N. Korea Nukes?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolen
Because the only ones allowed to sell/give heavy military arms to other countries/factions is America. I forgot about that :(

---

Can you please provide a link that enumerates all nuclear arms sales made by the United States?

Oh wait. There is no such thing. Oops. How terribly embarassing for you. Your little USA bash ruined by actual facts. Oh, the horror of it all.

And if you think selling conventional weapons to other countries is a bad idea for us, ask the Iraqi Air Force that found most of its planes grounded when we stopped selling them spare parts.

Tons of countries sell conventional arms - not just the US. That is irrelevant compared to nukes.

Furthermore, the poster was asking why we should be concerned about N. Korea having nukes. The possibility of them selling nukes to Islamic nations with the will to use them is a very serious reason to be concerned. But staying on topic is not nearly as important as bashing the USA, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
well said.

---

What was well said? Jolen's totally asinine USA bash that was completely wrong on the facts? Do you have some kind of positive Pavlovian response to any USA bashing you see - no matter how factually wrong and ridiculous it is?

Or were you (hopefully) responding to someone else?

Please keep in mind....Japan is a Maritime Self-Defense Force and has been such since the conclusion of WWII where they forfeited their right to build military offensive forces. The country strives to fulfill contractual obligations and therefore build alliances and trust within the international community.

If North Korea is so impoverished and has a leader that is so out of touch with reality and how international compliance works, it's no wonder to me that people want to oppress that country with regards to nuclear testing.

I would say...diplomacy first. If all else fails...save the North Koreans some serious grief and do away with that freakin nut.

Not even George Galloway, a radical left British MP and touted as a Saddam Hussein lackey, will visit N. Korea. 400 000 people have died there as a result of political persecution from their Dear Leader, or "Sun of the 21st Century", and there is zero press or broadcasting freedom.

China, a long time ally of N. Korea, has been able to change its course toward a better and more prosperous country. In the meantime, N. Korea has continued to be a dismal failure of an economy despite encouragement to change, and remains sorely prone to natural disasters and famine for which as many as 2 million people may be dead from in recent times. Instead, their meagre resources are pumped into a 1.4 million strong army which they claim must be there as defense from the American threat.

Imagine that, though. Our governments would rather see a regime there that does not abuse its people and try to feign rational instability (ie. provocative long-range missile and nuke testing) for political leverage. I know it's trendy to undergo a knee-jerk blaming of America for everything and all, but seriously. Heaven forbid we actually hold the leader of a particular country accountable for its failures.

It is relieving to know that the rest of the world is by and large united in the condemnation of N. Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belair
It is relieving to know that the rest of the world is by and large united in the condemnation of N. Korea.

---

Whew what a relief to have so much backing! Let's spank the naughty dictator, oh wait he's got a nuke now. If Bush wasn't so focused on securing oil intrests in Iraq he could've taken NK's nukes before it was completed. Just too scared of big brother China. Iran doesn't have any big brother with nukes so they'll be next.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting the rebuke China gave - that the tests were brazen. Atleast the rest of the world is on the same side to deal with the problem. The 'how' of dealing with the problem is certainly difficult, though. One can always hope China will take up the responsibility as a growing international power.

While we wait, let's go back to the blaming of America. On one hand, there was the Geneva meeting of 1994 which Clinton and S. Korea basically told the North they could do as they wish and get away with it. On the other, we've got a hardline Bush administration policy that has 'forced' N. Korea into its spiral.

Clinton or Bush, choose your villain.

I don't think the US is 100% to blame for Kim Jong Il being a galloping fruitcake. Lets face it.

The North Koreans would do well to piss Kim Jong Il off and start having a bit more of a say on what is what, but they need to do it or get the process started themselves.

Anything is better than the dictatorship they are essentially under now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belair
Clinton or Bush, choose your villain.

---

I also wonder if perhaps China didn't impact on NK's decision to go nuclear. If China told NK that it wouldn't defend NK against a US attack (I doubt China wants to go to war with the US) then NK might have figured that it was on its own, and getting a nuke was its best defence.

I think it's important to remember that Nukes are only really good for killing civilian populations. They're a filthy and disgusting weapon that has caused terrible fear (I'm an 80's teen, I woke in a cold sweat every time a car alarm went off) in the majority of the world since they were dropped on Japan.

I can't see how we can do anything but suck it up that NK has the bomb. Attacking NK will cause 10's or 100's of thousands of dead in NK, SK and Japan, Seoul could well be wiped off the map, and that's just unacceptable.

The only long term solution is for EVERY country to get rid of its nukes. It really is.

Yeah, you're right Jolen. It is all america's fault. We are totally to blame for the militant radical factions of religions/nations/peoples whatevers that preach and believe in the utter destruction and annihilation of anyone "not-them" regardless of cost to themselves or anyone.

America gets the bad reputation for being the 'bully' in situations like this.


America has the misfortune of being the nearest thing to world hegemony in existence. OF FUCKING COURSE other nations are going to expect and want the U.S. to be the 'voice' for the will of the world. OF FUCKING COURSE they need/want the U.S. to make their collective views know and state their collective support/backing/threat/demand.... whatever.

If S. Korea said "Okay. We're sanctioning you." If Uraguay stated that it imposed embargos on N.Korea... WTF?


Yeah, the authority figure will always get the 'asshole' rep....

It's just sad that people are stupid enough to buy into the Anti-America BS....

Shit, the UK -ALWAYS- makes sure the U.S. is going to stand in front of them when any shit will be thrown


Fuck, if you don't like the U.S. grow a pair and get something done on your own, world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
The only long term solution is for EVERY country to get rid of its nukes. It really is.

---

That's all very well as a theory. What it'd mean would be everyone who wants to look good in the UN will appear to have no nuclear weaponry. Potential consequences of that:

* Everyone disposes of their nuclear weapons except the world's next Mafia. The mafia end up with bigger and more devastating weapons than anyone who wants to stop them, and they dominate the world. - OR -
* Everyone *appears* to have disposed of their weaponry, but some countries secretly stash some away. - OR -
* Nuclear weapons are abandoned in favour of some new and even more destructive bomb, not governed by the UN regulation.

The first option gives world power to the criminal group. It's equivalent to forbidding citizens, police, and security guards from carrying guns, knives, or peashooters - and then an axe murderer terrorizes the entire community, because he can outfight whoever gets sent to stop him.

The second gives more power to the cheaters. Unless there is some kind of massive scrutiny (which wouldn't be perfect anyway), there'll always be the possibility of cheating.

The third just means that whoever can develop the new bomb first gets it. And then whoever can steal the technology fastest and build them cheapest also gets it.

So - Nice idea in theory, but unfortunately it's unlikely to work in practice.