North Korea conducts first nuclear test

[Plechazunga]

North Korea are even more of a concern than India, Israel or Pakistan.

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that "hypocrisy" over who is and isn't "allowed" nukes is miles off the point.

 

[kkcbl]

And to anyone that claimed US military action in NK would've stopped them from acquiring nukes, you're off your rocker. China would've stepped in - just as they did last time round, leading to World War III.

Agree 100%.

By the way, why was Iraq, with no WMDs, invaded then?

 

[nickm]

US force was never an option in the first place. Kim and co. know that any possible invasion would've been strongly opposed by China and even South Korea (who, crazilly enough, think their Sunshine Policy can one day lead to 're-unification' with the North).

...

If there was any hope in stopping north korea from getting nukes, it was imposing crippling sanctions 10 years ago, or else in an extremely ambitious attempt to assasinate Kim Jr.

I post this from today's International Herald Tribune:

"Think about the consequences of having declared something 'intolerable,' and last week 'unacceptable,' and then having North Korea defy the world's sole superpower and the Chinese and the Japanese," said Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who has studied nuclear showdowns from the Cuban missile crisis on. "What does that communicate to Iran and then the rest of the world? Is it possible to communicate to Kim credibly that if he sells a bomb to Osama bin Laden, that's it?"

Allison was touching on the central dilemma facing Washington as it tries to extract itself from the morass of Iraq. Whether accurately or not, other countries around the world perceive Washington as tied down, unable or unwilling to challenge them while 140,000 troops are tied up in a bloody war.

Kim may have calculated, many experts said, that at this point there was little more that the Bush administration could do to him.
(end quote)

I take your point that the US might not have actually been able to invade NK (something I dispute actually) but in the great game of diplomatic poker, the NKs should have been made to think they would/could. Unfortunatly, Iraq well and truly took that option off the table. The NKs just called the US's bluff, and the US looks way weaker today than it did yesterday. That is serious.

 

[nickm]

It's almost a given that they will start selling nukes to the highest bidder - after all, they're already selling massive quantities of drugs and weapons to the highest bidder.

So given the scale of that threat, you're are seriously arguing that sanctions and do-nothing is a realistic option?

 

[Stamford Bridge]

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that "hypocrisy" over who is and isn't "allowed" nukes is miles off the point.

I take your point.

Nukes in the hands of a nutter is a chilling thought indeed. Lets hope the other nutter in Iran doesn't get his hands on it, though I'm far from convinced he won't.

 

[Stamford Bridge]

Agree 100%.

By the way, why was Iraq, with no WMDs, invaded then?

Iraq is a separate discussion.

The fact is, Iraq or not, a military solution was quite unfeasible in solving the NK nuke situation.

 

[Stamford Bridge]

So given the scale of that threat, you're are seriously arguing that sanctions and do-nothing is a realistic option?

I think I posted my opinion a couple of posts earlier.

Either heavy sanctions should have been applied a decade ago (under Clinton) so that the North couldn't accumulate enough cold hard cash to fund their nuke program, or the CIA should've been sent in to try to assasinate Kim Jr. (long shot though). Instead Clinton thought giving them money and food would stop them from making a nuke. Ironically, the bribes the US, South Korea and Japan paid the North in the 90s might actually have funded the nuclear program.

Short of that, I really don't see how the West could've stopped North Korea's program - not since 2000 anyways.

Military action in the Korean peninsula would never have worked. South Korea would have denied the use of their bases to the US for an invasion of the North, and then there's China......

 

[Stamford Bridge]

I take your point that the US might not have actually been able to invade NK (something I dispute actually) but in the great game of diplomatic poker, the NKs should have been made to think they would/could. Unfortunatly, Iraq well and truly took that option off the table. The NKs just called the US's bluff, and the US looks way weaker today than it did yesterday. That is serious.

Do you reckon the madman even cared about a possible US invasion? Kim Jr. doesn't even care that hundreds of thousands of his people die every year from serious famine while he throws billions of dollars away on his nuclear program.

 

[Stick]

No. But I'd rather live in a western democracy, even with all its flaws, than anywhere else.

What are you basing that on? Have you lived anywhere outside the so called developed world under any other government?

 

[Stick]

It's one thing to hope the world could be nuke free. It's another thing entirely to make a dumb moral equivalence between nukes under democratic control, and those under the control of dictators. And this charge of hypocrisy is a teenaged nonsense.

Im not a teenager, is this another of your assumptions based on supposition? The way I see it is that there are a small number of countries with nuclear weapons. These countries are at the top of the food chain and don't want other countries to develop a nuclear arsenal as their place of power might be jeopardised. Thus far the only country mad enough to use nuclear weapons in warfare were the US and they seem to be leading the charge against other countries developing nuclear weapons and are outraged by North Korea's "Testing," when they actually conducted their tests on the Japanese people. It is of course hypocrisy based on fear, which many regimes use to motivate their people. I'm not saying that Kim should have developed nuclear weapons but I cant see why he would listen to the war mongering U.S. and U.K. clucking their tongues when they probably have the most potent nuclear arsenal of the lot. I would like the world to disarm their nuclear weapons and try to work together to eradicate world hunger. That's just one of my teenage pipe dreams though and you will clear slam me for my hippy way of thinking.

 

[Stick]

We did have such a thing, it was called the Non Proliferation Treaty and not one of these numbskulls (not you) has bothered to castigate North Korea for breaking it. Instead, they'd rather make lazy statements about 'hypocrisy'. Unbelievable.

Did any of the current nuclear super powers adhere to such a treaty when they developed their nuclear arsenals?

 

[nickm]

Do you reckon the madman even cared about a possible US invasion? Kim Jr. doesn't even care that hundreds of thousands of his people die every year from serious famine while he throws billions of dollars away on his nuclear program.

He doesn't care about his people but he does care about the security of his own position - as do the people around him.

 

[nickm]

What are you basing that on? Have you lived anywhere outside the so called developed world under any other government?

I've lived and travelled extremely widely, thanks. But apart from that, I happen to believe democracy is a demonstrably superior system to any other political system tried so far; that the facts show it and if you want to debate it, let's hear you try.

 

[Stick]

People are shutting their eyes to the reality of the situation. I would not put it past Kim to use it as a first strike offensive weapon...it's potentially catastrophic for the region and the world - another problem could very well be NK selling secrets to anyone with money - we know it's in serious need of finances.

His economy is in the shitter. He is starving his own people. I see a revolution happening there in the near future along the lines of the French one. The situation should be observed as Kim gets more desperate.

 

[Red Rat Racer]

I'd far rather a nuclear US - a country under democratic control - than any of the states you probably think more highly of.

I don't think any state is morally higher than any other. I say what I see, and what I see is a world that is more unbalanced now than what it was 20 years ago, and unfortunately one of the common factors seems to be US foreign policy. Why are so many people incensed by having Americanism shoved down their throats.???.......

Superpowers throughout history have always forced their will on people by using their superior military power (so America is no different here), Romans, Egyptions, Cathogenes, Ottomans etc.
Where by previously it was the sheer number of soldiers, today it is who has the bigger bomb. As most nuclear powers have reduced their nuclear stores, the US has not. I know that Pakistan and India haven't either, but the total between them wouldn't scratch the surface of the total in existance.

 

[Stick]

Fairness and hypocrisy are nothing to do with it. We're not talking about access to AIDS drugs here. It's nuclear weapons - as few countries as possible should be allowed to have them. Especially crackpot countries like North Korea.

Pakistan and Israel were not permitted to develop weapons, as members of some club. They did it secretly. In both cases, the Americans were far from happy about it, the alliance with Israel notwithstanding.

Who are we to tell others what they develop within the boundaries of their own countries? Did anyone tell Britain not to develop nukes?

 

[kkcbl]

I think I posted my opinion a couple of posts earlier.

Either heavy sanctions should have been applied a decade ago (under Clinton) so that the North couldn't accumulate enough cold hard cash to fund their nuke program, or the CIA should've been sent in to try to assasinate Kim Jr. (long shot though). Instead Clinton thought giving them money and food would stop them from making a nuke. Ironically, the bribes the US, South Korea and Japan paid the North in the 90s might actually have funded the nuclear program.

Short of that, I really don't see how the West could've stopped North Korea's program - not since 2000 anyways.

Military action in the Korean peninsula would never have worked. South Korea would have denied the use of their bases to the US for an invasion of the North, and then there's China......

So, as in your every defence of Bush & Co, it's always the ball boys' fault and nothing the present US Admin could have done....

 

[Red Rat Racer]

It's one thing to hope the world could be nuke free. It's another thing entirely to make a dumb moral equivalence between nukes under democratic control, and those under the control of dictators. And this charge of hypocrisy is a teenaged nonsense.

nonsense...nonsense...nonsense..

China has been under a dictatorship for how long? and not one nuke fired in anger!!!!

In fact as I seem to recall the only nukes fired in anger were by the US...

So what you are saying is that nukes under the control of a democratic country are less likely to be fired than ones under the control of dictatorships....this stand surely makes a mockery of the facts

 

[Stick]

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that "hypocrisy" over who is and isn't "allowed" nukes is miles off the point.

I disagree.

 

[Stick]

So given the scale of that threat, you're are seriously arguing that sanctions and do-nothing is a realistic option?

What other options are there?

 

[kkcbl]

Iraq is a separate discussion.

The fact is, Iraq or not, a military solution was quite unfeasible in solving the NK nuke situation.

As some of the others had suggested, Bush's invasion of Iraq after threatening the Axis Of Evil Threesome may have possibly put fear into the minds of the NK Leadership ( & possibly Iran ) to go down the Nuclear path.

 

[Stick]

I've lived and travelled extremely widely, thanks. But apart from that, I happen to believe democracy is a demonstrably superior system to any other political system tried so far; that the facts show it and if you want to debate it, let's hear you try.

Travelling widely for holidays? Im not saying democracy is a superior system to any other system as I have only experienced democracy and can not base it on any other political system whether it be a communist regime or a dictatorship. I certainly dont agree with the US/UK current fad of forcibly introducing democracy in nations for strategic reasons. I believe the people must rise up themselves and external intervention is harmful.

 

[nickm]

Im not a teenager, is this another of your assumptions based on supposition?

I don't call you a teenager, I call your arguments 'teenaged', because they manifest the same kind of shallow wishful thinking as the average 16 year old.

The way I see it is that there are a small number of countries with nuclear weapons. These countries are at the top of the food chain and don't want other countries to develop a nuclear arsenal as their place of power might be jeopardised.

Perhaps. But it's also that nukes are fcuking horrible weapons and the fewer people who have them, the better. And power in this world is not just based on nuclear-ness - look at Japan and Germany. Both countries are nuclear-free but both are full members of, and partners in, the international power system. Nukes are not a pre-requisite for power.

Thus far the only country mad enough to use nuclear weapons in warfare were the US

So bloody what?

and they seem to be leading the charge against other countries developing nuclear weapons and are outraged by North Korea's "Testing," when they actually conducted their tests on the Japanese people.

No they didn't. Their 'tests' were done on US soil, and later in the South Pacific. Their weapons were used in a time of war in order to end it. You are talking bollocks.

It is of course hypocrisy based on fear, which many regimes use to motivate their people. I'm not saying that Kim should have developed nuclear weapons but I cant see why he would listen to the war mongering U.S. and U.K. clucking their tongues when they probably have the most potent nuclear arsenal of the lot. I would like the world to disarm their nuclear weapons and try to work together to eradicate world hunger. That's just one of my teenage pipe dreams though and you will clear slam me for my hippy way of thinking.

No, but I will slam you for naive hand-waving. If you are truly serious about a world without nukes, you would have condemned NK's test without reservation and would now be looking for a way to discourage other nations from acquiring them. Instead, we get more intellectually lazy anti-americanism that is more interested in scoring points against the US than actually confronting the problem. You're just posing.

 

[Stick]

I don't call you a teenager, I call your arguments 'teenaged', because they manifest the same kind of shallow wishful thinking as the average 16 year old.

Is wanting a world without nuclear weapons shallow wishful thinking? I can only conclude it is if there are people out there with your closed mindset

Perhaps. But it's also that nukes are fcuking horrible weapons and the fewer people who have them, the better. And power in this world is not just based on nuclear-ness - look at Japan and Germany. Both countries are nuclear-free but both are full members of, and partners in, the international power system. Nukes are not a pre-requisite for power.

No nukes are not a pre requisite of power but are insurance that your power will be maintained. Nukes are horrible weapons but your democratic country holds them so what gives you the right to tell others that they cant?

So bloody what?

You say you fear this lunatic Kim in N Korea as he may actually use his nukes and yet I've pointed out that the only country to use them in warfare was the democratically elected president of the United States and not some lunatic dictator. So this seems to discount your theory that nukes are safe in the hands of the small number of democratic societies.

No they didn't. Their 'tests' were done on US soil, and later in the South Pacific. Their weapons were used in a time of war in order to end it. You are talking bollocks.

Nobody knew what kind of mess dropping a nuclear bomb back then would cause and Japan is still coming to terms with it. The American's didn't know for certain that the dropping of the bombs would result in the Japanese surrender. You make the cause sound incredibly noble. It was done to see what would happen and it had devastating consequences.

No, but I will slam you for naive hand-waving. If you are truly serious about a world without nukes, you would have condemned NK's test without reservation and would now be looking for a way to discourage other nations from acquiring them. Instead, we get more intellectually lazy anti-americanism that is more interested in scoring points against the US than actually confronting the problem. You're just posing.

You can try and slam me all you want but these are my beliefs. North Korea and Kim are just adding to an existing problem in developing nuclear weapons. If you read my posts you would see that I dont think anyone should hold a nuclear arsenal at all. I have no need to condemn North Korea individually as I condemn all those who hold nuclear weapons collectively. I dont care for anti Americanism either but Im not intellectually lazy as you put it and don't know to whom I am posing on an annonymous message board.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

I love Red Cafe.

Only here will you find a serious debate as to whether it is better for a country to be led by a lunatic in high heels, starving his population in order to watch cartoons and test nuclear weapons versus having a representative democracy.

 

[Stick]

I love Red Cafe.

Only here will you find a serious debate as to whether it is better for a country to be led by a lunatic in high heels, starving his population in order to watch cartoons and test nuclear weapons versus having a representative democracy.

The Korean people must decide.

 

[nickm]

Travelling widely for holidays?

Lived in Hong Kong for two years.

Im not saying democracy is a superior system to any other system as I have only experienced democracy and can not base it on any other political system whether it be a communist regime or a dictatorship.

Well, how very relativist of you.

 

[Plechazunga]

I love Red Cafe.

Only here will you find a serious debate as to whether it is better for a country to be led by a lunatic in high heels, starving his population in order to watch cartoons and test nuclear weapons versus having a representative democracy.

You've obviously never been on the Guardian blogs

 

[Stick]

Lived in Hong Kong for two years.

Was it under British rule at the time?

Well, how very relativist of you.

Are you slamming me here?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

You've obviously never been on the Guardian blogs

Why would I be?

I get my fill of anti-semitic prejudiced 'leftist' hate on here.

 

[Red Rat Racer]

No they didn't. Their 'tests' were done on US soil, and later in the South Pacific. Their weapons were used in a time of war in order to end it. You are talking bollocks.

Actually you are talking bollocks with this statement. The war was already in effect finished when the bombs were dropped. The allies had already agreed a time and date for the war to end (all parties agreed including the Japanese). In a rush to test the bombs on a human population before the deadline the US ordered it's bombers to take off. Granted they were dropped inside this time, however, as i've just pointed out an agreement had already been reached to end the war and hostilities had actually been dimmed down by quite a bit after this agreement.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

Actually you are talking bollocks with this statement. The war was already in effect finished when the bombs were dropped. The allies had already agreed a time and date for the war to end (all parties agreed including the Japanese). In a rush to test the bombs on a human population before the deadline the US ordered it's bombers to take off. Granted they were dropped inside this time, however, as i've just pointed out an agreement had already been reached to end the war and hostilities had actually been dimmed down by quite a bit after this agreement.

You're completely insane.

I hope this helps.

 

[Red Rat Racer]

Those are the facts Jason. Any secondary school history pupil will tell you that. Well, they would in the UK anyway.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

Those are the facts Jason. Any secondary school history pupil will tell you that. Well, they would in the UK anyway.

Then the UK is even more of a cesspool of anti-American bigoted lies that I thought it was.

That is a moronic statement.

 

[Plechazunga]

Those are the facts Jason. Any secondary school history pupil will tell you that. Well, they would in the UK anyway.

Those actually aren't the facts

There had been a couple of unofficial approaches to the Americans from the crown prince - whose authority was far from uncontested - via diplomats in Switzerland. But a time and date for surrender had not been agreed, nor had conditions. The Japanese didn't surrender until well after Hiroshima.

 

[Grinner]

The first bomb was warranted. The second probably not.

 

[ellie brown]

I'm so Ronery / So ronery / So ronery and sadry arone / There's no one / Just me onry / Sitting on my rittle throne / I work very hard to be number one guy / but, stiwr there's no one to right up my rife / Seems rike no one takes me serirousry / And so, I'm ronery / A rittle ronery / Poor rittle me / There's no one I can rerate to / Feewr rike a biwd in a cage / It's kinda siwry / but, not reawry / because, it's fiwring my body with rage / I'm the smartest, most crever, most physicawry fit / but, none of the women seem to give a shit / Maybe someday, they'wr awr notice me / And untiwr then, I'wr be ronery / Yeah, a rittle ronery / Poor rittle me...

 

[nickm]

Actually you are talking bollocks with this statement. The war was already in effect finished when the bombs were dropped. The allies had already agreed a time and date for the war to end (all parties agreed including the Japanese). In a rush to test the bombs on a human population before the deadline the US ordered it's bombers to take off. Granted they were dropped inside this time, however, as i've just pointed out an agreement had already been reached to end the war and hostilities had actually been dimmed down by quite a bit after this agreement.

Citations, please.

 

[vanthaman]

 

[Davo]

and feckin Kuyt's injured

What a week