Printable View
I stand cheerfully corrected. I had forgotten N. Koreas aspirations to weapons dealer. Now I worry a little...Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
1) As noted in italics, they are already willing to use deadly force for a variety of contrived, insufficient reasons.
2) Even if they don't use a nuke themselves, N. Korea is insanely poor. Nukes sell for a lot. Oh, and tinpot dictators from oil rich countries can afford to buy them.
I would be all for this, but it is quite simply impossible to uninvent something and the rest of the world is simply unable to trust the other factions to remain nuke-free (and for perfectly good reasons pretty much across the board). The fact of the matter is that nuclear assault has minimal *actual* utility within the confines of a conventional military. It is useful primarily as political/regional leverage or could likely be inestimably valuable in the hands of a nonconventional force.Quote:
The only long term solution is for EVERY country to get rid of its nukes. It really is.
Which is why, perhaps shockingly to many people, the USA would benefit the most from the eradication of nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
The fact of the matter is that nuclear assault has minimal *actual* utility within the confines of a conventional military. It is useful primarily as political/regional leverage or could likely be inestimably valuable in the hands of a nonconventional force.
As the saying goes, however, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
[/COLOR] First they signed the treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty
in 2003 N Korea said...
The government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Friday declared its withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a move that further escalated the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula.
In a statement carried by the KCNA, the DPRK government said itis "totally free from the binding force the safeguards accord withthe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), adding that it took this measure to protect its sovereignty and its right to existence and dignity."
Pyongyang also asserted that it has no intention to produce nuclear weapons, adding that is willing to prove through verification with the United States that it does not make any nuclear weapon if the latter dropped its anti-DPRK policy.
Do I trust them to be responsible if they get Nukes ?
NO!!
It's very similar to the announcements made by Iran "We only want nuclear technology for peace!"
Bullfuckingshit
I have to agree. Nobody buys a ferrari, only to drive it to the corner store and back.
So has it been confirmed that the blast was in fact a nuclear test?
If not, isn't this sanctioning a bit premature?
That's akin to having a bank robber stick a banana in his pocket, call it a gun, then say it's premature to arrest him because you haven't yet made sure he actually has a pistol.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
So has it been confirmed that the blast was in fact a nuclear test?
If not, isn't this sanctioning a bit premature?
perhaps, but the question still remains......
How about "sanction them for making the threat; if they actually have the nuclear weapon, it's coincidental."
Here's the deal. Either:
- He has a nuclear weapon (albeit a very small one), detonated it successfully, and is a crackpot that threatens world stability by the sales therein
or
- He does not have a nuclear weapon, and is playing the world's largest, deepest bluffing game with an entire community of nations arrayed against him insodoing for no ostensible gain (other than attention and distraction), and PROVES he is both a threat to the world's security as well as quite literally questionably mentally unstable.
In either case, sanctions are appropriate, because he either made an empty threat to get the entire world in a tizzy, or he detonated a nuke.