North Korea says, "We Have Nukes!"

[HaysooChreesto!]

First I'm of the opinion that while they may be working on nukes or are close to finally developing one, that they don't actually have a usable device just yet. If they did they would have tested the thing and shown the world. Both India and Pakistan did so in order to show each other their might. I can't imagine NK wouldn't do the same.

But what if they do have actually have a deliverable nuclear weapon? What does it mean to SK, Japan, the U.S., and of course the rest of the world? What do they expect to come of it?

Calling a NK nuke a deterrent against a U.S. invasion is preposterous. The U.S. has at this time less than 35,000 troops stationed in SK and therefore poses no serious threat to invade NK. IIRC, SK has several hundred thousand troops but their political climate is not one that declares open hostility towards their neighbor to the north. It's quite the opposite. They would welcome a reunification with the North as long it didn't ruin them (more complicated than that but I'm not writing a thesis).

So without any real threat of invasion from the South by any number of U.S. or SK forces what good could developing nukes do for NK? No one is going to give them everything they want in order to support the prison state they run. They're not going to suddenly find themselves admired and respected with tons of trade opportunities coming out of the woodwork.

I haven't even mentioned the China factor in all this yet. Surely China, with its industrial growth cannot see Pyongyang having a nuke as a good thing for them.

A few on the fringe may point to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a reason for NK to develop nukes, but the fact of the matter is that logistically speaking, it would be impossible without a massive buildup by American forces in SK. This would take months to accomplish and the intent would be clear. This would give NK the opportunity to roll into the south and do massive damage and even possibly take the entire nation of SK.

So nukes or not, NK is only isolating themselves further from the rest of the world while its people starve.

Oh yeah, in any kind of invasion by either side, if NK chose to use a nuke their entire country would cease to exist in less than an hour.

[the Devil's Own]

Calling a NK nuke a deterrent against a U.S. invasion is preposterous.

How so?

While an invasion isn't guaranteed (for the reasons you listed), it's not out-of-the-realm of possibility (for the future). A nation that can "hit back" is less likely to be invaded.

[HaysooChreesto!]

How so?

While an invasion isn't guaranteed (for the reasons you listed), it's not out-of-the-realm of possibility (for the future). A nation that can "hit back" is less likely to be invaded.

But how much money and man power have to be devoted to build a nuke? Lots. And for the foreseeable future an invasion is not unlikely but near impossible. I'd like to write more but I have to take some grumpy douchebag out to lunch and kiss his sorry ass in the hopes he'll buy material from me. Sorry.

[Ravon]

It seems to me that Nukes have served their purpose but that with the ending of the cold war they are becoming a greater and greater liability. I grew up with the soviet union and the americans threatening to blow the world up and killing every living organism. It got to a point where it just made no sense and there was even a sense that the soviets and the US (depending who occupied the oval office) understood it too. But North Korea and Iran do they understand. It is time for all countries to disband and give up all WMD. It seems silly for the US to run around saying I can have all the nuke I want but you can't have any.

[mountain_hare]

Wow.

America invaded Iraq, labelled North Korea as the 'Axis of Evil', and made continuous veiled threats about how it was gonna fix North Korea's wagon good. North Korea then declares that it has restarted its nuclear weapons program, and now it has the nukes.

CONNECTION?! WHAT CONNECTION?! :rolleyes:

[|2eason]

It seems silly for the US to run around saying I can have all the nuke I want but you can't have any.

This is really at the heart of the problem isn't it? We've have one international treaty after another in which we all promised to disarm our nukes. We haven't, but still we expect other's to do so. Until we take the first steps (and by we I don't just mean America), we'll never be able to convince a dictator it's in their best interests to disarm.

[Haener]

We've have one international treaty after another in which we all promised to disarm our nukes. We haven't, but still we expect other's to do so.

Not sure who you mean by 'we' but the US has never signed any threaty vowing to completely abandon nukes. And the US never will. I'm sure you're getting the non-proliferation treaty a little bit wrong. It bans further nuclear testing and development of nukes which basically means that if you haven't got nukes already you're not going to get them if you adhere to the treaty.

[Mr. Superbad]

They could sell them on the black market. Hold the area hostage until it's demands are met. Who knows.

[Ravon]

They could sell them on the black market. Hold the area hostage until it's demands are met. Who knows.
I am sure that they believe that a nuclear weapon will give them prestige and that the US for one will pay them respect. I am in agreement with an earlier poster that NK is a client state of china and that china, now that it is becoming a capitalist economic power is prepared to take hold of the situation before it gets out of hand. The question is does china have the competence to handle the situation without it blowing up in its face so to speak?:D

[HaysooChreesto!]

Wow.

America invaded Iraq, labelled North Korea as the 'Axis of Evil', and made continuous veiled threats about how it was gonna fix North Korea's wagon good. North Korea then declares that it has restarted its nuclear weapons program, and now it has the nukes.

CONNECTION?! WHAT CONNECTION?! :rolleyes:

NK started this program long before Dubbya took office in violation of an agreement they had made with the Clinton administration. Please get your mind out of first gear before blaming Bush and the U.S. for NK being an aggressive freak of a nation.

[Matt the Medic]

I find it quite disheartening that I actually agree with NK here over the US. Not only is the US in no position to make demands from NK, it is refusing to even try. NK is smart enough to realize that the US has nothing to gain (oil) by invading or attacking NK so the only real way the US could put a stop to anything in NK is through economic aggression. But with the the power of the dollar falling, healthy markets for product in the same region (China), and now the leverage of their nukes, they are fairly insulated from the US for a good while. Smart political move on the part of NK- regardless of if they do or do not have nukes.

I wouldn't be surprised to see hollow shells of missles a la CCCP paraded through the streets of P'yÅ?ngyang soon to make sure NK is kept in the world spotlight. I bet they feel pretty decent making the US look like a hypocrit for having its hands tied immersed in oil in the mideast while they parade their nukes off.

[Nexus]

The 5 major nuclear powers should have created a "Nuclear Monroe Doctrine". Stating that any nation that develops a nuclear weapons program will be annihilate by any and all means.

MAD doesn't work when a nation is in fact mad.

[Loren Pechtel]

The 5 major nuclear powers should have created a "Nuclear Monroe Doctrine". Stating that any nation that develops a nuclear weapons program will be annihilate by any and all means.

MAD doesn't work when a nation is in fact mad.

That's going a little too far.

I wouldn't be one bit unhappy if some GBU-28's fell on the NK nuclear facilities.

The problem, and the reason Clinton didn't do it back in 94, is that they have a lot of artillery that bears on SK and even parts of Seoul.

[Ravon]

The 5 major nuclear powers should have created a "Nuclear Monroe Doctrine". Stating that any nation that develops a nuclear weapons program will be annihilate by any and all means.

MAD doesn't work when a nation is in fact mad.

Whoops there goes Israel, Pakistan, India who else Dr. Strangelove?:devil3:

[Ravon]

NK started this program long before Dubbya took office in violation of an agreement they had made with the Clinton administration. Please get your mind out of first gear before blaming Bush and the U.S. for NK being an aggressive freak of a nation.
Lamma you are right and you are wrong. This problem started before Bush took office - an agreement was reached that seemed to resolve it and then along came Dubbya. Some would say the man's a meace. Check these sights fro more information:
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1957507stm) or for an american source Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/news/nk/nukes11e_20050211.htm)

[Ravon]

Sorry for some reason I don't understand these links don't take you where I wanted to send you for more information.

[Nexus]

Whoops there goes Israel, Pakistan, India who else Dr. Strangelove?:devil3:

To be fair those three countries never signed a non nuclear treaty. But assuming they had broken the plan I sugested after the first country broke it the rest wouldn't have tried.

What do you think is going to happen if a nuclear bomb goes off in a major city one morning? Then later that afternoon it happens in another city. Action must be taken. If their are a dozen tin pot countries that could have supplied the weapon there is no time to test to determine where it came from.

This is something can't be tolerated no matter what the cost because there will be a price one day anyway if allowed to continue.

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

NK started this program long before Dubbya took office in violation of an agreement they had made with the Clinton administration. Please get your mind out of first gear before blaming Bush and the U.S. for NK being an aggressive freak of a nation.

It was Jimmy Carter who reached a deal with the North Koreans, much to the dismay of Clinton. It was Congress that failed to deliver (in the form of appropriations) on the U.S.' deal with the North Koreans. Since the North Korean government has no idea how inefficient representative government's work, they probably feel as though it was the U.S. that struck a deal, and then went back on it.

Since the first inauguration of Bush, the Administration has not recognized the North Korean government as legitimate, thus another reason the North Koreans feel threatened by the U.S.

I don't think el presidente and his henchmen will invade North Korea. That rogue state is actually a threat. This current Administration typically invades weak nations and creates chaos out of some kind of order, and then calls the nation a threat after the fact.

North Korea is far too strong militarily to receive the wrath of the U.S. military. I've heard that 600,000 artilery shells would rain down on Seoul, South Korea on the first day of any renewal of hostilities. That's a pretty big deterrent to renewing an old, unended war. And, as demonstrated, the Bush people like to invade weak nations that have a crippled and out-dated military.

[jayh]

...china, now that it is becoming a capitalist economic power is prepared to take hold of the situation before it gets out of hand. The question is does china have the competence to handle the situation without it blowing up in its face so to speak?:D

Well they can't do much worse than we do.

[Ravon]

Well they can't do much worse than we do.
I guess you are right there and I kind of like the idea of the US in bed with China. I hear condi rice has already spoken to china and has let them know what the us position is.

[jastity]

I see it as the mad, desperate act of a mad, desperate nation.

The country has been starving since the mid 90s. Yes international food aid is getting in, but it seems it be being distributed along class lines. There must be plenty of weak people who are feeling hopeless.

We all know that NK has a big military, and I am sure food was always given to them. So maybe they can mount a conventional military defence. But the country's obsession with closed borders, of not letting the rest of the world know the truth about them and epecially not letting their people know the truth about us, must make the idea of even military contact frightening. Their cover will be blown and the lies on which their society is built will dissolve. And you'd have to ask, who would be defended? The NK people have been sacrificed for the needs of those who rule their country in peace, surely no one will care for them in war.

Better to wave a big stick and have no one come near.

[Ravon]

It was Jimmy Carter who reached a deal with the North Koreans, much to the dismay of Clinton. It was Congress that failed to deliver (in the form of appropriations) on the U.S.' deal with the North Koreans. Since the North Korean government has no idea how inefficient representative government's work, they probably feel as though it was the U.S. that struck a deal, and then went back on it.

Since the first inauguration of Bush, the Administration has not recognized the North Korean government as legitimate, thus another reason the North Koreans feel threatened by the U.S.

I don't think el presidente and his henchmen will invade North Korea. That rogue state is actually a threat. This current Administration typically invades weak nations and creates chaos out of some kind of order, and then calls the nation a threat after the fact.

North Korea is far too strong militarily to receive the wrath of the U.S. military. I've heard that 600,000 artilery shells would rain down on Seoul, South Korea on the first day of any renewal of hostilities. That's a pretty big deterrent to renewing an old, unended war. And, as demonstrated, the Bush people like to invade weak nations that have a crippled and out-dated military.

Apparently NK is asking that Clinton be involved as a mediator which given the way a republican congress might feel about Clinton shows how little NK understands how the American government works.

I also agree that the US will not invade or attack - the retalitory strike would be awesome. NK apparantly has over 1 million men in their army. There is a very good chance that NK could cause SK to fall. Not a good thing.

[mountain_hare]

NK started this program long before Dubbya took office in violation of an agreement they had made with the Clinton administration.

You mean that North Korea announced that it had nukes during the Clinton administration?


Please get your mind out of first gear

Insults towards posters are not appreciated.


before blaming Bush and the U.S. for NK being an aggressive freak of a nation.

North Korea, aggressive?

How many countries has North Korea in invaded in the past 30 years? Far fewer than America, that's for sure.

Who was the one who placed North Korea on the axis on evil? America.
Who keeps giving big talk about how it will 'fix N. Korea's wagon'? America.
Who keeps demanding that North Korea disarm, despite having one of the largest stockpiles in the world? America.

Now, please try and tell me with a straight face that North Korea is aggressive, whereas America is not.

[King of Men]

Well, strictly speaking, NK is still at war with SK. And South Korea didn't start that war.

Someone mentioned that China was a healthy market for North Korean products; umm, what products? They can't even feed themselves!

Finally, about nukes being a large investment, actually they aren't. You just need some moderately pure uranium in two subcritical masses and a way of slapping them together right fast. You could likely do it with ordinary black powder, if you liked. Nukes are a highly cost-effective way of killing lots of people. The difficulty lies in delivery systems. One of my professors in subatmoic physics back in Norway estimated that Norway could build its first nuke five years after deciding to do so. Sweden even faster, since they already have nuclear reactors.

[B_Sharp]

But what if they do have actually have a deliverable nuclear weapon? What does it mean to SK, Japan, the U.S.North Korea is now giving these nukes to any slime bag.

You can thank President Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party with their pacifist anti-war stance for now leaving New York and Los Angeles at a high risk of nuclear devastation.

Some good estimates say maybe the inferno within 10 years.

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently NK is asking that Clinton be involved as a mediator which given the way a republican congress might feel about Clinton shows how little NK understands how the American government works.

I also agree that the US will not invade or attack - the retalitory strike would be awesome. NK apparantly has over 1 million men in their army. There is a very good chance that NK could cause SK to fall. Not a good thing.

NK's army would be nearly worthless. They would be attacking through prepared defenses against an army far beyond their level. The engagement of the armies would be nearly as one-sided as the Iraqi Turkey Shoot I & II.

The problem comes from their artillery. It's in very hard bunkers and bears on a decent chunk of SK, including parts of Seoul. That's why we didn't bomb in 94.

[Loren Pechtel]

North Korea, aggressive?

How many countries has North Korea in invaded in the past 30 years? Far fewer than America, that's for sure.

Who was the one who placed North Korea on the axis on evil? America.
Who keeps giving big talk about how it will 'fix N. Korea's wagon'? America.
Who keeps demanding that North Korea disarm, despite having one of the largest stockpiles in the world? America.

Now, please try and tell me with a straight face that North Korea is aggressive, whereas America is not.

North Korea, aggressive.

They keep attacking SK. Sure, the attacks are minor but they keep doing them. Watch the paper--every year or two there are shots fired or NK troops captured in the south, always with NK as the instigator.

If NK wanted peace they would quit trying to tunnel under the DMZ. They would quit landing saboteurs in SK.

[mountain_hare]

North Korea, aggressive.

They keep attacking SK. Sure, the attacks are minor but they keep doing them. Watch the paper--every year or two there are shots fired or NK troops captured in the south, always with NK as the instigator.

If NK wanted peace they would quit trying to tunnel under the DMZ. They would quit landing saboteurs in SK.

I'm not implying that NK is perfect. However, their history of 'aggression' pales in comparison to America's history of aggression.

And it's 'aggression' is not directed at America, anyway. It's at South Korea. So what's all the hoolah about?

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not implying that NK is perfect. However, their history of 'aggression' pales in comparison to America's history of aggression.

And it's 'aggression' is not directed at America, anyway. It's at South Korea. So what's all the hoolah about?

1) A proper country stands by it's allies. We agreed to defend SK long ago. The war is still going on (yes, it's a state of war over there. NK won't sign a peace treaty.), we should still defend them.

2) They shoot at our troops also.

[mountain_hare]

1) A proper country stands by it's allies.

Is that why the United States pulled out of South Vietnam, allowing it to be conquered? :rolleyes:


We agreed to defend SK long ago.

And you are doing a great job. *sarcasm*


The war is still going on (yes, it's a state of war over there. NK won't sign a peace treaty.),

If America is so powerful, and allied with South Korea, why hasn't the war ended? I thought America was a glorious war machine.


2) They shoot at our troops also.

Well, you said yourself that they are at war.

Americans shouldn't be on Korean soil now, should they?

In fact, this merely supports my contention. America is the aggressor, intruding in another country's affairs. North Korea is merely defending itself from the big, communist hating bully.

[exile]

Just to make myself unpopular with everyone, it seems we have 2 sets of paranoids debating here. One set thinks Clinton was in the pay of Kim Il Sung, the other that the US is worse than Nazi Germany and NK is a socialist paradise.

A few points occur to me

- NK must have been working towards nukes for many years, so it can't be ENTIRELY blamed on Bush - but maybe if some of the effort directed against Iraq and it's non-existent WMDs had been against NK instead... After all
the pro-war arguments re Iraq could have been used against NK - totalitarian government, threats to neighbours, evidence of developing weapons. The approach used of getting NK's neighbours to apply pressure clearly didn't work.

- NK is a complete basket case and it would do the North Koreans, South Koreans and their neighbours a great favour if the regime could be removed. But - how do we do it now? The 1st foreign devil that sets foot over the DMZ and Seoul and Tokyo are piles of ashes a couple of minutes later. We could place weapons in SK and Japan so that they can retaliate, but I think the NK govt is not particularly rational. IMO they wouldn't be deterred. And because we KNOW they wouldn't be deterred, we won't risk invading NK.

[Nexus]

Is that why the United States pulled out of South Vietnam, allowing it to be conquered? :rolleyes:

You would argue the sky is green if it could prove America is evil. So would you be happy if America was still in Vietnam? What course of action would you have suggested since leaving or staying are both immoral choices?

If America is so powerful, and allied with South Korea, why hasn't the war ended? I thought America was a glorious war machine.

Do you actually deny America is powerful? Or is that just more green sky? Do you understand that sometimes there are costs vs benefits in war. They don't all end in unconditional surrender. Partial objectives suffice sometimes.

Americans shouldn't be on Korean soil now, should they?
As long as Nk continues to threaten and Sk wants us there and it's in our interests yes we should.

Or do you think its ok for countries to attack others unprovoked?

[Loren Pechtel]

If America is so powerful, and allied with South Korea, why hasn't the war ended? I thought America was a glorious war machine.

Because NK is allied with China. Fighting the war means fighting China. Thus we sit at a stalemate.

Well, you said yourself that they are at war.

Americans shouldn't be on Korean soil now, should they?

And why not?

In fact, this merely supports my contention. America is the aggressor, intruding in another country's affairs. North Korea is merely defending itself from the big, communist hating bully.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

NK invaded the south. We stopped them. We continue to maintain a tripwire force there to keep them from finishing what they started so long ago.

[B_Sharp]

Just to make myself unpopular with everyone, it seems we have 2 sets of paranoids debating here.Insulting posters encourages others to ignore your comments.

[Ockhamite]

NKorea desperately needs a nuclear deterrent that can free up resources currently commited to supporting conventional forces. It is a rational, reasonable, and effective solution .....if paranoia is the mindset.Fighting the war means fighting China. Thus we sit at a stalemate.- NK is a complete basket case and it would do the North Koreans, South Koreans and their neighbours a great favour if the regime could be removed. But - how do we do it now?Dispelling this paranoia has never been a consideration....thus it endures.I see it as the mad, desperate act of a mad, desperate nation.The country has been starving since the mid 90s. Would Bush let you starve if he needed more money for the War Department?.....It'a a rhetorical question....I already know the answer.But the country's obsession with closed borders, of not letting the rest of the world know the truth about them and epecially not letting their people know the truth about us, And just what kernel of truth has been lost that you would wish to convey? What newspaper headline or presidential assertion of the last four years would dispel this state of ignorance?

[Clutch]

Man, it's too bad the USA never had a presidential candidate who argued that nuclear proliferation, especially in connection with North Korea, was where the Administration's priorities should have been.

I mean, if there had been, then I guess the punditry would have to ask themselves some pretty hard questions about why they never really picked up on the theme....


:)

[Loren Pechtel]

NKorea desperately needs a nuclear deterrent that can free up resources currently commited to supporting conventional forces. It is a rational, reasonable, and effective solution .....if paranoia is the mindset.

No. NK desperately needs a way to extort money.

[B_Sharp]

And just what kernel of truth has been lost that you would wish to convey? What newspaper headline or presidential assertion of the last four years would dispel this state of ignorance?The primary purpose of Communist States, eg NK, China, is to conquer their neighbors. It's because communists cannot feed themselves so the temporary solution is to invade and steal.

This leads to my prophecy. In a world of nuclear proliferation, Communism would be in general overall decline because the threat of nuke reponse by invading their neighbor countries. Therefore, the only successful invasion is their OWN country. Capitalism produces wealth. Communism destroy wealth. Repeat cycle.

[Ravon]

The primary purpose of Communist States, eg NK, China, is to conquer their neighbors. It's because communists cannot feed themselves so the temporary solution is to invade and steal.

This leads to my prophecy. In a world of nuclear proliferation, Communism would be in general overall decline because the threat of nuke reponse by invading their neighbor countries. Therefore, the only successful invasion is their OWN country. Capitalism produces wealth. Communism destroy wealth. Repeat cycle.
Are you saying that if everyone had a nuke no one would use them? That is like saying that if everyone had a gun no one would shoot because they would be afraid that they would be shot in turn. Oh but there is that dried up old actor that does just that on behalf of the NRA. Can you imagine going into Columbine after the shooting there to promote the proliferation of guns. Of course unlike guns Nukes affect whole regions and as we know if enough go off thats it for life on earth. Quite a risk don't you think?
:rolleyes:

[TMA68]

Capitalism produces wealth. Communism destroy wealth. Repeat cycle.
I'm very much a supporter of free enterprise, but this is a ridiculous oversimplification. For one thing, not everything that is called "capitalism" actually is capitalism. The most glaring case in point is the private banking system, whose profits are fueled not by the "production" of wealth but by the extraction of wealth, because the "something" they get in the form of interest (http://www.wealthmoney.org/wonder.html) is received literally in exchange for "nothing," for it is out of "nothing" (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/griffin.htm) that they create the non-existent "money" they loan.

For another, not everthing that is called "communism" actually is communism. For instance, a rabid right-winger might say that, since it was Karl Marx who originally called for a "graduated income tax" and for "free education for all children in public schools" in the Communist Manifesto, the United States is a Communist country since those very policies have been in place for many decades. In reality, the U.S. is neither communistic nor capitalistic, but an odd mixture of both, with a moderate tilt towards capitalism.

Very rarely (if ever) is a nation completely one thing or the other.

Todd

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

North Korea is now giving these nukes to any slime bag.

You can thank President Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party with their pacifist anti-war stance for now leaving New York and Los Angeles at a high risk of nuclear devastation.

Some good estimates say maybe the inferno within 10 years.


Tell the Sudanese and the Somalis, along with the Yugoslavs, that Clinton purported a pacifist, anti-war stance!

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

I'm very much a supporter of free enterprise, but this is a ridiculous oversimplification. For one thing, not everything that is called "capitalism" actually is capitalism. The most glaring case in point is the private banking system, whose profits are fueled not by the "production" of wealth but by the extraction of wealth, because the "something" they get in the form of interest (http://www.wealthmoney.org/wonder.html) is received literally in exchange for "nothing," for it is out of "nothing" (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/griffin.htm) that they create the non-existent "money" they loan.

For another, not everthing that is called "communism" actually is communism. For instance, a rabid right-winger might say that, since it was Karl Marx who originally called for a "graduated income tax" and for "free education for all children in public schools" in the Communist Manifesto, the United States is a Communist country since those very policies have been in place for many decades. In reality, the U.S. is neither communistic nor capitalistic, but an odd mixture of both, with a moderate tilt towards capitalism.

Very rarely (if ever) is a nation completely one thing or the other.

Todd

Great post! Took the words right outta my mouth!

[jastity]

And just what kernel of truth has been lost that you would wish to convey? What newspaper headline or presidential assertion of the last four years would dispel this state of ignorance?

You are under the illusion that I am American. I am not familiar enough with American media or politics to be able to answer you.

[harsh]

Here is an article that I came across from the NYTimes. Its an interesting read, mostly everything in there is what most peopel do know about North Korea. One particular thing that caught my mind was the following:

...At least China and South Korea have a strategy to transform North Korea: encourage capitalism, markets and foreign investment. Chinese traders, cellphones and radios are already widespread in the border areas, and they are doing more to weaken the Dear Leader than anything Mr. Bush is doing.

This might just be our best chance. Leave it to China to handle the situation. NK sure as hell aren't listening to us. I always wondered how NK relies so much upon international aid to feed its own people. Are the citizens of NK brainwashed so much that they dont realize that the food they are eating is given by the international community (20% US), rather then their beloved leader who absolutely denounces the US.

Article on NK (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/opinion/09kristof.html?oref=login)

Note: Registration might be required. If anyone cant view it, I can post it up here.

- harsh

[Loren Pechtel]

This might just be our best chance. Leave it to China to handle the situation. NK sure as hell aren't listening to us. I always wondered how NK relies so much upon international aid to feed its own people. Are the citizens of NK brainwashed so much that they dont realize that the food they are eating is given by the international community (20% US), rather then their beloved leader who absolutely denounces the US.

Yeah--communications is the ultimate weapon against oppressive governments. In time I think it will bring them all down.

As for what the NK people believe--they are told it's tribute because we fear their armies. They have no reason to know otherwise.

[mountain_hare]

Because NK is allied with China. Fighting the war means fighting China. Thus we sit at a stalemate.

Well, if America is at war with NK, don't whine about N. Korean soldiers shooting at Americans. That's not aggression, that's defense. American soldiers are intruding on Korean soil.


Me: Americans shouldn't be on Korean soil now, should they?

Loren:And why not?

Should have Britain or France interferred in the American Civil War?

Koreans stay on Korean soil.
Americans stay on American soil.
Simple logic. :)


NK invaded the south.

So what? That's what civil war is about.


We stopped them.

You had no right to do so. A disagreement between two factions of a country is the not the business of a foreign country.

China and America should not treat Korea as though it is a pawn on a chess board. Let them fight their own battle.


We continue to maintain a tripwire force there to keep them from finishing what they started so long ago.

Why?
It's none of your country's damn business.
Just like Iraq and Vietnam wasn't your country's business. You've been slapped across the face twice, and still haven't learnt from your mistakes.

Your country should get back on its own soil. It should stop sticking its big beak where it doesn't belong.

[B_Sharp]

Can you imagine going into Columbine after the shooting there to promote the proliferation of guns.Now there is a great idea!! They would be told that proliferation of guns did not kill those children. Facts are that during the 17th and 18th centuries, it was common for children to go to school armed with guns and rifles. What was the result of decade after decade of children with guns?? No school child was ever killed. Amazing!

So what then killed the Columbine kids ?? Forced education killed those children. And yes, I would tell the kids and parents the truth that 100 or 200 hundred years of armed children produced NO massive school killings. That is the historic record. Cannot hide it.

Forced education is now so bad that children must be kept in their miserable state by massive drugging. And yes the Columbine killers were on drugs. They also had propane bombs but there were no calls to ban propane. The teachers killed those children through forced education. Children will never be safe until they are again FREE.

Of course unlike guns Nukes affect whole regions and as we know if enough go off thats it for life on earth. Quite a risk don't you think? :rolleyes:The biggest hidden secret with nuke weapons and terrorism is this. Terrorism is NOT a threat. Your big media and Gov't are selling the terrorism deception as a danger and protecting the public. Nothing can be further from the truth. More specifically it is not a threat to you and me.

Contrarily, Terrorism is Radicals VS Big Gov't. The rest of us are safe. There is no threat to 99% of the people. The concentrated areas, eg NY city, downtown LA or Washington DC, are at grave risk. The remainder of Joe Public are safe and can care less, despite the misplaced scare tactics.

There is nothing a rogue country or terrorist group can do to harm anyone living in suburban or rural America or Canada. There are only a few well known targets who are in danger. The rest of us could care less. A simple numbers game.

[Loren Pechtel]

There is nothing a rogue country or terrorist group can do to harm anyone living in suburban or rural America or Canada. There are only a few well known targets who are in danger. The rest of us could care less. A simple numbers game.

9/11 into a reactor. Instant Chernobyl. The containment domes aren't anywhere near strong enough to stop a jetliner--there's simply no way to make them that strong. They'll stand up to anything the weather can throw, but not a big plane.

[Ravon]

Now there is a great idea!! They would be told that proliferation of guns did not kill those children. Facts are that during the 17th and 18th centuries, it was common for children to go to school armed with guns and rifles. What was the result of decade after decade of children with guns?? No school child was ever killed. Amazing!

Can you provide a source for the claim that during the 17th and 18th century children were going to school armed with guns and rifles. It sounds outlandish. So are you saying that america would be an even safer place if everyone had a gun including children as long as they didn't have to go to school?

And are you saying that if every country had a nuke the world would be safer? Can you answer those questions before you go off on some diatribe about forced education and the relative safety of suburbanites from terrorists.

[exile]

Your country should get back on its own soil. It should stop sticking its big beak where it doesn't belong.

Are you by any chance Aboriginal?

If not why don't you take your own advice? Australia was taken from its original inhabitants by force of arms. Go home!

If you are, you should be, like the North Koreans, fighting to expel foreigners from your country.

[mountain_hare]

Are you by any chance Aboriginal?

No. Relevance?


If not why don't you take your own advice? Australia was taken from its original inhabitants by force of arms. Go home!

Your analogy is irrelevant, since the situation in Korea is civil war, relating to how the country is governed. Koreans deciding how Korea is governed. That is obviously quite different from a country colonizing new land. I will acknowledge, however, that Britain's actions towards the aboriginals were unwarranted actions of aggression.

The British had no right to brutalize the Aboriginals, and force them off their land. If we lived back when Australia was a newly formed colony, I would be protesting for the English to get back to where they belong (it's not like the majority of Australians wanted to come here anyway. They were literally dragged here in chains. :p)

I'd like to give Australia back to its original inhabitants, but they are dead.

The fact of the matter is, I was born here, hence I'm as native as any aboriginal. Hence, I have as much right to live here as any Aboriginal.

Americans were not born in Korea.
The vast majority of Australians were born in Australia, and those who have earned citizenship have been welcomed with open arms by an Australian Government.

The vast majority of Americans do not live in Korea.
The vast majority of Australians do live in Australia.

Australians belong in Australia, and should make decisions relating to Australia. Americans do not belong in Korea, and should not being making decisions relating to Korea.

Your analogy has broken down, because it is not accurate.

Once again, Americans should stop interfering in the affairs of other countries. France and Britain did not interfere in the American Civil War. Take a page out of their book.

[exile]

Special pleading.

And I'm not American. If I was I wouldn't have used that argument as you could have turned it against me.

South Korea was a sovereign country. Invading a sovereign country without a good reason is wrong, as it was with Iraq. Even if justified then the invaded country has a right to ask for assistance. If an ally asks for military assistance you should, in general, give such assistance. Otherwise we should
not have declared war on Germany on 3rd Sept. 1939.

And who says a civil war should not be interfered with? Were the International Brigade wrong to interfere in the Spanish Civil War? Wouldn't you have been tempted to side with the North in the US Civil War?

By the way - weren't there any Aussies in the Korean War? I think there were. And in Vietnam come to think of it.

[pistonhips]

It should stop sticking its big beak where it doesn't belong.
*ahem* That should be slightly hooked beak...

[B_Sharp]

Can you provide a source for the claim that during the 17th and 18th century children were going to school armed with guns and rifles. It sounds outlandish.Someone actually researched school violence in centuries past, but I cannot find the article without Nexus and I am not paying for that. But google has some stuff about it. I will still look for it because I respect good research.
Way back in those dark-age days we didn't have lockers in the hallways but rather a cloak room at the back of the regular classroom. The cloak room is also where we stored our shotguns and .22 rifles to be used on the way home. Many kids brought their guns to school on the school bus. No one thought anything about it. There was no violence associated with firearms whatsoever.This is/was the USA. Schoolyard violence is only a recent phenomenom. The source of school violence today is not guns, or propane, or knives etc. It is lack of liberty.

There are a few 'myth of gun control' books out for the truth motivated.
Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland that has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.268The highest armed nation in the world has never had a schoolyard massacre. That blows the gun myth of school violence. Plus it's homicide rate is LESS than U.K. with strict gun control. Incredible, since Switzerland is a banking wealth leader. Crooks should love the place but do not.

Truth is UNARMED societies have higher murder rates because they are defenseless. And defenseless schools are dangerous. And violent schools are a symptom of administrator failure because it's helpless victims are denied choice through forced policy and forced mass concentration. Unfree to leave unsafe environments.
So are you saying that america would be an even safer place if everyone had a gun including children as long as they didn't have to go to school?No. It is the denial of freedom to leave harmful, violent situations that leaves vulnerable children unsafe. And also defenseless schools are UNsafe. Honestly, forced school teachers do not really give a care about your children. If you love something, instead, set it free. Otherwise you kill it.
And are you saying that if every country had a nuke the world would be safer?Though analogies can sometimes bring understanding, the analogy of guns and nukes I see as ineffective. Only because one person cannot kill a million people with a single gun. A gun is no risk compared to the enormous risk of a single nuke. An armed citizenry with guns does make that society safer. That is provable. But an armed world of nukes is an invalid extendable analog.

A nuke armed world is a shift, some things are safer, some are not. Without nukes, 100 million people were still killed. Overall the nuke world seems rightfully UNsafer. But smaller countries are far more safe from big country aggression than anytime in the world's history.

The major theme in a nuke armed world seems to be decentralize. Provided they are stable, smaller nations are definately safer. Tiny Israel still survives in the lion's den.

The only gun analog I see is that centralized, concentrated cities are generally more prone to violence. Similarly, a nuke world:

Nuke Safe = decentral, rural.

Per country, rural folks are very safe. Because they are decentralized. You centralized New Yorkers are screwed. It is just a matter of when.

[Ravon]

This leads to my prophecy. In a world of nuclear proliferation, Communism would be in general overall decline because the threat of nuke reponse by invading their neighbor countries. Therefore, the only successful invasion is their OWN country. Capitalism produces wealth. Communism destroy wealth. Repeat cycle.
Here you seem to be saying that nuclear proliferation would lead to a safer world at least from communist aggression and I assume from capitalist aggression as well. America seems to find a way to negoitiate with countries that have nuclear arms which not only proves your point but expands it. Unfortunately I am on my way out but hope to be able to discuss your last post later.

[Bill Mutz]

Just put a few new lakes in North Korea. They're just rednecks with a funnier accent, anyway. Excuse me, but there's no way I'm ever going to approve of North Korea having nukes. They're morons, plain and simple. It's something like an entire nation in which George Bush was the sole sperm donor. To tell you the truth, though, Bush and Rice haven't done much to help matters. The moronic paranoia of that nation needs to be done away with, and every excuse for it needs to be violently executed. If they catch so much as a whiff of someone thinking of contemplating the possibility of suggesting the option of threatening them, they're going to freak out and start throwing nukes around. This is most likely to happen when a dumbfuck Republican presides because they don't know any kind of diplomacy apart from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre style that we've seen in Iraq thus far. North Korea is a delicate situation (meaning the people involved are frightened idiots with big guns and bad tempers), and if we don't get someone in the White House who has the slightest understanding of the very basics of diplomacy, it's going to turn ugly. Why? Quite simply, the government of North Korea is collectively fucked in the head. It won't be Bush's fault if North Korea does something fucking stupid; it'll be the American electorate's fault for not electing someone who has the slightest understanding of diplomacy.

Punch a Republican today!

Cheers,

Bill

[B_Sharp]

This is most likely to happen when a dumbfuck Republican presides because they don't know any kind of diplomacy apart from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre style that we've seen in Iraq thus far. Punch a Republican today!Historical Illiteracy.

You apparently do not know your history. In the US, in general,

Democrats start the wars and Republicans have to clean up the mess afterwards. Clinton had no diplomacy, instead of getting his thingy sucked. Clinton failed miserably to handle North Korea and any other foreign situation. Now it is a mess. And again Republicans are left sweeping up a difficult mess. New York can thank Clinton and Democrats for putting them at perpetual, dangerous nuclear risk.

[harsh]

Historical Illiteracy.

You apparently do not know your history. In the US, in general,

Democrats start the wars and Republicans have to clean up the mess afterwards. Clinton had no diplomacy, instead of getting his thingy sucked. Clinton failed miserably to handle North Korea and any other foreign situation. Now it is a mess. And again Republicans are left sweeping up a difficult mess. New York can thank Clinton and Democrats for putting them at perpetual, dangerous nuclear risk.

I consider Rwanda as one of Clinton administration's biggest failures.

I really dont think Bush has the support to attack NK, even if he wants to. The best option I see is talks, talks, and more talks. Get China involved, and if possible, let them handle it. We really dont need the US's bullish attitude on the table just so that NK can turn away and all efforts go in vain.

- harsh

[Ravon]

Hi BSharpe I am only going to address the points of your argument that I think you were trying to be serious as opposed to silly. Your argument that school and the lack of liberty implied by forced education is, since you don't offer any proofs, an example of silly.
Someone actually researched school violence in centuries past, but I cannot find the article without Nexus and I am not paying for that. But google has some stuff about it. I will still look for it because I respect good research.
I'll wait while you find that - I had a quick look myself and didn't find anything to suggest that american school children in the 17th and 18th century were packing their guns to school.
There are a few 'myth of gun control' books out for the truth motivated.
The highest armed nation in the world has never had a schoolyard massacre. That blows the gun myth of school violence. Plus it's homicide rate is LESS than U.K. with strict gun control. Incredible, since Switzerland is a banking wealth leader. Crooks should love the place but do not.
I found an article that seemed to back up what you say on a progun site and then I wondered why a republican american would be comparing switzerland with the UK. I thought wouldn't it be better to increase the number of countries compared to get a truer picture of the situation. That is when I found this URL=http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm]article[/URL]
which compares the rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. I guess we know which country leads the pack. Could it be that well armed country with that dried up old fucker that runs around espousing the importance of having a gun in every pocket Charleston NRA Heston? If you guessed yes you would be right.
Truth is UNARMED societies have higher murder rates because they are defenseless. And defenseless schools are dangerous. And violent schools are a symptom of administrator failure because it's helpless victims are denied choice through forced policy and forced mass concentration. Unfree to leave unsafe environments.
Oh and even though I really think your pulling my leg with this argument are you really saying that school in the US is that much different in the 25 industrialized societies cited above? Or are you homeschooling because you don't want your children contaminated with any other ideas but your own?
Though analogies can sometimes bring understanding, the analogy of guns and nukes I see as ineffective. Only because one person cannot kill a million people with a single gun. A gun is no risk compared to the enormous risk of a single nuke. An armed citizenry with guns does make that society safer. That is provable. But an armed world of nukes is an invalid extendable analog.
It was your analogy not mine.
A nuke armed world is a shift, some things are safer, some are not. Without nukes, 100 million people were still killed. Overall the nuke world seems rightfully UNsafer. But smaller countries are far more safe from big country aggression than anytime in the world's history.
And why is that since very few have the nukes or even the armed population to defend themselves. There must be another reason right?
Per country, rural folks are very safe. Because they are decentralized. You centralized New Yorkers are screwed. It is just a matter of when.
Ah now I understand you are one of those crazy rightwing survivalists. Are you in one of those militias. Man I just love this forum you never know who you're going to meet. Yesterday I met that guy from South Park MrHat. Cheers BSharp and keep clear of them schools. :wave:

[Bill Mutz]

In the US, in general, Democrats start the wars and Republicans have to clean up the mess afterwards. Clinton had no diplomacy, instead of getting his thingy sucked. Clinton failed miserably to handle North Korea and any other foreign situation. Now it is a mess. And again Republicans are left sweeping up a difficult mess. New York can thank Clinton and Democrats for putting them at perpetual, dangerous nuclear risk.Historically, Democrats start an operation, and the Republicans turn it into a clusterfuck. Then they blame it on the Democrats. Terrorism declined all through the Nineties, but now it's hit a new high. I wonder why, hmm, maybe because Clinton's "appeasement" was working extravagantly well? Nah. Yeah, Truman got us involved in the Korean War because North Korea was marching on SK. If it weren't for him, the entire peninsula would look like NK. In fact, while McCarthy and the other imbeciles in the right-wing were out on their witch-hunts, the Democrats were doing something about getting communist expansionism under control. If the lunatics in South Vietnam hadn't taken Kennedy's advice to oppose their leader to mean that they should stage a coup d'état, the situation in Vietnam possibly could have been saved. Yes, Johnson kept us in Vietnam, and he spent his entire term of office trying to figure out a way to get us out of it without turning the affair into the Nixonian chainsaw massacre it eventually became. It wasn't a Democratic president who decided it would be fun to play Nuclear Chicken with the Soviets. The Soviet Union was rotting from the inside and would have gone for the same reason the Atzecs were pussywhipped by a handful of European soldiers: everyone hated them. It was completely unneccessary to put us so at risk of a nuclear conflict that on several occassions we came a hair from the end of the world. The Democrats haven't been perfect, but the Republicans have always acted like complete maniacs.

[Chaupoline]

NK can start stockpiling nukes and completely destroy their economy. Iran can support a nuclear weapon program, but NK definitely can't. They are just trying to be relevant and failing miserably. NK is not going to ever use a nuke. The moment they used a nuke, the United States would nuke the hell out of them.

[Ravon]

The Democrats haven't been perfect, but the Republicans have always acted like complete maniacs.
Well said Bill, and if more proof were needed we need look no further than Crawford. :D

[Ravon]

NK is not going to ever use a nuke. The moment they used a nuke, the United States would nuke the hell out of them.
Proving Bill's point. :rolling:

[Chaupoline]

It goes a bit further than that. Everything involvese supplies and support. A nations GDP supports the government. NK may have a more powerful military than SK, but they can't sustain it properly. Their economic infrastructure sucks. No one will use nukes because everyone else has nukes. If NK wanted to get involved in nuclear chicken with the US like the Soviet Union did, they have a lot of catching up to do. They are a non player in todays world, they are just denying it.