|
Post by comike14 on Oct 9, 2006 9:42:53 GMT -5
So it's official. The North Korean government has tested a nuclear bomb, roughly about the same power as the one dropped on Hiroshima. The world has just witnessed a possibly detrimentally destablizing event. The question is, what next?
Sanctions, or red carpet? NK has already proven that it doesn't give a flying F about threats. But if we act on those threats, will it not further destablize the region, and harm countless civilians? And yet, if we DON'T make good on those threats (to whatever degree we may have promised), does that give NK the upper hand? "We called your bluff, you bastards."
Or can we welcome them into the nuclear circle with open arms? Suppose we handle this as we would if a relatively friendly nation conducted such a test? But can we do that, considering how unstable Kim has proven himself to be?
What do you all think we (and WE is the whole of the nations that opposed the test in the first place, not just the US) should do about this?
|
|
|
Post by duckofdoom on Oct 9, 2006 10:41:16 GMT -5
So it's official. The North Korean government has tested a nuclear bomb, roughly about the same power as the one dropped on Hiroshima. The world has just witnessed a possibly detrimentally destabilizing event. The question is, what next? What's next ?... If I manage to scrape for some cash I think I'd go grab me some beer. Or vodka, whatever ;D [/joke] Seriously, this is a similar situation as with India and Pakistan. And ? Did they blow up anything big yet ? No. They're acting as if they actually have some brains, and that's commendable. But that's only because US managed to treat them with a certain dose of respect. North Korea was/is being hammered, on the other hand, because it's one of the few remaining hard-line communist countries in the world. I don't agree at all with NK interior politics or how they treat their neighbours, but they're still a sovereign nation. Yes, their people are dying from hunger there. Yes, they're also inferior in armament and weapon systems to all neighboring countries... but, they have The Bomb now and some respect must be granted to them now.
Sanctions, or red carpet?
Neither. Or, to be more precise, a clever mix of both. The key thing here would be negotiating, because they are quite unstable at the moment and more threats would be 100% counterproductive, IMO.
NK has already proved that it doesn't give a flying F about threats. But if we act on those threats, will it not further destabilize the region, and harm countless civilians? And yet, if we DON'T make good on those threats (to whatever degree we may have promised), does that give NK the upper hand? "We called your bluff, you bastards."
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." [Theodore Roosevelt] So far, both sides [USA & NK] are threatening each other. You must show that you don't want to take anything from them, but you also must show that you won't give them the right to bully others.
Or can we welcome them into the nuclear circle with open arms? Suppose we handle this as we would if a relatively friendly nation conducted such a test? But can we do that, considering how unstable Kim has proved himself to be? I have watched a documentary about North Korea and it's people once, long ago; it was produced by their national TV. I was shocked and frightened with the level of de-humanization and depersonalization of their society... but still, I will presume that in darkest darkness and deepest pit there are minds that beg to differ, actual persons who resist and dare to think different from Leaders. Not every single Korean above 38th parallel is Kim Il's mental twin... just like not every Serb is Milosevic's fan. You must cling onto that though and think of their future, as well as future of other nations in region.
What do you all think we (and WE is the whole of the nations that opposed the test in the first place, not just the US) should do about this? What now ? Seriously, I'll grab something to drink. I gave you my honest opinion, Comike, because your thread is decent and deserves truthful opinions. I can only do so much; but even my country's leaders can do little. Still, I live in a land that's been proud of its roots, history and constant struggle for freedom, and I can sympathize much more with small nations than with anyone else. Yugoslavia/Serbia endured 8 years of international sanctions; at the end of it all, USA & NATO bombed us, because they justified it... but the fact is, USA & NATO have bombed a sovereign country. Did it do any good, did it damage the Dictator or his clique ? No. Can military pressure do any good in swaying people's minds to see someone else's point ? Nearly never. So, my advice and opinion for NK nuclear crisis would be one word: Negotiate. Always and to the very end NEGOTIATE, and be damn sure that you've exhausted every single option before you warm up the engines of strike bombers.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Oct 9, 2006 11:05:22 GMT -5
Well, actually it isn't totally official. The Aussies are saying it was equivalent to 1 kiloton of TNT (which is a lot less than the 12.5-kiloton bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. The Russians are saying 5-15 kilotons according to their Defense Minister. Of course, there's actually no proof that it was even a nuclear weapon anyways. At least some officials (the one I see quoted is from the US) said that it could be just a lot of TNT, which isn't all that farfetched. All we know for sure is that something caused a 4.2 magnitude earthquake (according to the US Geological Survey) in North Korea. So what should we do? Well, we have several choices: - 1. Continue with business as usual. Not even bother with additional economic sanctions, since they would likely cause a humanitarian crisis in North Korea (or worsen the crisis that's already happening). Hopefully Kim Jong Il will kick the bucket sooner rather than later and there will be a change of government.
- 2. Pass additional economic sanctions. This could include cutting off the oil pipeline to China, which has helped bring North Korea back to the table before. Of course, this would hurt the North Korea population, and I think it is already brutally clear that Kim Jong Il doesn't care about the suffering of his country, as long as he retains power.
- 3. Start getting ready for war. Basically begin a new round of the Cold War, but instead of the US and Russia, this time it will be Japan and China. North Korea would not be able to manufacture enough weapons to keep up with Japan, which has already elected a more 'hawkish' government. This could cause a military build up in Japan, which would force China to quicken it's own build up to remain a dominate power in the region. This might not reach the gobal implications of the Cold War, but it would at least be on the magnitude of the Pakistan-India conflict.
- 4. Direct Military Action. This probably is the worst short term plan, since it would potentially destabilize the region for years or even decades. Although this might not require an invasion (a special forces attack that would destory North Korea's Nuclear capabilitys wouldn't be an invasion), chances are that it will spark another Korean War (which is technically the same one). Plus the chances of China agreeing to such a plan is very slim, and without their support, the operation/war/'police action' would be a lot harder to pull off.
Personally, I think the best option is #2, if we can get China to cut off the pipeline.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Oct 9, 2006 11:52:54 GMT -5
So they've got a bomb roughly equal to the technology of sixty years ago? Or... less?
Let China and Japan deal with it, we just make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on Oct 9, 2006 14:32:22 GMT -5
I'd just like to drop this link to an older thread on the first time North Korea did it.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Oct 9, 2006 14:45:00 GMT -5
So they've got a bomb roughly equal to the technology of sixty years ago? Or... less? Let China and Japan deal with it, we just make things worse. Well, less, much less according to some estimates. Looking at different estimates for the power of the North Korean test which range from 770 Kilo-tons to 15 kilo-tons, they are all much lower than the 19 kilo-ton blast that marked the beginning of the atomic age in New Mexico. (Looking at the different estimates, I'm more inclined to believe around 1 kilo-tons, since most of them are around that number). One other thing that North Korea may lack is a workable delivery system. There are only two really effective ways to offensivily use a nuclear weapon, missile and heavy bomber. Most experts doubt that North Korea can manage to back it's bomb in a missile and any heavy bombers that the North may have are unlikely to be able to penetrate enemy air distance for any great distance (though it is important to note that Seoul is very close to the 38th parallel). As for letting Japan and China deal with it (I'm surprised that you didn't include South Korea, but whatever), that's not really an option. Some reports have said that Japan has asked for a nuclear weapon (the Japanese official involved denys this). Anyways, North Korea's beef is with the US. While they have refused to attend the six-party talks with China, Japan, South Korea, US, and Russia, they have pushed the US for unilateral meetings. North Korea wants the US to be involved.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Oct 9, 2006 14:50:40 GMT -5
I'd just like to drop this link to an older thread on the first time North Korea did it. Thanks for the link. This certainly isn't the first time they've "rattle the sabres." But it IS the first time they've detonated a nuclear weapon. I've been thinking today, based on what Ratwar pointed out, how do we really know it was a nuke? Doesn't Kim Jung Il strike you as the kind of person who would bring a water gun to to a school and hold up the teachers? Some of the more recent reports are saying that it was less than a kiloton, whereas most early atomic tests range from 8-12 kilotons. Suppose it was just a huge pile of TNT? I don't know--we'll just have to wait and see. But assuming this test was for real, I agree with the thesis of DuckOfDoom's post. Diplomacy should be in play until it is no longer a viable option. And the secondary thesis--grab a drink. What can we really do about but wait and see how our respective governments handle the situation?
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Oct 9, 2006 20:41:14 GMT -5
So it's official. The North Korean government has tested a nuclear bomb, roughly about the same power as the one dropped on Hiroshima. The world has just witnessed a possibly detrimentally destablizing event. The question is, what next? Now North Korea will declare itself the hot of the region, and be generally ignored by the people of the world who have their heads screwed on right. Neither. Ignore them. Don't act on the threats that everyone knew from the beginning were empty. No one in their right mind wants war with DPRK, they have been building up for another war since the last one ended. Sure we COULD bomb them back to the stone age, but what does that prove? That we will destroy anyone who doesn't align themselves with us? Yeah, how about we pretend for a moment that the world DOESN'T revolve around us. No, we shouldn't do that either. We don't need to encourage them. 1) If a friendly nation did this, we'd not have ever made a fuss about it in the first place and any nation that DID make a fuss about it would have been told to . 2) Kim has yet to prove himself anything more than a brutal dictator who wants respect despite the fact that he controls a pitful third world nation that is only threatening to its southern neighbour, and only mildly. We should ignore it. If Kim starts going, "ZOMG GUYZ I HAEV TEH NOOKZ N I WILL USEZOR TEHM ON JOO!" then just reply, "M.A.D." and continue ignoring him. Kim may be a crazy dictator, but he isn't a complete idiot. He wants to retain control, and would prefer if he controlled more than a radioactive parking lot. EDIT: Oh, and a quick note: Kim has a weapon that was weak 60 years ago. We have themonuclear weapons that could not only wipe out all life in DPRK, but also irradiate it for the next few hundred years. They have probably one or two. We have a few thousand. They have no way to deliver their nuclear payload. We have ICBMs, SLBMs and both of these are equipped with MIRV systems. So, can we turn off the sirens and step back to look at the situation at hand? This is like Italy being scared that the Vatican will invade them...
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Oct 9, 2006 20:50:24 GMT -5
Morty, you miss one important point, what happens when North Korea decides to sell it's nuclear technology to other countrys? They already spread missile technology.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Oct 9, 2006 23:44:45 GMT -5
Yeah, how about we pretend for a moment that the world DOESN'T revolve around us. But the world most certainly DOES revolve around us... so you think we should ignore our responsibility? When someone aims a gun at you, your advice is to ignore it? That doesn't exactly sound like the best plan for survival... FYI: Unfamiliar with the NPT, are we? If a friendly nation broke that treaty and developed/tested a nuke, we (and the rest of the members of that treaty) would definately care about it...
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Oct 10, 2006 8:06:51 GMT -5
FYI: Unfamiliar with the NPT, are we? If a friendly nation broke that treaty and developed/tested a nuke, we (and the rest of the members of that treaty) would definately care about it... I'm quite familiar with the NPT, thank you. But just like anything else with politics, favorites are played. You can't really pretend it would be exactly the same for every country. Furthermore, using intuition, newer information, and breaking stories, I really don't think NK actually tested a nuke. I think it was just a big load of TNT.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Oct 10, 2006 13:04:46 GMT -5
FYI: Unfamiliar with the NPT, are we? If a friendly nation broke that treaty and developed/tested a nuke, we (and the rest of the members of that treaty) would definately care about it... I'm quite familiar with the NPT, thank you. But just like anything else with politics, favorites are played. You can't really pretend it would be exactly the same for every country. Furthermore, using intuition, newer information, and breaking stories, I really don't think NK actually tested a nuke. I think it was just a big load of TNT. Whether it was loaded or not (i.e. whether it was a real nuke or just TNT), North Korea is still aiming a gun... the act shouldn't be ignored...
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Oct 10, 2006 13:12:34 GMT -5
I'm quite familiar with the NPT, thank you. But just like anything else with politics, favorites are played. You can't really pretend it would be exactly the same for every country. Furthermore, using intuition, newer information, and breaking stories, I really don't think NK actually tested a nuke. I think it was just a big load of TNT. Whether it was loaded or not (i.e. whether it was a real nuke or just TNT), North Korea is still aiming a gun... the act shouldn't be ignored... At the very least, it shows NK's willingness to defy international pressure, even at the cost of the support of it's closest, if not only, ally.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Oct 10, 2006 14:56:03 GMT -5
So they've got a bomb roughly equal to the technology of sixty years ago? Or... less? Let China and Japan deal with it, we just make things worse. (I'm surprised that you didn't include South Korea, but whatever), Anything I post usually has some inaccuracy, or glaring misinformation. But you knew that.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Oct 10, 2006 15:28:19 GMT -5
Morty, you miss one important point, what happens when North Korea decides to sell it's nuclear technology to other countrys? They already spread missile technology. To whom? And again, I don't really care if they do. If a nation which has proven itself unstable (not just the USA's let's-pick-on-you nation of the day), then and only then do we need to get all nerved up. Please tell me you are joking. Responsibility? The United States DOES NOT have a 'responsibility' to take down every country that does something that the world doesn't agree with. We are NOT a UN puppet state. We SHOULD NOT get involved in things that don't concern us, DPRK being one of them. The REASON that we have so many enemies is because we think ourselves some superior super state of doom that can crush anyone it wants. The situation is a pellet gun is being pointed at us while we are inside of a tank. Get over it. I know what the NPT is and says. Don't pretend like nations never break treaties (or in this case, don't enforce) for their own self-interest. Point to me where we invaded, bombed, sanctioned, or otherwise punished India, Pakistan, and Israel. Oh wait... Good for North Korea. At least SOMEONE will do that. Sovereignity is this thing that nation-states possess which allows them to ignore the international community's urgings if they want to. Sovereign nations aren't controlled by international organizations that have given themselves arbitary powers. SOVEREIGN nations can do whatever the hell they wish within their borders. That is my world view. And I consider North Korea a nation which is, and has in the past, asserted its sovereignity better than any other nation in the post-World War Two world. North Korea has broken no treaties - it left the NPT once it decided to go down the nuclear path - and therefore should not be punished for doing nothing more than not giving in to international pressure.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Oct 10, 2006 18:10:30 GMT -5
(I'm surprised that you didn't include South Korea, but whatever), Anything I post usually has some inaccuracy, or glaring misinformation. But you knew that. DH, you know I only pointed it out so you could know my satanic enjoyment about laughing at you. Morty, you miss one important point, what happens when North Korea decides to sell it's nuclear technology to other countrys? They already spread missile technology. To whom? And again, I don't really care if they do. If a nation which has proven itself unstable (not just the USA's let's-pick-on-you nation of the day), then and only then do we need to get all nerved up. Number of US service men killed in the first half of the Century: 116,000+400,000=516,000 Number of US service men killed in the second half: 54,000+58,209+345=112,554 What's the point of all this? (Holy crap, Ratwar might have a point!) Until after WW2, the US maintained a very isolationist foreign policy. As you can tell from my statistic (which I compiled from wikipedia about five minutes ago), an isolationist policy can come back to bite the US in the spotted owl a lot harder than an interventionalist. Sure, this evidence can be argued, but facts speak for themselves. An isolationist policy is no guarranty that problems will just go away. Anyways, you put a lot of faith in MAD, but you continuously over look a very important point. MAD doesn't apply to a nation like North Korea. It is years from building a nuclear weapon aresonal capable of destroying the US. This same fact applys to many terrorist groups. They can destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people, but destorying the US is far from a possibility. Why is this important? Because, I don't believe that we can hold an entire country accountable for the actions of an extra government organization that they had no power over, do you? As for your discussion of Sovereignity, I think you would do better to deal with pragmatism than ideals. You cannot argue that North Korea having and testing nuclear weapons doesn't threaten the countrys around them. You cannot argue that the actions of countrys like South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Japan do not effect you... Unless you're Amish. Sovereignity is an ideal, but in a world where every country is interconnected.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Oct 10, 2006 19:41:25 GMT -5
Number of US service men killed in the first half of the Century: 116,000+400,000=516,000 Number of US service men killed in the second half: 54,000+58,209+345=112,554 What's the point of all this? (Holy crap, Ratwar might have a point!) Until after WW2, the US maintained a very isolationist foreign policy. As you can tell from my statistic (which I compiled from wikipedia about five minutes ago), an isolationist policy can come back to bite the US in the spotted owl a lot harder than an interventionalist. Sure, this evidence can be argued, but facts speak for themselves. An isolationist policy is no guarranty that problems will just go away. I would agrue that has to do with the lack of nuclear weapons, which subsequently led us to fighting against actual armies, not third world POS militaries that are like flies on the wall. In the first half of the century we fought REAL wars, since then we have been fighting police actions. Armed isolationism (meaning still having an über military) I believe would be the best policy at this point. Let's look at an isolationist country, how about Switzerland. You want to know how many wars Switzerland gets in? How many soldiers die? Normally pretty close to zero. That is the perfect example of armed isolationism. If we take our soldiers and such out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel, I'd bet there'd be a whole lot less hate for America in the world. If we stopped pretending like we are the only important nation on earth. Do you know how many American soldiers were killed in foreign wars before we started our long slide into interventionalism (pre-Spanish-American War)? 16,328. Yep. That's all. Sounds like it was working ok. In that 114 year span, just over sixteen thousand died. It applies ESPECIALLY to a nation like North Korea. Dictators don't like to give up power, and the fastest way to end up without power is having your nation destroyed. That's my point. Comparing North Korea to a terrorist organization is ridiculous. Yes, actually I can. Frankly, I'm quite certain DPRK isn't going to do anything with that weapon now that they have it. They have China right on top of them, and they know damn well China isn't gun-shy. They have Russia just a bit up after that, and they know Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other nation on earth. They KNOW the United States is friends with everyone in the region and if they touch those friends then the USA will kick the living hell out of them. I'm not into the whole 'z0mg Kimmy is a m0ron' group. I think he knows quite well what he is doing. And I think he knows quite well what the consequences of a nuclear strike are. There was a time in this country where we made things here in America. There was a time when we were independent. I'm not under the belief that we can't return to that model. Ever since we started being super-involved in the world, things have only gone badly. Being the lone superpower is not a good thing. We currently have a massive debt bubble, and when that bubble pops I expect our economy to fall apart. Do you know WHY we have a massive debt bubble? Because we are for some reason under the belief that it benefits us to have things made in other countries and shipped here. Where our leaders took their economics classes is beyond me, but that school should have its teaching license revoked. Sovereignity is NOT an ideal, it is a NECESSITY. No North American Union, no super-global-states for me, kthanxbi.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Oct 10, 2006 21:44:00 GMT -5
Number of US service men killed in the first half of the Century: 116,000+400,000=516,000 Number of US service men killed in the second half: 54,000+58,209+345=112,554 What's the point of all this? (Holy crap, Ratwar might have a point!) Until after WW2, the US maintained a very isolationist foreign policy. As you can tell from my statistic (which I compiled from wikipedia about five minutes ago), an isolationist policy can come back to bite the US in the spotted owl a lot harder than an interventionalist. Sure, this evidence can be argued, but facts speak for themselves. An isolationist policy is no guarranty that problems will just go away. I would agrue that has to do with the lack of nuclear weapons, which subsequently led us to fighting against actual armies, not third world POS militaries that are like flies on the wall. In the first half of the century we fought REAL wars, since then we have been fighting police actions. Armed isolationism (meaning still having an über military) I believe would be the best policy at this point. Let's look at an isolationist country, how about Switzerland. You want to know how many wars Switzerland gets in? How many soldiers die? Normally pretty close to zero. That is the perfect example of armed isolationism. If we take our soldiers and such out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel, I'd bet there'd be a whole lot less hate for America in the world. If we stopped pretending like we are the only important nation on earth. Do you know how many American soldiers were killed in foreign wars before we started our long slide into interventionalism (pre-Spanish-American War)? 16,328. Yep. That's all. Sounds like it was working ok. In that 114 year span, just over sixteen thousand died. Considering we were basically a third world country at the time with few ties to foreign countrys, I'm not surprised. We were having enough internal problems such as the Civil War that international politics didn't really matter. Anyways, the late 18th century to the late 19th century were vastly different times than the 20th Century. Don't pretend that America started it's slide into interventionalism after the Spanish American War. It is simply untrue, as shown by our late enterances into both world wars(even in the face of 100s of deaths at the hands of German submarines in both cases) and our refusal to join the League of Nations. You simply cannot compare a nation with few foreign possessions with a very regionalized economy to a post industrial revolution country that is a sizeable portion of the global economy. As for Switzerland, perhaps you forget what happened to Belgium in WW1. They were neutral, and they were forced to fight. Still, I agree with you that some problems would be better handled with less foreign intervention, and I don't think that an invasion of North Korea would be a good solution to this problem. Of course, I do not agree that we should stick our head in the ground and act like nothing is happening. Isolationism may mean "peace for our time", but that time may be shorter than we think. Comparing North Korea to a terrorist organization is ridiculous. As I already alluded to, North Korea has a history of exporting potentially destructive technology to other countrys for the right price. What North Korea will do with a nuke doesn't concern me nearly as much as what some potential buyers might do. Yes, actually I can. Frankly, I'm quite certain DPRK isn't going to do anything with that weapon now that they have it. They have China right on top of them, and they know damn well China isn't gun-shy. They have Russia just a bit up after that, and they know Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other nation on earth. They KNOW the United States is friends with everyone in the region and if they touch those friends then the USA will kick the living hell out of them. I'm not into the whole 'z0mg Kimmy is a m0ron' group. I think he knows quite well what he is doing. And I think he knows quite well what the consequences of a nuclear strike are. All of those are reasons why North Korea probably won't act on it's threat, not why it isn't a threat. There was a time in this country where we made things here in America. There was a time when we were independent. I'm not under the belief that we can't return to that model. Ever since we started being super-involved in the world, things have only gone badly. Being the lone superpower is not a good thing. We currently have a massive debt bubble, and when that bubble pops I expect our economy to fall apart. Do you know WHY we have a massive debt bubble? Because we are for some reason under the belief that it benefits us to have things made in other countries and shipped here. Where our leaders took their economics classes is beyond me, but that school should have its teaching license revoked. Sovereignity is NOT an ideal, it is a NECESSITY. No North American Union, no super-global-states for me, kthanxbi. Well, you've just revoked the teaching license of every major college in America... Have a cookie, I can assure you that it is American made.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Oct 11, 2006 8:58:40 GMT -5
Please don't use "kthanxbi." It's just assinine. I am going to agree with Ratwar on just about everything regarding this debate. North Korea is more than willing to make a move. We have 30,000 (?) of our own US troops on the DMZ border. Are you telling me that Kim wouldn't hesitate to jump in there? I'm sure you're aware of the fact that technically, we're still at war with North Korea, and we have been for the past 55 years. And I will tell you that they do fire on us, and we do fire back--you don't see THAT in the news. NK has a failing economy. NK also has plenty of military technology. Now tell me that's not a volitile combination. What WOULDN'T they do to boost exports to increase revinue?... even if those exports are missiles and armaments, and even if the buyers are terrorist states? No one is comparing NK to terrorists, but it's certainly well known that its government supports them. As far as MAD goes--I think you're missing the point. Mutually Assured Destruction. That's destruction. NK cannot destroy anything or anyone. And no other current nuclear power would be willing to destroy NK for the actions of its wayward government. Kim knows this, and he will use it to his advantage. If we don't see at least very credible threats of using a nuke in battle within the next couple of years, I will be very surprised. EDIT: Take a gander, they sound pretty riled up to me: www.smh.com.au/news/world/sanctions-tantamount-to-war-north-korea/2006/10/11/1160246184384.html
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Oct 11, 2006 14:22:34 GMT -5
Please tell me you are joking. No, I'm not joking. The world most certainly revolves around the US. What country do you think it revolves around? Swaziland? The EU? China? If the US were to fall into Depression tomorrow, the world economy would crumble. That is more than can be said for ANY OTHER country on this planet. And no, I'm not joking. The US indeed does have a responsibility because Americans are only afforded their high living standards due to the rest of the world being kept in the position it is in. Does a rich person not owe duties to the public which made him wealthy and prosperous? Oh wait... How about: US IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON PAKISTAN www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_04/sanap98.aspHow about: US IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON INDIA www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9805/13/india.us/Get your facts straight before wasting my time.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Oct 11, 2006 17:10:52 GMT -5
Considering we were basically a third world country at the time with few ties to foreign countrys, I'm not surprised. We were having enough internal problems such as the Civil War that international politics didn't really matter. A third world country? That's interesting. We did quite well for ourselves, considering we were a third world country and all. The fact that international relations didn't matter and the sky didn't fall was part of my point, thank you for reaffirming it. Yes, they were. Just like how the second half of the 20th century was vastly different from the first half. But it did. Our 'late entrances' were due to the fact that we weren't attacked. And *gasp* there were some people in this country who didn't want to get into foreign wars that we had no business in. Of course, our leaders were quite ready to get into foreign wars, and made sure that the war didn't stay 'foreign' for long. Our refusal to join the LoN may have something to do with its inherent crappiness and the fact that President Wilson went WAY outside his authority in saying that we would be involved without first consulting the Senate. But no worries, WWII was bigger and worse, so we were all ready to hand over our sovereignity to LoN V. 2.0, of course I'm talking about the UN. Belguim also happened to be basically a French satellite state and basically undefended. Switzerland, on the other hand, was not connected to either side and had a very well trained defense force. Oh, and it is wise to note that we don't have many neighboring countries which are led by psychopathic conquerers, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future, so I think we'll do ok. *looks at Canada and Mexico* Yeah, no real worries here. I'd like to see whom DPRK has sold things to. Prehaps that will give us some insight. Oh, and it is wise to mention that the United States has sold/given nuclear weapons to many NATO nations, while playing on a loophole in the NPT to not get in trouble for it. If it isn't going to act, how is it a threat? That's like a guy saying, "I'm going to kill you" but you know that he isn't going to even mildly act on that threat, but you shoot him the next time you see him anyway. In most places that is called 'murder,' NOT 'self-defense.' Well, you know, if an educational organization wants to not look at like facts and stuff, then I think perhaps they ought not be an educational organization anymore. Please don't use "kthanxbi." It's just assinine. Please don't tell me what to do. It's just annoying. Why do you insist that their leaders have absolutely no knowledge of the situation in the world around them? Yep. And the King of England claimed to own France until 1801. The connection? Both facts are/were meaningless in international relations. The DPRK has condemned and opposed terrorists many times, and I've never heard them praise terrorists. They've even worked with the USA against terrorism. Thought you might find that interesting. You are right, in this case it isn't MAD. It is Assured Destruction. As in the United States, China, the UK, and Russia can all ASSURE the DPRK that if they use their nuclear weapon then they will be destroyed. Kim knows very well that the USA is BEGGING for a real reason to nuke them. Methinks Kim is smart enough not to give the USA that reason. If we see a credible threat of nuclear weapons use on the battlefield, and it comes from the DPRK, I will be absolutely shocked. Oh my, those evil Koreans saying that they'd prefer to not be punished for not being a UN puppet. Evil, I say! And this just proves again that we should just ignore the fact that DPRK has nuclear weapons. If we don't go off in a self-righteous fury everytime one of the have-nots tries to be a have, then perhaps the world would be a safer place. The NPT has one simple purpose, and it is quite clear. Keep the power in the hands of a few, and make the rest unable to have the great equalizer, keeping them in a constant state of fear and creating an international underclass of nations. The Haves oppressing the Have-nots, so what's new... The DPRK got out of this treaty, so they have not broken any agreements, and now are asserting themselves as more than an underclass state. Good for them. The only reason anyone cares is because it is a challenge to our supremacy which we have grown all-too used to. No, I'm not joking. The world most certainly revolves around the US. What country do you think it revolves around? Swaziland? The EU? China? If the US were to fall into Depression tomorrow, the world economy would crumble. That is more than can be said for ANY OTHER country on this planet. And no, I'm not joking. Well, if that's the way you feel. I guess as everything revolves around us that an economic sanction from us would make a country crumble and fall to its knees, right? Oh, wait, nope, it appears Cuba is still standing. And since the world revolves around us, when we decide something, the entire world falls in line behind us or is crushed. Oh wait, it appears only Britain seems to do that. Certainly since the world revolves around us a threat from our leader's would be enough to get any nation to stop doing whatever it did to offend our High and Holiness. Wait, nope, wrong again. No, the world does not revolve around us. If our economy collapsed it would certainly hurt the world economy greatly, as it would if China's economy collapsed, or Japan's, or the EU's. When major nations suffer a collapse, obviously it will harm other nations' economies. That doesn't mean the world revolves around us. That rich person isn't required to patrol the streets at all times and destroy someone's house every time a neighbor complains about what they are doing in there. Funny you mention facts. If you read the first link, you'd have noticed that it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and is about a missile they tested. The second one, yes, we did impose sanctions for that. But that's only, you know, only about 24 years after the fact. India had tested nuclear weapons already in 1974. That is from 1998. Oh and btw, we are now HELPING India with nuclear pursuits. So yeah, there is a double standard. Oh, and Israel seems conspiciously absent from your sanctions list. Are you still looking, or was I right about no sanctions on Israel? This again goes to show that we have a sliding scale. Israel is our bestest friend, so no sanctions for them. Pakistan is a good anti-Soviet friend, so no sanctions for them so long as they keep their power regional and don't become a danger to our other friends. India is a supporter of the USSR, but kinda unaligned and we need them, so sanctions, but only after it doesn't really matter anymore. Now to DPRK, who was pro-Soviet, is communist, doesn't take from us, and generally is very unfriendly. This one clearly calls for total war.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Oct 11, 2006 17:45:39 GMT -5
Considering we were basically a third world country at the time with few ties to foreign countrys, I'm not surprised. We were having enough internal problems such as the Civil War that international politics didn't really matter. A third world country? That's interesting. We did quite well for ourselves, considering we were a third world country and all. The fact that international relations didn't matter and the sky didn't fall was part of my point, thank you for reaffirming it. Yes, they were. Just like how the second half of the 20th century was vastly different from the first half. But it did. Our 'late entrances' were due to the fact that we weren't attacked. And *gasp* there were some people in this country who didn't want to get into foreign wars that we had no business in. Of course, our leaders were quite ready to get into foreign wars, and made sure that the war didn't stay 'foreign' for long. Our refusal to join the LoN may have something to do with its inherent crappiness and the fact that President Wilson went WAY outside his authority in saying that we would be involved without first consulting the Senate. But no worries, WWII was bigger and worse, so we were all ready to hand over our sovereignity to LoN V. 2.0, of course I'm talking about the UN. Belguim also happened to be basically a French satellite state and basically undefended. Switzerland, on the other hand, was not connected to either side and had a very well trained defense force. Oh, and it is wise to note that we don't have many neighboring countries which are led by psychopathic conquerers, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future, so I think we'll do ok. *looks at Canada and Mexico* Yeah, no real worries here. I'd like to see whom DPRK has sold things to. Prehaps that will give us some insight. Oh, and it is wise to mention that the United States has sold/given nuclear weapons to many NATO nations, while playing on a loophole in the NPT to not get in trouble for it. If it isn't going to act, how is it a threat? That's like a guy saying, "I'm going to kill you" but you know that he isn't going to even mildly act on that threat, but you shoot him the next time you see him anyway. In most places that is called 'murder,' NOT 'self-defense.' Well, you know, if an educational organization wants to not look at like facts and stuff, then I think perhaps they ought not be an educational organization anymore. Please don't tell me what to do. It's just annoying. Why do you insist that their leaders have absolutely no knowledge of the situation in the world around them? Yep. And the King of England claimed to own France until 1801. The connection? Both facts are/were meaningless in international relations. The DPRK has condemned and opposed terrorists many times, and I've never heard them praise terrorists. They've even worked with the USA against terrorism. Thought you might find that interesting. You are right, in this case it isn't MAD. It is Assured Destruction. As in the United States, China, the UK, and Russia can all ASSURE the DPRK that if they use their nuclear weapon then they will be destroyed. Kim knows very well that the USA is BEGGING for a real reason to nuke them. Methinks Kim is smart enough not to give the USA that reason. If we see a credible threat of nuclear weapons use on the battlefield, and it comes from the DPRK, I will be absolutely shocked. Oh my, those evil Koreans saying that they'd prefer to not be punished for not being a UN puppet. Evil, I say! And this just proves again that we should just ignore the fact that DPRK has nuclear weapons. If we don't go off in a self-righteous fury everytime one of the have-nots tries to be a have, then perhaps the world would be a safer place. The NPT has one simple purpose, and it is quite clear. Keep the power in the hands of a few, and make the rest unable to have the great equalizer, keeping them in a constant state of fear and creating an international underclass of nations. The Haves oppressing the Have-nots, so what's new... The DPRK got out of this treaty, so they have not broken any agreements, and now are asserting themselves as more than an underclass state. Good for them. The only reason anyone cares is because it is a challenge to our supremacy which we have grown all-too used to. Well, if that's the way you feel. I guess as everything revolves around us that an economic sanction from us would make a country crumble and fall to its knees, right? Oh, wait, nope, it appears Cuba is still standing. And since the world revolves around us, when we decide something, the entire world falls in line behind us or is crushed. Oh wait, it appears only Britain seems to do that. Certainly since the world revolves around us a threat from our leader's would be enough to get any nation to stop doing whatever it did to offend our High and Holiness. Wait, nope, wrong again. No, the world does not revolve around us. If our economy collapsed it would certainly hurt the world economy greatly, as it would if China's economy collapsed, or Japan's, or the EU's. When major nations suffer a collapse, obviously it will harm other nations' economies. That doesn't mean the world revolves around us. That rich person isn't required to patrol the streets at all times and destroy someone's house every time a neighbor complains about what they are doing in there. Funny you mention facts. If you read the first link, you'd have noticed that it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and is about a missile they tested. The second one, yes, we did impose sanctions for that. But that's only, you know, only about 24 years after the fact. India had tested nuclear weapons already in 1974. That is from 1998. Oh and btw, we are now HELPING India with nuclear pursuits. So yeah, there is a double standard. Oh, and Israel seems conspiciously absent from your sanctions list. Are you still looking, or was I right about no sanctions on Israel? This again goes to show that we have a sliding scale. Israel is our bestest friend, so no sanctions for them. Pakistan is a good anti-Soviet friend, so no sanctions for them so long as they keep their power regional and don't become a danger to our other friends. India is a supporter of the USSR, but kinda unaligned and we need them, so sanctions, but only after it doesn't really matter anymore. Now to DPRK, who was pro-Soviet, is communist, doesn't take from us, and generally is very unfriendly. This one clearly calls for total war. *sigh* It's not worth trying to break it down like that. I just hope a very small minority hold the same view of North Korea that you do: they're innocent, can do no harm, and we should just let them be. That, in my opinion, is a very deadly way to see it.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Oct 11, 2006 17:57:07 GMT -5
A third world country? That's interesting. We did quite well for ourselves, considering we were a third world country and all. The fact that international relations didn't matter and the sky didn't fall was part of my point, thank you for reaffirming it. Yep, third world countrys doesn't mean the populus isn't happy, it just means that our economy was less advanced and considerably smaller than more wealthy country. Yes, they were. Just like how the second half of the 20th century was vastly different from the first half. Of course, but they both take place in a world where the US isn't a mud hole of a country with an agricultural based economy. The point is that the car and other faster ways of transporting information cause globalization, which cause global problems. You can argue that they are different as much as you want, but the parallels between the early and late 20th Century far out number the parallels between the 19th Century and the 20th Century. But it did. Our 'late entrances' were due to the fact that we weren't attacked. And *gasp* there were some people in this country who didn't want to get into foreign wars that we had no business in. Of course, our leaders were quite ready to get into foreign wars, and made sure that the war didn't stay 'foreign' for long. Yes, you totally understood my point. Perhaps now you see why you were totally wrong by saying that the end of American Isolationism started with the Spanish-American war. Our refusal to join the LoN may have something to do with its inherent crappiness and the fact that President Wilson went WAY outside his authority in saying that we would be involved without first consulting the Senate. But no worries, WWII was bigger and worse, so we were all ready to hand over our sovereignity to LoN V. 2.0, of course I'm talking about the UN. Or it may have been due to our isolationist beliefs. Of course, I think it's about time we stopped talking about isolationist policys and got back to North Korea. I'd like to see whom DPRK has sold things to. Prehaps that will give us some insight. Oh, and it is wise to mention that the United States has sold/given nuclear weapons to many NATO nations, while playing on a loophole in the NPT to not get in trouble for it. Pakistan. Not the most stable country. If it isn't going to act, how is it a threat? That's like a guy saying, "I'm going to kill you" but you know that he isn't going to even mildly act on that threat, but you shoot him the next time you see him anyway. In most places that is called 'murder,' NOT 'self-defense.' Yep, and that's exactly why nobody in this thread is pro-invasion. Our goal isn't to 'shoot' North Korea. We want to take away North Korea's guns(Nuclear Weapons) so they can't shoot anyone (though they can still have a conventional military for self defense). It's call caution. And Morty, you're one hell of a stupid gambler if you're willing to risk the lives of millions of South Koreans on the fact that North Korea probably won't attack. Well, you know, if an educational organization wants to not look at like facts and stuff, then I think perhaps they ought not be an educational organization anymore. So, where'd you get you phd in economics Morty? What makes you qualified to say things that no promenent economist in the free world would say without chuckling? Your understanding of economics focuses on the small things. You talk about our trade deficit, but you forget the US's major export, consulting. Just like the factory manager doesn't create a product, yet he still makes money. Why do you insist that their leaders have absolutely no knowledge of the situation in the world around them? Well, considering that North Korea is saying that any sanctions would be an act of war, I'd think it is because he reads the news. Yep. And the King of England claimed to own France until 1801. The connection? Both facts are/were meaningless in international relations. You mean that Britian and France didn't spend hundreds of years fighting each other? And that there isn't a demilitarized zone along the 38th parallel? Both facts were/are important to understanding the world surrounding them.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Oct 11, 2006 21:57:17 GMT -5
Well, if that's the way you feel. I guess as everything revolves around us that an economic sanction from us would make a country crumble and fall to its knees, right? Oh, wait, nope, it appears Cuba is still standing. Oh great, Cuba! Why don't you ask some Cubans how wonderful their lives are? You can even ask them once they hop off the raft in Florida! None of those country's economies would harm the US economy in the long run or even the world economy if they collapsed (The EU? Come on... not even a blip on the radar), in fact if the Chinese economy collapsed the global economy would greatly improve. Maybe we would even see it in our hearts to work for GM again. And the US doesn't. Go ask Congo. Why do you think we don't care about Darfur, but we do about North Korea? Compare the surrounding economies in each region. A missile which has the sole purpose of carrying a nuclear payload into India. THE UNITED STATES IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON INDIA AND PAKISTAN AS A RESULT OF THEIR NUCLEAR TESTS IN MAY 1998. www.mac.doc.gov/sanctions/in-pakfct.htm*sigh* Sanctions were also placed on India in 1974 nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaPause.htmlProof? Why would we place sanctions on Israel? Do they have nuclear weapons? They haven't declared such (like India, Pakistan and North Korea). They certainly haven't tested any (like India, Pakistan and North Korea). How do you know its not just a rumor to scare the arabs from invading? Can you prove to me that Israel has nuclear weapons? Lets see some proof that Israel even has nuclear weapons before castigating the US for not placing them under sanctions. So far, you've raised a bunch of opinions (the US doesn't have a morale responsibility, yada yada), and backed them up with two fallicies and an unprovable assumption. I certainly hope all of your opinions aren't founded upon such misconception and general error.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Oct 11, 2006 22:07:15 GMT -5
Why would we place sanctions on Israel? Do they have nuclear weapons? They haven't declared such (like India, Pakistan and North Korea). They certainly haven't tested any (like India, Pakistan and North Korea). How do you know its not just a rumor to scare the arabs from invading? Can you prove to me that Israel has nuclear weapons? Lets see some proof that Israel even has nuclear weapons before castigating the US for not placing them under sanctions. So far, you've raised a bunch of opinions (the US doesn't have a morale responsibility, yada yada), and backed them up with two fallicies and an unprovable assumption. I certainly hope all of your opinions aren't founded upon such misconception and general error. I do agree with you mostly, but Israel does have nukes. They've had them since the '60s. That's why we never sanctioned them. Well, that and the fact we gave them the nukes in the first place.
|
|