NK Nuke test

[Yuki's Passion 1]

Its obvious why Bush hasnt gone to N. Korea when there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that they have more WMDs and the will/desire to be nuclear too; its because of the credible response that N.Korea would do: Send a million people marching over the DMZ and be in Seoul in just under an hour, launch missiles at Japan and even the States, millions killed (Koreans, US military, expats, etc).

 

The devistation would be unimaginable, and if N. Korea does test a nuke, Im sure that could become a reality... something Bush and his Neo-hawks must be having wet-dreams about.

[kintaro 0]

"North Korea is not threatening any country" Er, every time a NK launched missile flies over my Japanese house I feel a little threatened. I very well could be alone on that one though.

[HeatherLocklearRocks 1]

Missiles launched over Japan? Really??

[Ocean11 0]

Kintaro, ahem, I'm not really supposed to do this you know, being totally incapable of acknowledging a dissenting opinion. But good point.

 

But in their favour, they don't do it very often, it didn't actually hit anything, and if they are going to test big rockets like everybody who can do does, based on where NK is located, it's got to fly over somebody's head. It's not like you actually saw the thing now is it?

 

Of course, now they have some nuggets to put on top of their rockets, and while that is obviously their Dear Leader's doing and responsibility, the doings of another country's vastly more powerful Dear Leader might reasonably be thought to have something to do with it, no?

[mfurmane 0]

amazing...

[damian 0]

NK is without doubt a nasty nation and I would prefer that they had no military might at all. In particular I don't think that the world will be a better place if they have nuclear weapons. However the bigger picture risk is that US foreign policy is more likely to worsen the crisis than abate risk. The appallingly errant foreign policy has already had dire consequences for NY, Iraq and the rest of the world. Correct handling of a NK missile crisis I fear is well beyond the proven ineptitude of Bush and Co.

 

NK is a troubled nation that poses far greater danger than did Iraq. Going after Iraq was an easy* and gutless option. Fixing the NK issue is a whole new ball game. A game that requires faculties of foreign policy and non-military diplomacy missing in Bush doctrine. America is the world leader and a powerful one at that. I don't question their role but I do question their methods and the strange culture that is developing under Bush. A lot is expected of America and the people who vote for those with such chronic power. Get it right and America will have more global support than you thought imaginable.

 

But then from a strategic winner take all perspective: he who controls the middle east controls the world in 100 years. He who controls NK controls bugger all.

 

Kintaro: Good point. Imagine actually seeing one of those things zip through the air! That would scare the pants off of me.

 

Sue, Furm: regardless of Ocean's debate methods, neither of you have said a thing. Nothing. If you have a point then please make it.

 

* turning out to be not so easy, as a result of policy ineptitude. See my first paragraph.

[Curt 1]

I think we should all believe in Mr Bush and his gang. They are doing what's best for us all.

 

Well actually come to think of it, no they're not. Bunch of scary numbskulls.

[mfurmane 0]

My point is that everything...at this point...is mere speculation. Critics love this tactic as it really operates to gather support for their "thoeries."

 

Somebody earlier opined that Bush would be unable to correctly respond to an NK nuke test. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

I ask: what would be the proper response? would it be no response at all?

 

The vast foreign policy knowledge of the members of this forum must have the most peaceful means outlined somewhere....or must we wait until after it all happens and then just listen to your critiques?

Yes, unfortunately America is the Super Power. When America gives, critics say "they didn't give enough." When America watches, critics say "do something!!" When America acts, critics say "I would have done it 'this' way." That's a lot of pressure on the individuals in Washington. Nobody respects that part.

[Ocean11 0]

But then I guess it takes a bit of courage to put forward a theory...

 

Why don't you try answering a few of your own questions (preferably in private)?

 

Your sympathy for the trials of those in Washington is very touching. You'd have thought judging from that there wasn't already a well documented trail of deceit and disaster behind those hapless individuals.

[mfurmane 0]

it takes no courage to put forward a theory. any coward with a stupid avatar can put forth a theory.

 

i don't have the answers sparkplug....and neither do you....that's the point!

[Ocean11 0]

Furm, I think we know the whole extent of your opinions on matters of geopolitics;

 

Everything past and future is unknowable, and anybody who believes otherwise is a cretin. But George Bush is a nice man who is doing his best for the good of us all.

 

Unfortunately there isn't much scope for adult discussion in there. So instead of injecting the first or the second half of your 'worldview' into threads of this sort, and mocking people who have a slightly more developed view, why don't you just assume we know what you think and refrain from saying it again?

[mfurmane 0]

That about sums it up.

 

I continue to post because it's fun ruffling your feathers...you provide humor and help pass the time until I can skip gleefully back to paradise.

[connackers 0]

It`s hard to see N.Korea as a genuine threat or doing anything more than trying to make itself seem big and important to its people. This image would come crashing down pretty quick if it ever did actually attack anyone.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like Bush`s America is forced to do something because all along it`s been making a stand against `nuclear threats` and the `axis-of-evil`. How`s it going to get into Iran if it doesn`t do something about N.Korea?

 

Also N.Korea could be of immense strategical importance to America. Aside from the middle east another major factor in future world politics is China. Having to load that area with a strong American presence because of N.Korea would be perfect for Bush. What could really blow the whole situation up is if China gets involved now.

 

If China gets involved to stop the US doing anything that`ll be a good result. Then again if China gets too involved and the US wades in on the other side and forces a confrontation now, that could be by far the worst thing. Though both options look unlikely. A good result would be if the whole thing gets talked down. Either because China is strong enough to talk N.Korea down itself or to make the US think twice about intervening. What will probably happen though is that some sort of stand off will develop providing another direction for the `war against terror` to focus on.

[Davo 1]

I hope that China puts the brakes on Nth Korea, they're about the only country capable of doing that. GW and his posse are just keen to up the ante, and the Dear Leader jugganort sp? have no option but to go for nukes. It's called "realpolitick" and there's little chance of either side backing down . I think that China will eventually crackdown on Nth Korea, while allowing the regime to survive, thus avoiding the worst case senario. Nth Korea is a BIG card in China's pocket. Just wait and see how they play it.

 

It's incredibly dangerous for a state like Nth Korea to possess nuclear weapons. Perhaps even more dangerous is the fact that the GW posse seems determined to push them into the corner of no return. Pull the plug China.

[Ocean11 0]

> It's incredibly dangerous for a state like Nth Korea to possess nuclear weapons.

 

Why? I have a feeling there are some untested assumptions behind that statement, so do tell why.

[jstepp 0]

Political arguments with Ocean are futile if you haven't discovered by now

 

On the topic of illegal occupation, did you know that Texas is the only U.S. state that entered the union by treaty? Which means we may secede from the U.S. if we (Texans) actually got a government together. I dont see it happening in my lifetime though, however there are many Texans (probably .0003%(I made that statistic up(parenthesis are great))) working on it as we type

 

Just a quick illegal occupation fun fact. A serious issue for those persons involved but not to be taken seriously on this forum - thanks in advance.

[Ocean11 0]

> Political arguments with Ocean are futile if you haven't discovered by now

 

Don't pin your inadequacies on me boy. And what's this drivel about Texas, the most backward state in the union?

[kintaro 0]

Getting way off topic but I can't help myself. Hawaii was flat out stolen (49 states just didn't sound good, they needed 50). I would gladly hand over my US passport if a sovereign Hawaii was ever recognized (and I know it will never happen as Hawaii is such an ideal koban for the US military). Gotta keep an eye on those Asians, ya know?

[jstepp 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:

Don't pin your inadequacies on me boy. And what's this drivel about Texas, the most backward state in the union?

Oh its not MY inadequacy Ocean, it's yours, you're so full of yourself that you fail to realize it. You even failed to realize my post was supposed to be a relief from all of the bickering, did you not see the ? It means cool down because nobody is getting anywhere.

Texas is the most backward state? In regards to what Ocean? Can you please specify? Please, as you ask of others, provide some factual support to your opinions. You see there Ocean, this means I'm just playing around and trying to lighten the mood, are you catching on yet? Slow learner are we?

You have to stop taking things so seriously; especially in an impersonal setting such as this forum. You're middle-aged correct Ocean? (You called me a boy so I can only assume that you are)You increase your chances of a stroke with all of that tension. Is your left side tingly Ocean?

[Davo 1]

It's incredibly dangerous for any state to possess nuclear weapons.

 

Is a Stalinist regime with a personality cult leader any more dangerous than a democratic superpower hellbent on policing the world? Hard to say really, it depends on the circumstances.

 

My point is that they're pushing one another into action, and around it goes. The current circumstances are dangerous, simple as that. So I'll stand by my assertion that it's incredibly dangerous for Nth Korea to possess nuclear weapons. Pretty obvious isn't it?

 

The US/Nth Korea stand off may be soon giving the India/Pakistan nuclear stand off a run for its money.

[Amos in Utsunomia 0]

I would have thought it was obvious that the very existence of nuclear weapons was incredibly dangerous - whoever has them.

[Ocean11 0]

> You even failed to realize my post was supposed to be a relief from all of the bickering

You failed to realize that it's a discussion, not bickering. Less prats around like yourself would make that clearer.

 

> Texas is the most backward state? In regards to what Ocean?

Educational standards, pollution, infant mortality, judicial murders, that sort of thing. Check it out for yourself.

 

Obviously nuclear weapons are dangerous (doh!), but mutual assured destruction has so far been very effective in preventing nuclear war, and probably other types of war too. If you want to worry about actual ongoing threats to the world, there are far more incredibly incredibly dangerous ones that are constantly overlooked that require immediate action. What, you think Kim would just go and use a nuke for the sake of it if he had one? I don't.

[Davo 1]

So now you're jusitifying the MAD stand-off Ocean11. I don't know what Kim will or would do if...GW did or didn't...Do you? Where did I say he'd use one just for the sake of it? The more likely senario is that he'd be forced into it over an escalation of the actual unresolved conflict between Nth Korea and its various enemies. Are you saying that nuclear proliferation isn't an "actual ongoing threat"? Plenty of things require immediate action, that, I don't disagree with. So Nth Korea arming up with nuclear weapons is a nothing to worry about then. I'll sleep better tonight with one less thing to worry about then. So far, so good. At least so far anyway.

[Ocean11 0]

That's right, nuclear proliferation is not an ongoing threat. If some countries have them, it's marginally safer if more countries have them (although clearly it would be better if no countries had them). The MAD standoff is better than lots of Iraqs. Clearly. Is it not?

 

Which countries are the various enemies of NK? I only know of one, offhand. As I said before, and as nobody has reasoned against, the only thing to worry about NK arming up is what they will do if attacked by the US.

[Davo 1]

Can't agree with an argument that goes along the lines of "the more guns everyone has, the safer everyone collectively is". Nuclear proliferation in any guise does not make the world less dangerous; quite the opposite. I am worried, specifically, about the Nth Korean reaction to an attack or the percieved threat of an attack by the US.

 

MAD standoff vs Iraq style invasions? Well, I guess not having verifiable nuclear capability does make a country an "easier target", such as Iraq, with all its oil and actual lack of WMD. However, what makes you so sure that the neo-cons will balk at a limited nuclear threat, such as that wielded by Nth Korea? Who guarantees nuclear weapons won't ever be used beyond the fluffing of feathers and the rattling of sabres? Who says that Nth Korea wouldn't be forced into a situation where they'd use what they have to protect their soveriegnty?

 

Hard to determine whether Sth Korea is an enemy of Nth Korea or not these days. In some ways "yes" but increasingly "no". Although that doesn't sit well with the US at all, this partial thawing of relations between the artificially divided country. The US is Nth Korea's No.1 enemy, followed closely by a resurgently nationalistic Japan. If you count Japan as a compliant stooge, quasi 51st state, then you may be close to accuracy in stating that Nth Korea has only one enemy.