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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

These aren't sales, but through the NATO nuclear sharing program, the United States has provided nuclear weapons to several nations, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Greece and the U.K. During peace-time, these weapons are guarded by US soldiers, and detonation codes are under US control, according to this
article (link).

In Canada during the cold war however, there was a brief time when Canadian aircraft were armed with US nukes, and these nukes, while still owned by the United States, were under the care/custody of the Canadian military.

But I think the more general point here, is that western allies share nuclear technology with each other (France w/ Israel, for example), which is something that the west, as a community, forbid countries like Iran and North Korea from doing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
But I think the more general point here, is that western allies share nuclear technology with each other (France w/ Israel, for example), which is something that the west, as a community, forbid countries like Iran and North Korea from doing.

---

The problem isn't with sharing the technology, the problem is having certain countries, who value people's life very low, with nuclear missiles, and that is what we can't allow.

Quote:

---

How about "sanction them for making the threat; if they actually have the nuclear weapon, it's coincidental."

---

One moment please, I need clarity on something. Was there an actual threat uttered from the government of NK, or are we going solely with their actions as threatening? First of all, the type of detonation needs to be confirmed.
Secondly, Kim Jong Il flaps his gums from time to time. Does this really constitute a threat, or merely attention grabbing?
We're not going to go down the "we won't wait till the proof is a mushroom cloud" road again, are we?

Quote:

---

.....and PROVES he is both a threat to the world's security as well as quite literally questionably mentally unstable.

---

Is he really? This talking point gets repeated so often, that it's now taken for granted. I'm curious to know how much of it is based in fact, or fiction.

Seriously, calling Kim a 'threat' to world stability is a stretch.

Sure, DPRK has developed long range missiles. However, it is widely accepted that their missile tests see limited-success. Also, what is forgotten is that building nuclear weapons is a time consuming affair, in terms of gathering the raw material and applying the technical expertise. There seems to be this misconception that now that North Korea has nukes (How many they actually have has never been confirmed or really even guessed), they will be able to sell them left, right and center, wholesale, to whomever wants one. Nukes are not exactly small arms or grenades or rpgs that you can just hide and sell in some shady deal.

Also, assuming that North Korea's nuclear weapons are still rather primitive, any nuke they would build would be large, bulky weapons that simply cannot be sold without considerable amounts of attention being drawn to any deal. From the sounds being made by American security agencies, the North Korean nuke was a partial failure which strengthens the case for the technological level of North Korea's nukes.

So... where's the threat? Kim's blustering? Are we seriously going to lower global politics and compare it to school yard antics? A failed, primitive nuke and a missile program that is a joke constitute a credible threat to world stability? Please. Tell me another joke. Mebe about a priest and a rabbi?

Oh. And another note on America bashing. This country was founded on the ability to criticize the government if the people thought that it was not fulfilling its role. This is subject to opinion, but nonetheless, it is the right of every American to criticize the government. How dare any of you call to question the patriotism of any American who exercises the rights that this country were founded on? Criticizing the American government is -NOT- 'America bashing.' It is exercising your rights. Just because it is opposed to your personal opinion, does not mean it is bashing America. I, and other Americans on this forum who believe America, to take from an appropriate Chappelle quote, is 'fucking up,' are just as American as any of you. From a personal standpoint, I attempted service to this country through the military but was disqualified for health reasons. Coming from a line of soldiers and prior servicemen, this hurt a great deal. I have several ex-service and present service family members who believe America is fucking up. So before you attempt to label anyone else as an 'America basher,' take a moment and think about what the fuck they are really doing. They are disagreeing with YOUR opinion on the American government by exercising their rights.

Jolen, your last post just committed one of the most common bait-and-switch tactics of the last half decade: the liberal fallacy that criticizing a person's words qualifies as a "question" of your "patriotism." No one questioned your patriotism. Your completely bullshit argument of moral equivalency equating North Korean nuclear sales with American sales of conventional military weapons was what was "questioned", and rightfully so - it was incorrect in two places.

Since, apparently, you have trouble with confusing completely DESTROYING your prior post with "questioning your patriotism", I'll generously explain how you were incorrect. First of all, let's check this thread's title:

"N. Korea Nukes?"

This title implies that the discussion will be shaped by the recent events surrounding North Korea's nuclear weapons program, or, if it were to be enlarged, nuclear weapon sales/use/development. Nowhere in this title did it refer to conventional weapons.

YOU SAID:

Quote:

---

Because the only ones allowed to sell/give heavy military arms to other countries/factions is America

---

This statement creates several implications. I am going to state here, as a fundamental presumption, that you did not intentionally include any extranneous statements from your post; if you stated it, I will presume it somehow had something to do with the purpose of the thread, namely, the discussion of North Korea's recent nuclear test. Your implications, then, just by THIS STATEMENT, were as follows:

1) Conventional weaponry, such as jets and tanks, is equally dangerous to sell to another state as a nuclear weapon.

BY EXTENSION:

2) America has sold weapons of similar type or character as a potential NK nuclear weapon.

THEREFORE,

3) Neither America nor North Korea are more or less entitled to sell such weaponry to other states.

In short, a North Korean nuclear weapon was morally equivalent to ongoing American arms sales, and America had no reason to consider such a nuclear test an outrage.

The only little problem with these three implications, Jolen, is that they're completely fucking incorrect. It was because of these three implications (all bound up in that one statement, and the drivel along the same lines that followed it) that Aristotle called your post a "little USA bash"; it was dubbed this because each of your three implications bears no actual connection to reality.

Don't worry, I'll explain.

THE CORNERSTONE IMPLICATION OF YOUR ARGUMENT: Conventional weaponry, such as jets and tanks, is equally dangerous to sell to another state as a nuclear weapon.

Aristotle replied both glibly and accurately to this implication. His response was this:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The reasons why nuclear weapons and conventional weapons are NOT militarily similar - and, in fact, nuclear weapons tend to have far greater effects on a civilian population than their relatively limited military use - are multifaceted and too many for this rapidly burgeoning post. If you do not concede this point - i.e. that nuclear weapons are a weapon of a WHOLLY different character from conventional weapons, and that they are, furthermore, far more dangerous, just let me know - I'll be glad to give you fifteen or twenty pages explaining why you're incorrect there, too.

Of course, you might go, "I didn't say that they were!" However, if you do this, the fact that your tone of moral equivalency remains forces me to accept the alternate proposition - that America has no reason to fault North Korea, because they're 'just doing what we did', so to speak. [Your exact quote was "denying them the right America pursued itself", for the record.] If that is the case, the fact that outrage is being summoned because NK might sell nuclear weapons means...

ALTERNATE IMPLICATION: America has sold nuclear weapons to other countries, therefore voiding a right to show concern over nuclear proliferation.

The problem with this alternative implication is that...it's not true. It's like saying the sky is purple, that San Fransisco won last year's Super Bowl, or that your post was logically coherent. It is factually incorrect, and demonstrably untrue. Zero nuclear weapons sales have so transpired.

When you invalidate the first component of your comparison - that America has acted in a manner comparable to or identical to the idea of North Korea selling a nuclear missile - then, naturally, America has not "done what North Korea might do", so to speak; and, of course, your final implication, that we share equal moral fault with Kim Jong Il, falls flat on its face - without even having to address the human rights records or the like of both states (which could fill a book).

No one questioned your "patriotism." Whether or not the United States is, as you so cheaply put it, "fucking up" is a question that elder statesmen and scholars alike debate on a daily basis - REASONABLE, RATIONAL, EDUCATED discussion - not simply the idle slinging of bile - is crucial to this process. When people like YOU, however, make COMPLETELY BULLSHIT AND DEMONSTRABLY DISPROVABLE IMPLICATIONS TO STATE AMERICA IS SOMEHOW IN THE WRONG, THOUGH, THE ONLY ONE "FUCKING UP" IS YOU, JOLEN.

JUST YOU.

THAT IS WHY YOU GOT CALLED OUT.

If this post wasn't redundant, explicit, and condescending enough to convey my point and to explain that the only person calling your patriotism into question is you, let me know. I can make it moreso.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolen
So... where's the threat? Kim's blustering? Are we seriously going to lower global politics and compare it to school yard antics? A failed, primitive nuke and a missile program that is a joke constitute a credible threat to world stability? Please. Tell me another joke. Mebe about a priest and a rabbi?

---

Are you nuts?

Quote:

---

One moment please, I need clarity on something. Was there an actual threat uttered from the government of NK, or are we going solely with their actions as threatening?

---

How about calling sanctions an "act of war", and promising "physical countermeasures" pursuant therein? Is that a threat?(Link)

Or how about their general belligerence towards their neighbor to the south, South Korea, in which North Korean agents threatened to murder the families of South Korean consuls to decode S. Korean cryptographs? (Link)

Or how about North Korea's statement prior to the sanctions, promising "physical steps" to deal with the United States' attitude towards their nuclear program? (Link)

Or how about another statement on October 11, 2006, where the North Korean government announced (again) that "if the U.S. increases pressure...[North Korea] will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of a war."
(Link)

Or how about the fact all of this is happening despite the fact that North Korea agreed a year ago to abandon their nuclear weapons program in principle? (Link)

What do you want, Kestra? Kim Jong Il to hold up today's newspaper in one hand and a sign saying "I AM THREATENING NUCLEAR WAR" in the other one? What is enough? How many times do they have to promise "physical retaliation" for any action, or, in some cases, no action at all? Are you really unable to see how their actions - detonating a nuclear weapon (allegedly, at least) could be construed as threatening in the context of the above?

Quote:

---

First of all, the type of detonation needs to be confirmed.

---

Well, again, let's see...

A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea showed "radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test," according to a statement sent to U.S. lawmakers Friday from the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. (Link)

France believes that it is most likely a failed nuclear blast attempt. (Link)

Russia, for whatever reason, believes it a massive nuclear blast. (Link)

And, while Japan admits inconclusivity, seems convinced enough to pass sweeping sanctions. (Link)

Quote:

---

We're not going to go down the "we won't wait till the proof is a mushroom cloud" road again, are we?

---

Mostly, though, let's remember - NORTH KOREA IS CLAIMING IT WAS A NUCLEAR BLAST. This isn't a "wait for proof in the shape of a mushroom cloud" situation, as you put it, Kestra - the "aggressor" in question is CLAIMING RESPONSIBILITY. They ADMIT TO SUCH AN ACT. The international community passed sanctions 15-0, under a WEEK after the (possible) blast - and normally, the U.N. has the speed of a sloth on valium. When someone walks up to you and says, "I have a gun", and then jam a solid object into your back, and that person has a REPUTATION for violence and erratic behavior, and EVERYONE AROUND YOU thinks it might be a gun, is it so unreasonable to possibly take the cautious approach - treat the maniac like he's armed?

I wouldn't want to interrupt your taking out of context George Bush quotes to make the precept of "take care around an armed despot threatening war" look like a ridiculous one - it's so hard to make George Bush sound ridiculous, after all - but could you step away from the rabid America-hatred long enough to identify North Korea as a danger to the world, should they have nuclear arms at their disposal?

I understand that America has not sold any nuclear weapons. It was why I put 'give' right next to it. My implication was that selling and giving nuclear weapons to other countries is the same damn thing. It was not a matter of 'America bashing.' Apparently, the only person who understood that -I- understood America had not sold nuclear arms -and- the point I was trying to make was Snrrub, who provided an excellent article.

America has provided nuclear weapons and arms to its 'buddies' and undoubtedly, nuclear expertise in how to craft these weapons. You understand this and deliberately saw a chance to 'break' my argument down by latching onto the 'sell' portion of what I wrote:

Quote:

---

Because the only ones allowed to sell/give heavy military arms to other countries/factions is America

---

In terms of nuclear arms, selling and giving them is the same in that, they are still being proliferated. America has been giving nuclear arms to other countries. How is that any different from North Korea selling them(potentially, because as of this date, not a SINGLE sale has been made)? Proliferation is wrong, and when someone who does give nuclear weapons away, turns around and tells someone else not to (who again has ZERO record of doing so), the hypocrisy I was alluding to is apparent.

I will remember next time to be as blunt about my meaning as a battle hammer to the face because what I meant was lost to most of you except a few who actually realized, "Hey.. Jolen is saying that selling and giving is the same when you are talking about nuclear arms. Oh! Oh! He means proliferation!"

Proliferation is wrong. If you do it, stfu.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't want to interrupt your taking out of context George Bush quotes to make the precept of "take care around an armed despot threatening war" look like a ridiculous one - it's so hard to make George Bush sound ridiculous, after all - but could you step away from the rabid America-hatred long enough to identify North Korea as a danger to the world, should they have nuclear arms at their disposal?

---

Firstly, I don't hate America, just your leaders.

Thank you for your links Gaviani. That was what I was looking for.

Quote:

---

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.

---

While the Clinton approach was little more than appeasement and bribery, what with the Sunshine Agreement and all, the Bush approach isn't that shit hot either. The current foreign policy is far more serious and has more dire implications for South Korea than for the US. While I understand one must take care of one's own firstly, there's more at stake than US security.

I don't have the answer to this problem.
Seems nobody does.

Quote:

---

[i]Proliferation is wrong. If you do it, stfu. [/B]

---

Don't be an idiot.

The only proliferation that's been conducted by America is extremely limited and arguably still within the confines of the NPA (With the exception of the Canadian thing, but even then, I don't fucking care, it's Canada.)

But even then, it's beside the fucking point of the argument in the first place. It's not reasonable to flat out state "If you proliferate weaponry in any way you have no say in who should not recieve said weaponry", since your reasoning consists of "Well they're not really a threat anyway are they?"

Guess what. I wouldn't trust the DPRK with Nuclear fucking Weapons while they have seemingly absolutely no concern about their own citizens well being, not to mention the rest of the world's. And that's just one single piece of very basic reasoning, Gaviani has already given you a boatload of facts on the matter. American proliferation shouldn't even come into the matter when 14 other nations agree that it's a threat, even if you don't.

The first thing we learnt in politics (Fuck, in any class) at University was "If you don't know what you're talking about, find out. If you still don't know, stfu and accept you were wrong." I generally try and stay away from forum discussions because often I don't feel I have sufficient understanding, research or argumentative ability to properly put forward an educated opinion (Or everyone is just talking shit), but in this case, it doesn't take a PHD to work out you need to STFU and GBTW on this one, or at the very least, pay attention to what you're trying to say.