

But then, we meet with the problem of nuclear deterrence, it's impossible for the USg to dispose of all their nukes. Because having nukes is what makes other countries doubt before launching nuclear strikes against the US. So then, the USg is in a position of power, which makes it able to influence in various ways, economical, social and even militar ways.

Some countries don't like any of that influence. And they consider it a threat. A threat they are willing to defend themselves.

The only way for North Korea to change, is that the north koreans are willing to change. See Cuba, yeah, they kill for a US dollar, and even then, they still love Castro, they don't want to change, it doesn't matter how many times they try to kill him. It will be interesting to see how they deal with the death of Castro, but until then, it won't change. I can't tell you with a straight face that the quality of life in North Korea is excellent and that everyone loves the political regime, but that's for the North Koreans to decide.

"Pacta sunt servanda", in latin for "We have to follow what we agree on", first principle of international law. And everyone violates it! Nuclear treaties, ecological treaties, finance, nutritional, educational treaties!

The USg has disobeyed, or just refuses to sign treaties that don't benefit the US (Which you can argue is better than disobeying, but oh well)
North Korea has disobeyed lots of treaties too.

But, before I am labeled as a commie (Oh No no no.. Please no.) I will resume my stance in two sentences:

I find logic in the conduct of North Korea, even if I find it unethical.
I find logic in the conduct of the United States, even if I find it unethical.

And, what about the Army of North Korea? The USg has the STRONGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. And because "it is the US!" They are allowed to have them, "They won't going to use it in an aggressive stance"? Why not having a Japanese Defense Force, or an Army like Mexico, where most of it's functions are disaster aid. The US Army researches more and more military technology, why don't *they* stop? Oh! It's the US! They are always the good guys, yes? They wouldn't invade other countries.. Unless they disagree with them obviously. Those that don't agree with the US, I think they have valid reasons to be scared. And if they think that nukes are going to protect them, well, sad for all of us.

I just want to ilustrate what other countries see of the USg, and even worse, of the *whole* US, and that's part of the problem. These are some of the arguments I face everytime I need to discuss international issues with so called "Socialist/Communist/Progressists". And these, are the ones I find that have *some* sense, in a logical plane. I didn't even need to put on my tinfoil hat.

The US needs some empathy to analize why so many countries don't like them, that is all.