OT: A Nuclear North Korea

[Atrocities]

All because Israel and the IS , both non-dictatorial and democratic nation, allegedly have the bomb, doens't justify NK having it. I am sorry but I cannot agree with the logic behind the concept that all because Israel has the "bomb" that so should NK.

Neither Israel nor the US have ever attempted to black mail the world with nuclear weapons.

Inspect everybody, or inspect nobody.

This too is just simply flawed logic. Again the US, France, and other democratic free nations who have nuclear weapons technology and devices are subject to international rules regarding atomic and nuclear power. However none of these nations, including India and Pakastand, have not threatened to black mail the world. While Russa may have sold weapons and technology and cannot account for much of the old Soviet arsnal, they have never black mailed any one. Both NK and Iran are considered rouge nations and viewed by most of the world as being capable of using nuclear weapons, if they have them, for terroristic purposes. They are also most likely to sell the technology and or weapons themselves to terrorist with the intent and before hand knowledge that these terrorist intend to use them to attack a population base of another country.

As for North Korea being a bully, how many soldiers do they have stationed outside their own borders? How many does the US have?

The US is a super power and a founding member of the UN. Of course it stands to reason that the US would have troops abroud. The US has interest and responsibilities throughout the world. I am perplexed as to why any one would make the arguement that all because NK doesn't have troops out side its own boarders, that the US shouldn't either. I wonder if any one who asserts this belief is truly informed as to world afairs and history? I should also point out that the UN looks to the US more often than not as the worlds police force because we are an economic and military super power. Right or wrong, that is the state of world affairs.

What gives the USA the right to give orders to other countries?

I don't think the US has any right to give orders to another country. However as such, I also am unware of the US ever, out side of war, issuing order to another country. Could you please post some specific examples of instances where the US Government has had no right to give orders to other countries?

The US has said repeatedly that it intends to "end" the North Korean state. Any North Korean leader would be irresponsible for NOT taking any steps necessary to ensure his survival. MAYBE "THEY" ARE SCARED OF "US."

I am sorry but I don't believe that this is an accurate statement. Could you please provide specific quotes and include the officials name who has said that the US should "end" the NK state? I believe that you might possibly be paraphrasing official comments about seeking regime change and could possibly be simply missinturpting the comment or perhaps taking it out of context. Again I can only ask you to clearify your comment.

You right, any dictator that is in fear of loosing his power would want to shore up his ability too keep said power. That is a fair observation of what Kim Jong-il has done.

The North Koreans have long pressed for direct talks with the US. Why not talk to them directly then?

Our Government did hold direct talks with NK throught the 90's and Kim Jong-il and his government flat out lied to us and broke the treaty agreement. They played the US humilating our government and the people who took them at face value. NK just want's to try and play the US again by demanding one on one talks. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us. No, six party talks are the really the only way to insure that NK follows it agreements and its agreed upon obligations under the treaties it signs.


edit:

Anyway, you guys can flame me if you want, but I'm not returning to this thread to read them.

I don't believe, nor would I accept the behavior of any member flaming anyone for their opinion in an open minded discussion about any topic. However it has been my experience that people who believe that their opinions are going to spark flames, and then state that they do not intend to return, feel that their POV is too weak to defend and don't want to answer the questions that said POV brings up. That is a shame, as most post simply help a discussion broaden the perspective of those who are participating in the discussion.

[Atrocities]

Which is it? What gives the US the right or responsibility to deal directly with NK over the heads of his immediate neighbors? As usual, if the US moves, they are criticized. If they don't dance when told to, they are criticized. If they sacrifice a few billion dollars and a few thousand young men and women to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they are criticized. If they do nothing in Sudan, they are criticized.

Wow! Man I hate to say it but I think you nailed this one right on the head. However in regards to NK and the current threats coming from Kim Jong-il, one can only expect the world to blame the US if we don't act in a fair and politically correct manor to bring this current crisis to a peaceful end.

I firmly believe that the involved nations of the world will cave to the KJI's demands, he knows this, and that he will use the aid that he gets to bolster his power at the expense of his people. And then one day, God fearing, he will cross the border to the South and invade SK. He will use the fact that he will use his nuclear weapons as protection against opposition to his actions. The nations of the world will stand back wide eyed and then point their collective fingers toward us and blame the USA for not stopping NK when it first detonated a nuclear test weapon so many years before.

Yup, regardless of what comes, its all going to be the United States of America's fault. After all it was we who put Kim Jong-il into power, it was we who allowed NK to obtain both nuclear materials and technology. We're the evil SOB's who sold NK the nuclear technology and then gave KJI support for his desire to make and sell nuclear weapons. When Kimny boy uses his new toy of mass destruction, it will once again be the US's fault because it was we who did nothing to stop him. They, being the criminally weak sister nations of the world, (and they know who they are) will of course over look the fact that they themselves cowardly caved to NK's demands. That it was they who stopped us from stopping NK from continuing to develop nuclear weapons and prevent them from proliferating more weapons. These nations of the world, the ones who would rather capitulate to fear rather than stand against it, will whine, cry, and boohoo as they lay the blame at the feet of the American government as they always inevitably do

[Ludd]

Thougt you might find this interesting.

A view from the left. The Guardian is an English newspaper.


Dan Plesch
Tuesday October 10, 2006
The Guardian


North Korea's nuclear test is only the latest failure of the west's proliferation policy. And it demonstrates the need to return to the proven methods of multilateral disarmament. Far from being crazy, the North Korean policy is quite rational. Faced with a US government that believes the communist regime should be removed from the map, the North Koreans pressed ahead with building a deterrent. George Bush stopped the oil supplies to North Korea that had been part of a framework to end its nuclear programme previously agreed with Bill Clinton. Bush had already threatened pre-emptive war - Iraq-style - against a regime he dubbed as belonging to the axis of evil.

The background to North Korea's test is that, since the end of the cold war, the nuclear states have tried to impose a double standard, hanging on to nuclear weapons for themselves and their friends while denying them to others. Like alcoholics condemning teenage drinking, the nuclear powers have made the spread of nuclear weapons the terror of our age, distracting attention from their own behaviour. Western leaders refuse to accept that our own actions encourage others to follow suit.
North Korea's action has now increased the number of nuclear weapon states to nine. Since 1998 India, Pakistan and now North Korea have joined America, China, France, Russia, Israel and the UK.

The domino effect is all too obvious. Britain wants nuclear weapons so long as the French do. India said it would build one if there were no multilateral disarmament talks. Pakistan followed rapidly. In Iran and the Arab world Israel's bomb had always been an incentive to join in. But for my Iranian friends, waking up to a Pakistani bomb can be compared to living in a non-nuclear Britain and waking up to find Belgium had tested a nuclear weapon.

East Asia is unlikely to be different. In 2002 Japan's then chief cabinet secretary, Yasuo Fukuda, told reporters that "depending on the world situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan to possess nuclear weapons". The deputy cabinet secretary at the time, Shinzo Abe - now Japan's prime minister - said afterwards that it would be acceptable for Japan to develop small, strategic nuclear weapons.

It was not supposed to be like this. At the end of the cold war, disarmament treaties were being signed, and in 1996 the big powers finally agreed to stop testing nuclear weapons for the first time since 1945. The public, the pressure groups and the media all breathed a great sigh of relief and forgot about the bomb. Everyone thought that with the Soviet Union gone, multilateral disarmament would accelerate.

But with public attention elsewhere, the Dr Strangeloves in Washington, Moscow and Paris stopped the disarmament process and invented new ideas requiring new nuclear weapons. A decade ago, Clinton's Pentagon placed "non-state actors" (ie terrorists) on the list of likely targets for US nuclear weapons. Now all the established nuclear states are building new nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration made things worse. First, it rejected the policy of controlling armaments through treaties, which had been followed by previous presidents since 1918. Second, it proposed to use military - even nuclear - force in a pre-emptive attack to prevent proliferation. This policy was used as a pretext for attacking Iraq and may now be used on either Iran or North Korea. More pre-emptive war will produce suffering and chaos, while nothing is done about India, Israel and Pakistan. So we are left with a policy of vigilante bravado for which we have sacrificed the proven methods of weapons control.

Fortunately, there is a realistic option. Max Kampelman, Ronald Reagan's nuclear negotiator, has proposed that Washington's top priority should be the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction on earth, including those possessed by the US. At the ongoing disarmament meetings at the UN, the vast majority of nations argue for a phased process to achieve this goal. They can point to the success of the UN inspectors in Iraq as proof that international inspection can work, even in the toughest cases. The Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty that removed the missiles from Greenham is an example of an agreement no one thought possible that worked completely. This, and other legacies from the cold war, can and should be applied globally.

A group of Britain's closest allies, including South Africa and Ireland, are trying to broker a deal on global disarmament. Tragically, Britain won't be helping. Political parties and the media are deaf to these initiatives. The three main parties all follow more or less the US approach. They know that no US government will lease the UK a successor to Trident if London steps out of line on nuclear weapons policy. The media almost never report on UN disarmament debates. Disarmament has become the word that dare not be said in polite society.

Do we have to wait for another pre-emptive war or until the Japanese go nuclear before the British political class comes to realise that there can be a soft landing from these nuclear crises?

· Dan Plesch, a fellow at the School of Oriental and African Studies and Keele University.

[Ludd]

Sorry about that long post, but it does go to show the difference between US and European thinking.

In parts of Europe, the US is the main threat to world peace, not NK or Iran. Sounds bizarre I know, but some recent polls prove it.

[Raapys]

Well, consider the guy that's in charge and it's not that bizarre. The mere fact that a guy like that gets to sit in the president's seat doesn't exactly raise an outsiders confidence in the US.

US appear to be driven basically by fear and paranoia, continually encouraged by the current administration.

[Possum]

Ludd said:

In parts of Europe, the US is the main threat to world peace, not NK or Iran. Sounds bizarre I know, but some recent polls prove it.

No, Ludd, wrong. Go back and re-read what you wrote there.

You missed two very important words, "perceived as".

In parts of europe, the US is perceived as the main threat to world peace, not NK or Iran.

Then you compound your error of logic with the second sentence. Polls prove nothing. Nothing at all. In the first place, a poll deals only with opinions, not facts. In the second place, a poll doesn't even prove what people's opinions are, since a poll only samples a tiny portion of the body being surveyed, then extrapolates those results to the entire body.

If you had chosen your words more carefully, you could have said what you were trying to say in a clear and concise fashion. Instead, you blurted out an ill-constructed "sound bite" that made you look like you don't have a clue.

And are you seriously suggesting that public opinion in europe should shape US foreign policy?

[Ludd]

My apologies for the lack of logic, poor English skills, ill-constructed "sound bite" and so-on. I do the best I can.

To be honest,further discussion in the face of such hostility seems pointless.

[Atrocities]

Hey no problem Ludd. You should read some of the crap I have typed. It was a very good article you posted, it does help to broaden the perspective of the dicusssion to have other POV introduced. JOb well done.

[Thermodyne]

Artaud said:
What should the US do?

Nothing.

North Korea has had the bomb for years. Israel, too, has had the bomb (about 200 of them, in fact) for years, and is subject to no international inspections at all. Neither is the US.

Inspect everybody, or inspect nobody.

And by the way, Pakistan has the bomb, and the technology to mount it on missiles. Pakistan's intelligence service is closely allied to the remnants of the Taliban. Who, then, is more likely to give or sell nuclear technology to terrorists?

Yet Pakistan is regarded as a "friend" of the US.

As for North Korea being a bully, how many soldiers do they have stationed outside their own borders? How many does the US have?

What gives the USA the right to give orders to other countries? The US has said repeatedly that it intends to "end" the North Korean state. Any North Korean leader would be irresponsible for NOT taking any steps necessary to ensure his survival. MAYBE "THEY" ARE SCARED OF "US."

And please, don't bring up North Korea's aggression in the Korean War, because there is plenty of not-so-distant US history that is equally disgusting. Americans are very quick to howl about somebody else's crimes and develop amnesia when reminded of their own. The US is not the only country on Earth, and its people need to stop thinking they are. Why does the US feel the need (and the right) to meddle in the internal affairs of countries thousands of miles away, while denying that those countries have legitimate interests in what goes on RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM. (see: Iranian and Syrian "interference" in Iraq...am I the only person who laughs out loud when Bush's representatives complain darkly about foreign "interference" in Iraq????)

The North Koreans have long pressed for direct talks with the US. Why not talk to them directly then? Is it really better to keep issuing threats? (by the way, Syrian President Asad has repeatedly approached the US for talks on all outstanding issues, on the grounds that the two countries have common interests in many areas, including working against Islamic extremists, but Bush has refused to even reply...the Syrians have even offered to end their rather chilly alliance of convenience with Hezbollah as part of a broad agreement to join with the US on a number of issues...but I digress...)

The only reason the US has not invaded North Korea yet is that South Korea is desperate to avoid an East German-style collapse. They fear that their economy would not be able to survive such an event.

Does anybody out there really believe tiny North Korea is going to commit suicide by attacking the US with a nuclear weapon? It's downright racist to think that somehow "we" (who have used the bomb and still have thousands available, and a new warfighting doctrine that explicitly allows their future "first use") can be trusted with The Bomb, while "they" (that "crazy" Stalinist Asian) can't be trusted.

There's a book called "North Korea" by Bruce Cumings. EVERYBODY should read it.

Everybody should also read the book "Afghan Guerilla Warfare" by my friend Col Les Grau, who is probably the leading US expert on Afghanistan. He was traveling covertly to and lecturing on Afghanistan looooooong before September 2001, and if you want to know how silly it is for the US to think it can hold Afghanistan with 20,000 soldiers (or 100,000, for that matter), you need to read this book.

Anyway, you guys can flame me if you want, but I'm not returning to this thread to read them.

You don't have a clue!

[Thermodyne]

Ludd said:
Sorry about that long post, but it does go to show the difference between US and European thinking.

In parts of Europe, the US is the main threat to world peace, not NK or Iran. Sounds bizarre I know, but some recent polls prove it.

We'll need a link to that please.....