North Korea Admits to having Nukes

[Andrew]

Head to the bomb shelters! They're gonna nuke us, or give them to terrorists to attack the united states, to attack freedom!

So, was I right when I said Bush was going to attack North Korea in his second term? ;)

Oh, wait, they have nukes now which means you cant attack them.

I mean would US care if Canada made nukes? We are quite a liberal country that isn't all for the invading of poor countries.

Bush is scary with his spreading freedom around the world at any cost.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/index.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/10/korea-nuke050210.html

[ordos45]

Oh, wait, they have nukes now which means you cant attack them.

Exactly.  We can't attack them if they can retaliate with nuclear force against our bases in the region, or worse against Japan.  As tied together as our stock markets are we'd plunge into a Depression if Tokyo was destroyed.

Unless Bush wants to break with our policy of no invading nuclear nations due to the risk of mushroom clouds rising on American soil...

[GUNWOUNDS]

not necessarily.... we can still attack a country who has primitive nukes.

[ordos45]

I have to agree with Gunwounds reasoning.  Also, it would be good for us historically as well, then we wouldn't be the only nation ever to use nukes. 

And Andrew, Bush's freedom?  [sarcasm]Democracy at gunpoint is fun...all the cool countries are doing it.[/sarcasm]

[Dante]

'Admits'? That makes it sound like a bad thing to have nuclear capabilities. In which case, why is the focus on North Korea, and not on countries with better bombs, and more of them too? If that isn't the case, then what's all the fuss about?

Deal with your own nuclear programme before getting rid of everyone else's...

[Andrew]

I'm surprised Russia hasnt nuked US yet. I thought they were supposed to during the cold war?

And now it is basically the same thing with these rogue axis of evil nations.

If they attack any industrialized country, they will be obliterated. Only crazy people who want the world to end are a threat. I havn't heard of any crazy scientists lately.

[Megashrap]

If Korea is doing all this for the sake of self defense from the U.S. it would be rather foolish to have China regret the recent events by Korea. Not to mention the world in general. It's not just the U.S. I too think it's a bluff at best though, one that will cause even more isolation from the world.

[Andrew]

The only countries that we cannot really attack are ones like Russia and China who have Nukes that can reach our homeland soil.... that would be unacceptable of course.

According to CBS, North Korea has tested a missle before that is capable of hitting Alaska or Hawaii. Of course that is probably a scare tactic.

[GUNWOUNDS]

'Admits'? That makes it sound like a bad thing to have nuclear capabilities. In which case, why is the focus on North Korea, and not on countries with better bombs, and more of them too? If that isn't the case, then what's all the fuss about?

Deal with your own nuclear programme before getting rid of everyone else's...

Because

[VigilVirus]

Well, first of all, US does not give anything to NK anymore. It supplied NK for a while in exchange for them not going nuclear - with oil I believe.

Secondly, there's no such thing as a "good guy" in the world community. And recently, US has proven itself to the world community in a bad light - an invader that does not need UN support and does not abide by the international laws. You can argue with me on this, but I don't suggest it, cause I can make a much stronger case. US eliminates any threat to its /dominance/, not any threat to its security. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all countries that don't/didn't want to be controlled by US tactics. They obviously create a hinderance. Basically, under Bush, it's as if the Cold War continues, but the USSR is gone so he has to search for new enemies.

Thirdly, I hope you realize that even if North Korea nukes the US, US will not be able to retaliate on full scale. The world will hate US if it does, because it will be spreading radioactive waste all over the Korean peninsula, a lot of it would touch the South Korea especially - and let's not forget about China. China will retaliate if North Korea is nuked, because the nukes will land too close to its territory. And of course, if US nukes China, Russia will probably nuke the US just out of principle.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well, first of all, US does not give anything to NK anymore. It supplied NK for a while in exchange for them not going nuclear - with oil I believe.

Secondly, there's no such thing as a "good guy" in the world community. And recently, US has proven itself to the world community in a bad light - an invader that does not need UN support and does not abide by the international laws. You can argue with me on this, but I don't suggest it, cause I can make a much stronger case. US eliminates any threat to its /dominance/, not any threat to its security. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all countries that don't/didn't want to be controlled by US tactics. They obviously create a hinderance. Basically, under Bush, it's as if the Cold War continues, but the USSR is gone so he has to search for new enemies.

Thirdly, I hope you realize that even if North Korea nukes the US, US will not be able to retaliate on full scale. The world will hate US if it does, because it will be spreading radioactive waste all over the Korean peninsula, a lot of it would touch the South Korea especially - and let's not forget about China. China will retaliate if North Korea is nuked, because the nukes will land too close to its territory. And of course, if US nukes China, Russia will probably nuke the US just out of principle.

there is so much wrong with that that i dont have the time to mess with it.... suffice to say that most of it is incorrect especially at the end there.

I will just say these few lines......

The USA balances out any negative things it does by all of the food/money/aid it gives back to the world.

[ordos45]

The food shipments to North Korea have not stopped, despite the fact the DPRK government doesn't tell the people its from the USA.

[Anathema]

Uh, the 9/11 death toll was lower then 3000 if I recall correctly. But that's besides the point.

Notice how the US didn't just nuke Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11? That's because 9/11 is just not grave enough to justify use of nukes. Even if NK manages to deliver a low yield nuke to the coast of Hawai or Alaska (any further is beyond their reach) it would kill like what, maybe a few thousend dead? That's not going to justify it either. Nuking a country into oblivion is somethign you'll only do out of revenge in the face of total extermination, like when Russia launches its full arsenal. What can NK do? Relatively little.

[nemafakei]

"Well, first of all, US does not give anything to NK anymore. It supplied NK for a while in exchange for them not going nuclear - with oil I believe.", ff.

I won't dispute the food issue, though I do remind that the only thing NK has agreed to about nukes was that oil-for-no-nukes treaty, which was made void when the oil stopped. That, I believe was the point.

[Egeides]

I don't have that much time, so I'll just be brief...

US present administration also has intentions about getting more atomic power(http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-2-2338.jsp). One does not make researches in mini-nukes when no one has it if it's not to use them. So it's not going very well...

I hope we wont get in some Cold War scenario or the like. If everyone becomes afraid, they will all accept control over the Republic which was very unsafe, chaotic.

It's like the stock market: if everyone is worried about potential downfalls, well they retreat to lower profitability but higher security. In the worst cases, they get out because they don't trust it (as the rich Romans when Rome fell).

[Megashrap]

Thirdly, I hope you realize that even if North Korea nukes the US, US will not be able to retaliate on full scale. The world will hate US if it does

And I suppose the world would be sympathetic towards NK nuking us? Uh-uh afraid not, Pop a nuclear cap on the US's ass and it would not only warrant a full scale(not that we would need to go that far) attack, but it would most likley be the most awesome retaliation to date in terms of force, reguardless if any country hates the US.

[Barbarossa]

Thirdly, we already spread nuclear waste everywhere.... dont you know that our tanks use radioactive shells?

[Dude_Doc]

Nobody stopped us from smashing two countries and two regimes when some planes crashed and killed 5,000 people.

3,000 people, not 5...

and yet we crushed two countries and their regimes with no opposition.

But you didn't win. Look at Iraq, does it look "crushed" to you?

[Andrew]

3,000 people, not 5...

Looks like Gunwounds was fed some propaganda. ;)

[Dante]

You cant argue with the global community now can you? Nope.

[VigilVirus]

there is so much wrong with that that i dont have the time to mess with it.... suffice to say that most of it is incorrect especially at the end there.

I will just say these few lines......

The USA balances out any negative things it does by all of the food/money/aid it gives back to the world.

[Khan]

Does North Korea feed any other country? No, But the USA feeds N. Korea.

[ken124578]

What about the korean war?

[leo]

Is N. Korea responsible for the death of thousands of civilians in the past couple of years due to their attempts at 'freedom'? No but Amercia is.

This part is actually more than true about N.Korea. Only difference is the attempts were for depressing freedom.

[Kiyouta]

Has N. Korea used atomic weapons to kill over 150,000 civilians? No but America has.

Has N. Korea started any wars based on lies and misinformtation? No But America has

Is N. Korea responsible for the death of thousands of civilians in the past couple of years due to their attempts at 'freedom'? No but Amercia is.

Well said Khan. See, Team America: World Police teaches you stuff too. :P