North Korea Issues

[Andrew]

North Korea tests another nuke

Supposedly the first nuke didn't work correctly.

EDIT:

The 2nd nuke might have just been an earthquake. Or a nuke..

[Darth Kwisatz]

I'd like to be the one supplying shoes to their military.

[Khorne]

Well...this rules out any kind of military intervention in North Korea.  ;D

[Andrew]

ZOMG North Korea tested another nuclear bomb.

Everyone panic!

So back in 2006 they did same thing, nothing changed. This gives the media something to talk about that is unimportant.

If anything is going to happen, it will come from China. Possibly Japan, but China would be the only one to do anything physical (invasion, precision air strikes etc). China doesn't do anything, not much other countries can do without Chinese approval.

[Caid Ivik]

China is no Israel, why would they attack? It is obvious that Korea is no threat for them. But the event itself isn't unimportant, as this time it seems that the test was successful. When Jong-il dies or loses support (both are likely to happen soon), his successor will thus have a means of repelling any attempt of foreign intervention (I guess Musharraf of Pakistan had the same idea).

[SAND]

I think the North korean President has done a retarded act. N-Korea country that would have no threat from any country if it did not build Nukes and open friendly borders with S-Korea. Further more America even offers it food and electricity, so why build nukes in sacrifice for well being of your people. What N-Korea at the moment really needs is to feed its starving population, introduce new information technology, spread better higher and lower eductaion. S-korea does not have any of those WMD's and now they are living at a higher standard and N-Koreans are living in Misery.

Even China is angry and ofcourse why shouldnt it, Kim has just lost his mind.

[vota dc]

It is very difficult to keep North Korea with this kind of republic.It is a matter of time and South Korea will annex peacefully North Korea.

Maybe North Korea politicians want to die in a blaze of glory.

[SAND]

N-Koreans must remove Kim but they have been brain washed by him and his thaughts

[Andrew]

N-Korea country that would have no threat from any country if it did not build Nukes and open friendly borders with S-Korea.

Having a nuclear arsenal is the only thing that can protect North Korea.

There's lots of threats to North Korea. USA mostly. See how USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? They were weak and governments easily toppled.

Once you have a nuclear arsenal, it is unlikely that someone will invade you for fear of being attacked with nuclear weapons.

[SAND]

But why would they threaten N-Korea if it is of no threat to the USA..Unless I am missing any information...Pls tell me

[Andrew]

But why would they threaten N-Korea if it is of no threat to the USA..Unless I am missing any information...Pls tell me

Because NK doesn't do things the American way.

As Bush said after 9/11:

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

[chatfsh]

Lest we forget, N. Korea is part of the axis of eeevil

[Andrew]

I thought they took NK off axis of evil? I know at one point they took one off. Maybe it was pakistan?

There were 3, then it was down to 2. Or maybe they added the 3rd one again.

Bah, went and found my own answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

[SAND]

In wikipedia, it says Nkorea,Iran and Iraq. Iran is trying to show some symbols of helping fight against terrorism but because of its Nuke reactors relations are tensed. But as for N-korea, I have heard they have been accused of selling weapons to other ountries secretly. Maybe thats a reason why America wants to put pressure on them..

[SandChigger]

You do know that Kim had a stroke a while back, right? Have you seen any recent pix of him? The chubby little man with the bad hair is GONE.

Blaming Kim for anything North Korea is doing is like blaming Brian "BoBo" Herbert for the McDune books: the real power is elsewhere.

[SAND]

You do know that Kim had a stroke a while back, right? Have you seen any recent pix of him? The chubby little man with the bad hair is GONE.

Blaming Kim for anything North Korea is doing is like blaming Brian "BoBo" Herbert for the McDune books: the real power is elsewhere.

:O Who!?

[Tatar Khan]

The problem with North Korea is that west doesn't want another idiot with the button that he can press. We got enough of them:

USA

Russia

China

UK

France

India

Pakistan

Israel (not officially, they don't have them but will use them if attacked)

[chatfsh]

And soon to be added

[Andrew]

AMERICA IS ISRAELS B**TCH C'MON YOU KNOW ITS OBVIOUS

While slightly off topic, I find it funny that USA gives billions to Israel in military spending, and so Israel goes and bombs every neighbouring country over some tiny rockets that rarely ever kill anyone (but yes they do have right to retaliate). And then USA/world sends aid money to help rebuild neighbouring countries, only to have Israel bomb them again.

[JuneDune]

yep israel is a terrorists state, they do it blatently and get away with it because the propaganda machine news corps are keeping us entertained and asleep, usa is another terrorist state, as is the u.k. They seem to be geting away with cold blooded murder and the only people who stand up and do something about it are being labbeled terrorists, im not talking about those who did the terror attacks in new york and in london, the people that orchestrated those attacks were the very governments that run those countries,

I was talking about the patriotic citizens of countries like, afghanistan, iraq, pakistan (swat valley), the people who do suicicde bombings are in no way affilliated with the patriotic citizens who stand up and fight against the foreign occupation in their homeland.

Why do the u.s not want n korea going nuclear same maybe for iran aswell, maybe n korea feel threatened by the fact that the u.s., uk, and israel have nukes so they want to arm themselves as a detterent so no-one will mess with them.

[Dante]

Well, it's a refreshingly different point of view, at least.

The US doesn't want North Korea having nuclear weapons for two reasons. One, it threatens western dominance. Two, North Korea simply cannot be trusted to act responsibly. The same can be said of Iran, and in my opinion Israel as well.

I think it was Ghandi who said "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind," or something like that. Applying that phrase to nuclear weapons, we arrive at so-called 'mutually assured destruction.' That is, the near-certainty that a nuclear power, when attacked with nukes, will respond with nukes, obliterating both attacker and defender. This is a very stupid thing. And the more countries that have a nuclear arsenal, the more likely it is that a nuclear weapon will be fired in anger. In other words, it's in nobody's interests for there to be more nukes in the world. If, for example, Iran got nuclear weapons, what benefit would it carry? Only that it could destroy another country before being destroyed itself. Mutually assured destruction. Not even Iran would benefit from Iran having nukes, with the possible exception of threat value.

As for the various western governments being terrorists... Well, I do subscribe to the notion that "a crime is anything that a group of people in power disapprove of," and it does seem quite often that a 'terrorist' is simply someone fighting the same fight for the other side.

Having said that, there is an important line between fighting soldiers and fighting civilians. If there needs to be a line drawn between terrorist and 'freedom fighter,' it's there.

american government doesnt giv a damn about american people. You guys dont even have state funded health. hahaha shame on you...

Heh. Well said.  ;D

[chatfsh]

I think it was Ghandi who said "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind," or something like that. Applying that phrase to nuclear weapons, we arrive at so-called 'mutually assured destruction.' That is, the near-certainty that a nuclear power, when attacked with nukes, will respond with nukes, obliterating both attacker and defender. This is a very stupid thing. And the more countries that have a nuclear arsenal, the more likely it is that a nuclear weapon will be fired in anger. In other words, it's in nobody's interests for there to be more nukes in the world. If, for example, Iran got nuclear weapons, what benefit would it carry? Only that it could destroy another country before being destroyed itself. Mutually assured destruction. Not even Iran would benefit from Iran having nukes, with the possible exception of threat value.

Yes, this is true, but I think that the UN would stand a much better chance of convincing N.Korea, Iran, Israel and any others to cease developing nuclear weapons technology if the UN required their members (namely the original nuclear weapons states) to dismantle their own WMD.  That way no one country holds undue sway over another.  We, as a civilization, should force ourselves to return to more conventional means of warfare

[Caid Ivik]

We, as a civilization, should force ourselves to return to more conventional means of warfare

[chatfsh]

Caid, I believe that we are in agreement.  Earlier in this discussion, I stated the following:

While I certainly do not encourage the proliferation of nuclear arms in this world, I do find it a little hypocritical and condescending for some nations to possess a stockpile of nuclear weapons while demanding that others cease developing the technology.

Understandably, we do not want unstable regimes possessing WMD since the situation will be more unpredictable.  Presumably, we feel relatively comfortable with the current nations possessing nuclear weapons because, thus far, they have demonstrated restraint and sound judgment with respect to their weapons.

Yes, this is true, but I think that the UN would stand a much better chance of convincing N.Korea, Iran, Israel and any others to cease developing nuclear weapons technology if the UN required their members (namely the original nuclear weapons states) to dismantle their own WMD.  That way no one country holds undue sway over another.

And yes, pragmatically speaking, the notion of the U.S., UK, China, France and Russia agreeing to dismantle their entire nuclear arsenal is unrealistic.  Even if these countries established a treaty or peace accord obligating them to disarm, who would trust that the other countries complied implicitly?  There is the matter of integrity and national security with which to contend.  I suspect that all countries would attempt to retain a couple of missiles, just in case the other countries could not be trusted.  Basically, that places you back at square one...but with far less nukes about.

Indeed, it is unfair and unjust.  But the proliferation of nuclear armaments is a poor solution to the problem of injustice.  It