North Korea: What now?

[Britney]

comike14 said:

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.

I'm not saying they don't have nukes, I'm just asking for proof that they have nukes.

Regardless, one presumably cannot lump Israel into the same category as India, Pakistan and North Korea, because unlike those three countries Israel never publically tested a nuke. Israel doesn't even claim to have them. Therefor, asking why the US does not place Israel under sanction is absurd.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

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.

That's not my understanding of a third world nation. We may have had a rural economy, but that didn't make us 'third world' which implies quite a lot of bad things that simply weren't what was going on in America.
We were a major trader in the world and the standard of living was quite good.

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.

You have an interesting outlook on American history and on economies. You know that the USA before the Civil War was rapidly developing industry, right? And after recovering from the Civil War, we became the world's leading industrial nation, before the onset of the 20th century? Your notion that the USA in the 19th century was a 'mud hole' is entirely false.

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.

I never said it was the end of isolationism. I said it was the beginning of the slide into the interventionalist doctrine that we fully embraced after WW2.

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.

Excellent idea.

Pakistan. Not the most stable country.

They seem to be a good friend of ours. As such, I doubt very highly they would use it on us.

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.

How do you plan to go about taking their weapons away if you aren't invading? Do you think Kim is just going to one day say, "You know what, nuclear weapons aren't really cool anymore. UN inspectors, have at it!"?
We are risking the full population of the world by having the USA have as many nuclear weapons as it is, only on the fact that the USA probably won't nuke everything. Same with Russia. So, really, we've already risked their lives based on nations not randomly nuking each other, so I think we can continue the policy. DPRK should give up its nuclear weapons as soon as the rest of the world does.

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.

You don't need a PhD to make the following conclusion:
Given: Debt is bad for the economy. Inflation is bad for the strength of currency and therefore bad for the economy.
Proof of stupid trade policy:
Imports > export = debt
Importing cheaper foreign goods and thereby making it difficult for companies to stay here = loss of companies
Loss of companies = loss of jobs
Loss of jobs = less money in the economy
Less money in the economy = less money to pay off debts
Printing of money on a whim to pay interest on debts = inflation.
Therefore, the current policy of having more things made in other nations than we have made here is bad.

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.

North Korea also said that it has a 'no first strike' policy for nuclear weapons.

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.

Britain and France by the 1700s were not fighting for any silly title the British King had and the British Kings were waiting for an excuse to drop that part of their title. And the demilitarized zone is a show of peace, not war.
If we were really in a war in more than name, then the DPRK would not have allowed the USA to inspect their 'nuclear' facilities in 2000. And they certainly wouldn't abide by some ridiculous 'demilitarized zone.'

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

They seem to be a good friend of ours. As such, I doubt very highly they would use it on us.

Ummm... You do know there are other countrys besides Pakistan that might be willing to buy nuclear weapons from North Korea, right? In fact, they already have them, so I doubt it would happen. Anyways, you need to stop thinking about this problem in a vacum. The world isn't made up of North Korea, the US, and China. Pretending that North Korea's posession of nuclear weapons doesn't have indirect consequences is stupid. My point is that North Korea has been willing to sell military technology before. It is safe to assume that they would do it again. The more people that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is for some of them go missing and end up in the hands of people that don't give a damn about MAD.

morty14 said:

How do you plan to go about taking their weapons away if you aren't invading? Do you think Kim is just going to one day say, "You know what, nuclear weapons aren't really cool anymore. UN inspectors, have at it!"?

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.

THANK YOU COME AGAIN![/Apu]

morty14 said:

We are risking the full population of the world by having the USA have as many nuclear weapons as it is, only on the fact that the USA probably won't nuke everything. Same with Russia. So, really, we've already risked their lives based on nations not randomly nuking each other, so I think we can continue the policy. DPRK should give up its nuclear weapons as soon as the rest of the world does.

So, your plan to destroy nuclear weapons is to give them to everyone and then ask them to all come together and agree on a way to destroy them? You do know it is already a trip through hell to get Russia and the US to agree to terms, don't you? The answer to ending the threat of nuclear weapons lies in eliminating the weapons, not allowing them to spread. It is already bad enough that two countrys can end the world, WHY WOULD WE WANT MORE?

North Korea also said that it has a 'no first strike' policy for nuclear weapons

Good, we'll get a few minutes warning once they withdraw from that, like they did the NPT.

Britain and France by the 1700s were not fighting for any silly title the British King had and the British Kings were waiting for an excuse to drop that part of their title. And the demilitarized zone is a show of peace, not war.

... You do realize the Title meant power, right? Understanding the history of French and English claims to each others throwns is impairitive to understanding the dynamic between the two countrys at the time. As for the demilitatized zones, sure, it is more peaceful than all out war, but any borders that are heavily fortified and patrolled by troops aren't peaceful.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

Ummm... You do know there are other countrys besides Pakistan that might be willing to buy nuclear weapons from North Korea, right? In fact, they already have them, so I doubt it would happen. Anyways, you need to stop thinking about this problem in a vacum. The world isn't made up of North Korea, the US, and China. Pretending that North Korea's posession of nuclear weapons doesn't have indirect consequences is stupid. My point is that North Korea has been willing to sell military technology before. It is safe to assume that they would do it again. The more people that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is for some of them go missing and end up in the hands of people that don't give a damn about MAD.

But you claimed that they've been selling the weapons to our enemies and will probably sell them to terrorists. I've shown that the DPRK opposes terrorism and in fact worked with the USA against terrorism before this whole mess started. I have also shown that the people they have sold technology to have not been dangerous. As such, you seem to just be speculating that they will start selling these weapons to [insert bad people who want to nuke America and don't care about consequences].

THANK YOU COME AGAIN![/Apu]

Yes, because Kim cares so much about the welfare of his people that if anything might endanger their well-being he will immediately correct the problem

So, your plan to destroy nuclear weapons is to give them to everyone and then ask them to all come together and agree on a way to destroy them?

No, and I never said anything like that. I hope the crows are staying out of your fields.

You do know it is already a trip through hell to get Russia and the US to agree to terms, don't you? The answer to ending the threat of nuclear weapons lies in eliminating the weapons, not allowing them to spread. It is already bad enough that two countrys can end the world, WHY WOULD WE WANT MORE?

The problem with that is I never suggested we should encourage more nations to have nuclear weapons. I merely said we don't need to flip out everytime a nation gets one. And it was weak, at that. Guess what, a few dozen Hiroshima-style weapons aren't going to end the world. When the permanent members of the Security Council (the official 'haves') get off their high horse, pehaps they will realize that the biggest danger to the world is THEIR nuclear stockpiles, not the third-world-nation-with-one-relic-nuke stockpile. Maybe if the United States, Russia, China, UK, and France didn't have nuclear weapons, other nations wouldn't need to seek them. India, Pakistan, and Israel can be added to that list now too, but they developed theirs either in league with one of the aforementioned nations or in response to the developments of one of the aforementioned nations.

Good, we'll get a few minutes warning once they withdraw from that, like they did the NPT.

At least they have said they that is their policy. The USA still says it can use nukes in a pre-emptive fashion. And only one of those nations has a massive stockpile of advanced themonuclear weapons along with effective ICBMs that can reach anywhere on Earth. I'll give you two guesses...

... You do realize the Title meant power, right? Understanding the history of French and English claims to each others throwns is impairitive to understanding the dynamic between the two countrys at the time. As for the demilitatized zones, sure, it is more peaceful than all out war, but any borders that are heavily fortified and patrolled by troops aren't peaceful.

No, that title did not confer power. When a foreign diplomat wanted to conduct diplomacy did he go to the King of England? The only thing that title conveyed was an old rivalry, and by 1700 no one cared about the stupid title. They were looking for a chance to drop it, but didn't want to lose face by just saying, "Yeah, we don't really own France. Sorry for the trouble." So the King waited until the union of 1801 and poof, he didn't call himself that ridiculous name anymore. Do not try to convince me that the French and English were fighting wars over a title in the 18th century. England was not invading France trying to assert its authority over its 'claimed' lands.

We have a heavily fortified and patrolled border with Cuba at Gitmo, that doesn't mean we are at war or on the brink of war. High border security does not imply war, just a strong distrust of the nation on the other side. South Korea has plenty of reason to distrust the DPRK. The Maginot Line wasn't built because France was at war with Germany, but because they distrusted Germany. The current Spanish-Moroccian demilitarized zone doesn't mean they are going to war.

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

But you claimed that they've been selling the weapons to our enemies and will probably sell them to terrorists. I've shown that the DPRK opposes terrorism and in fact worked with the USA against terrorism before this whole mess started. I have also shown that the people they have sold technology to have not been dangerous. As such, you seem to just be speculating that they will start selling these weapons to [insert bad people who want to nuke America and don't care about consequences].

Morty, if either of us thought that North Korea choose to sell weapons to Pakistan based on the fact that they weren't totally opposed to the US, I'd expect the other one of us to shoot the one thinking that in the head. North Korea doesn't give a crap about what the US thinks of a perspective buyer.

morty14 said:

Yes, because Kim cares so much about the welfare of his people that if anything might endanger their well-being he will immediately correct the problem

Tanks don't run on flower power.

morty14 said:

The problem with that is I never suggested we should encourage more nations to have nuclear weapons. I merely said we don't need to flip out everytime a nation gets one. And it was weak, at that. Guess what, a few dozen Hiroshima-style weapons aren't going to end the world. When the permanent members of the Security Council (the official 'haves') get off their high horse, pehaps they will realize that the biggest danger to the world is THEIR nuclear stockpiles, not the third-world-nation-with-one-relic-nuke stockpile. Maybe if the United States, Russia, China, UK, and France didn't have nuclear weapons, other nations wouldn't need to seek them. India, Pakistan, and Israel can be added to that list now too, but they developed theirs either in league with one of the aforementioned nations or in response to the developments of one of the aforementioned nations.

Perhaps they already have realized this and are working at this very moment to eliminate them.

morty14 said:

At least they have said they that is their policy. The USA still says it can use nukes in a pre-emptive fashion. And only one of those nations has a massive stockpile of advanced themonuclear weapons along with effective ICBMs that can reach anywhere on Earth. I'll give you two guesses...

What is in US policy about the use of nuclear weapons doesn't matter in relationship to North Korea's policies. The fact is that nobody should have them, not the US, Britian, my toilet, your PC, or even Vinya.

morty14 said:

We have a heavily fortified and patrolled border with Cuba at Gitmo, that doesn't mean we are at war or on the brink of war. High border security does not imply war, just a strong distrust of the nation on the other side. South Korea has plenty of reason to distrust the DPRK. The Maginot Line wasn't built because France was at war with Germany, but because they distrusted Germany. The current Spanish-Moroccian demilitarized zone doesn't mean they are going to war.

Morty, we don't ask Mr. Castro over for tea. Sure, we aren't at war with him, but if you call the relationship between the US and Cuba peaceful, what are the US and Canada? homosexual lovers? Distrust is something we must work to eliminate, just as we seak to eliminate violence.

[comike14]

I'd just like to pipe in and say that it was a confirmed nuclear test. Air samples from around the site indicate radiation. It was small, but it was a nuke.

[Ratwar]

comike14 said:

I'd just like to pipe in and say that it was a confirmed nuclear test. Air samples from around the site indicate radiation. It was small, but it was a nuke.

Yeah, I saw that as well. It isn't really surprising though, I mean there's really no reason for North Korea to attempt to fake a test.

[comike14]

ratwar said:

comike14 said:

I'd just like to pipe in and say that it was a confirmed nuclear test. Air samples from around the site indicate radiation. It was small, but it was a nuke.

Yeah, I saw that as well. It isn't really surprising though, I mean there's really no reason for North Korea to attempt to fake a test.

Kinda had my fingers crossed. :/

[Ratwar]

comike14 said:

ratwar said:

Yeah, I saw that as well. It isn't really surprising though, I mean there's really no reason for North Korea to attempt to fake a test.

Kinda had my fingers crossed. :/

I think we all did.

[thaddius]

The scary part of the scale may be that it is similar to the W 54, or Mk 54 warhead, being able to be fit into a suitcase.

[Ratwar]

thaddius said:

The scary part of the scale may be that it is similar to the W 54, or Mk 54 warhead, being able to be fit into a suitcase.

Or it could just be a bad detonation, which I'd consider more likely, due to North Korea's technology. I read an article where even the North Koreans were saying it was smaller than expected.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

Morty, if either of us thought that North Korea choose to sell weapons to Pakistan based on the fact that they weren't totally opposed to the US, I'd expect the other one of us to shoot the one thinking that in the head. North Korea doesn't give a crap about what the US thinks of a perspective buyer.

I'm for this crazy thing of 'innocent until proven guility' that seems to have had a nice run in free societies throughout the world. Under this certifiably insane system, the accusers had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guility. Now, I know that is an obsolete legal system now-a-days, but if you could please provide evidence which states that DPRK is exporting tech to dangerous nations or groups, I'd prefer that to mere speculation of what they plan to do with this technology.

Tanks don't run on flower power.

They also don't need to be using gasoline when they aren't moving.

I'll bet ya once Iran gets pissed enough at the USA for being absolute retards, they might provide some oil to spite the United States. Or some other nation might provide oil for the right price. Who knows. In any case, I don't think cutting off oil is going to be the magical fix.

Perhaps they already have realized this and are working at this very moment to eliminate them.

I've not seen an official plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the USA. If you could provide me with a source which reported on it or a link to the document itself, I'd love to see it.
Nuclear weapons are probably not leaving the USA's and other of the current 'haves' arsenals until an even better [read: more destructive] weapon is developed.

What is in US policy about the use of nuclear weapons doesn't matter in relationship to North Korea's policies. The fact is that nobody should have them, not the US, Britian, my toilet, your PC, or even Vinya.

Actually they kinda do. Being as the USA wants to be self-righteous morons like we always are, I think our policy is very important to not being completely hypocritical and downright idiotic.
I agree that we should get rid of nuclear weapons eventually, but until the point that we can phase them out, let's not pretend some countries have more right to the weapons than others do. Lead by example.

Morty, we don't ask Mr. Castro over for tea. Sure, we aren't at war with him, but if you call the relationship between the US and Cuba peaceful, what are the US and Canada? homosexual lovers?

peace‧ful – adjective
1. characterized by peace [check]; free from war [check], strife [check], commotion [not applicable], violence [check], or disorder [not applicable]
Sounds good to me.
And the USA and Canada are homosexual lovers that are planning to tie the knot. See North American Union.

Distrust is something we must work to eliminate, just as we seak to eliminate violence.

Yep. But humans are distrustful of each other, and often rightfully so, as humans tend to be unworthy of trust. So, while we can work to eliminate both, the only way that will happen is if we have worldwide genocide of all peoples and end with no humans. Then they won't quarrel anymore.
Prehaps it is more reasonable to work towards decreasing violence and distrust, eh?

[Ratwar]

I'm for this crazy thing of 'innocent until proven guility' that seems to have had a nice run in free societies throughout the world. Under this certifiably insane system, the accusers had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guility. Now, I know that is an obsolete legal system now-a-days, but if you could please provide evidence which states that DPRK is exporting tech to dangerous nations or groups, I'd prefer that to mere speculation of what they plan to do with this technology.

Morty, taking necissary chances with millions of lives is an unacceptable risk to take. If you really want to do this battle by the rules in the American Justice system, perhaps you should look at the laws governing gun control there's a background check. North Korea fails that background check, since it is a fact that they exported missile technology to Pakistan.

They also don't need to be using gasoline when they aren't moving.

I'll bet ya once Iran gets pissed enough at the USA for being absolute retards, they might provide some oil to spite the United States. Or some other nation might provide oil for the right price. Who knows. In any case, I don't think cutting off oil is going to be the magical fix.

As I've already said, cutting off oil has helped bring North Korea back to the table. Is it going to make cookies appear everywhere? No, but it will help end North Korea's nuclear program. As for oil from Iran, neither country has the ability to break an international blockade around North Korea.

I've not seen an official plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the USA. If you could provide me with a source which reported on it or a link to the document itself, I'd love to see it.
Nuclear weapons are probably not leaving the USA's and other of the current 'haves' arsenals until an even better [read: more destructive] weapon is developed.

1. Yes, there is no comprehensive plan to eliminate all of the US's nuclear weapons, but we have been slowly eliminating such weapons for years.
2. Your second statement is nothing but a bias opinion with no facts to back it up.

Actually they kinda do. Being as the USA wants to be self-righteous morons like we always are, I think our policy is very important to not being completely hypocritical and downright idiotic.
I agree that we should get rid of nuclear weapons eventually, but until the point that we can phase them out, let's not pretend some countries have more right to the weapons than others do. Lead by example.

Oh, so once it suits your purposes, the US needs to be a leader? Stop being a hypocrite. If what the US does is correct then I guess invading Iraq was a good idea.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

Morty, taking necissary chances with millions of lives is an unacceptable risk to take.

We are willing to take the risk of billions of lives with the USA and company having enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life a few times over, so again, we aren't risking more than we already have.

If you really want to do this battle by the rules in the American Justice system, perhaps you should look at the laws governing gun control there's a background check. North Korea fails that background check, since it is a fact that they exported missile technology to Pakistan.

I'm quite certain I said "free society," and unless the USA is the only free society evah, then maybe we shouldn't use their exclusive system.
If DPRK fails the test then the USA, Russia, China, France, and the UK should be shot on sight with nuclear weapons. The permanment members of the UNSC are the biggest exporters of weapons on the planet, and that's a fact. The USA gave nuclear tech to nearly every NATO country during the Cold War. Stop pretending we are all high and mighty when compared with the North Koreans. They are like a shoplifter to our serial killer.

As I've already said, cutting off oil has helped bring North Korea back to the table. Is it going to make cookies appear everywhere? No, but it will help end North Korea's nuclear program. As for oil from Iran, neither country has the ability to break an international blockade around North Korea.

They've been to the "table" before and nothing ever happens.
AFAIK, a blockade is nearly universally accepted as an act of war, therefore doing so would be like a declaration of war on DPRK. Which would quickly turn to invasion, and here we are.

1. Yes, there is no comprehensive plan to eliminate all of the US's nuclear weapons, but we have been slowly eliminating such weapons for years.

So we can now destroy the world 3 times instead of 10? Big improvement in the practical sense.

2. Your second statement is nothing but a bias opinion with no facts to back it up.

Well, they are attempting to create a 'dark energy' bomb that is supposed to be MUCH more powerful than a nuke.
But in any case, you made the same type of bias opinion when you said DPRK would export their tech to terrorists.

Oh, so once it suits your purposes, the US needs to be a leader?

Personally, I think we should never try to be a leader in the world. It isn't our place. But since basically no one else shares my opinion, and we therefore will try to be a leader regardless of what I think, my opinion on HOW we should be a leader is that we need to either lead by example or stop pretending like we are a leader. The USA telling North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons is like Ted Bundy scolding a drunk driver who killed someone.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Look who's talking.

If what the US does is correct then I guess invading Iraq was a good idea.

I never said what the USA does was correct. I've been agruing against what the USA has been doing this entire time...

[Ratwar]

We are willing to take the risk of billions of lives with the USA and company having enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life a few times over, so again, we aren't risking more than we already have.

No, we are not willing to take such a risk, that is the ideal. Still, at the moment, we must live in reality. Both the US government and other nations have nuclear weapons. We're not going to wake up tomorrow to find that they've disappeared over night. That is reality, and that is what we have to accept whether or not we were or are willing. At the moment, we must be pragmatic, not idealistic in handling the nuclear weapon situation. To that end, it is common sense to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons gives other nations an excuse to not eliminate their own WMD. Not only do the weapons themselves put the millions of lives on the line, the consequences of North Korea having them slows the elimination of taking care of the problem of WMD.

Seriously Morty, with economic sanctions, there is a chance that North Korea will be forced to end it's nuclear program. If I lived in South Korea and my options were 1. Have Russia and the US have enough nukes to kill me or 2. Russia, the US, and North Korea having nukes to kill me, I think I'd go with #1, along with most of the other sane people in the world. Remember that good old thing called Murphy's Law? What can go wrong will go wrong? Yeah, the best way to fight that is to limit the number of things that CAN go wrong. That means limiting the numbers of nuclear weapons, and the number of people with the ability to set them off.

I'm quite certain I said "free society," and unless the USA is the only free society evah, then maybe we shouldn't use their exclusive system.

Ahh, my mistake, now find me a free society without gun control laws. Actually, scratch that, show me that the majority of people living in free societys aren't under gun control laws.

If DPRK fails the test then the USA, Russia, China, France, and the UK should be shot on sight with nuclear weapons. The permanment members of the UNSC are the biggest exporters of weapons on the planet, and that's a fact. The USA gave nuclear tech to nearly every NATO country during the Cold War. Stop pretending we are all high and mighty when compared with the North Koreans. They are like a shoplifter to our serial killer.

Once again, just because the US and NATO have done things doesn't meant that it is correct. Murder isn't the right thing to do, even if OJ Simpson got away with it. I don't see why you're getting the impression that I think the US is all high and mighty. I've already said that they have acted wrong in several times.

They've been to the "table" before and nothing ever happens.
AFAIK, a blockade is nearly universally accepted as an act of war, therefore doing so would be like a declaration of war on DPRK. Which would quickly turn to invasion, and here we are.

Do you have an evidence to back up the idea that an invasion would follow a blockade? I mean, you've said yourself, North Korea's dictator wants to stay in power. I doubt he would be very likely to increase hostilitys, and American politicians aren't going to want to suffer the fact that they'd all lose their next election if they started a war.

So we can now destroy the world 3 times instead of 10? Big improvement in the practical sense.

Perhaps it has yet to be a big improvement in the practical sense, but since 3 is between 10 and 0, we have to be at three sometime.

Well, they are attempting to create a 'dark energy' bomb that is supposed to be MUCH more powerful than a nuke.
But in any case, you made the same type of bias opinion when you said DPRK would export their tech to terrorists.

Article? Source? My opinion on North Korea's potential to export Nuclear weapons is based on their exportation of missile technology to Pakistan, where there is a strong extremist muslim movement. Now if they exported them to a place like Yemen, we could definitely have a problem on our hands.

Personally, I think we should never try to be a leader in the world. It isn't our place. But since basically no one else shares my opinion, and we therefore will try to be a leader regardless of what I think, my opinion on HOW we should be a leader is that we need to either lead by example or stop pretending like we are a leader. The USA telling North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons is like Ted Bundy scolding a drunk driver who killed someone.

A drunk driver is a danger to society, as is North Korea. What about the other non-nuclear countrys that have condemned North Korea? This is hardly a unilateral stand by the US. Or do they have a couple of parking tickets?

I never said what the USA does was correct. I've been agruing against what the USA has been doing this entire time...

Then don't seek to prove that North Korea isn't going anything wrong by referencing the US. If you wish to make a stand about the US's wrong doings, your welcome to make a new thread. Just don't attempt to use such things as justification for North Korea's actions because that false logic simply doesn't fly around here (I hope).

[morty14]

ratwar said:

No, we are not willing to take such a risk, that is the ideal.

Well, I've not seen any sanctioning of the USA, China, Russia, France, or UK over this 'ideal.' But we all seem perfectly ready to slap them on DPRK.

Still, at the moment, we must live in reality. Both the US government and other nations have nuclear weapons. We're not going to wake up tomorrow to find that they've disappeared over night.

So, tell me again why we are being self-righteous enforcers of arbitary international laws?

That is reality, and that is what we have to accept whether or not we were or are willing.

I'm willing to accept the fact that nuclear war could happen and it could end all life on this planet. You seem to be worried about a few million, when the entire world is already at stake.

At the moment, we must be pragmatic, not idealistic in handling the nuclear weapon situation.

Forgive me if I believe that it is not at all 'idealistic' to believe in, fight for, and enforce equal treatment under law.
The powerful can protect themselves, the weak need the protection of the law. If we are to have an international government, which is what you seem to be working for, then we need to treat nations equally. If that's too idealistic for you, then stop trying to enforce international law on other nations and come over to the nationalist side.

To that end, it is common sense to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons gives other nations an excuse to not eliminate their own WMD. Not only do the weapons themselves put the millions of lives on the line, the consequences of North Korea having them slows the elimination of taking care of the problem of WMD.

But does it? Is it really North Korea which has set off the international desire for WMD? Or is it the fact that the most powerful and influential nations on earth have WMD, and those that don't aren't considered powerful enough to matter? Is it the fact that to get a seat at the big boy table you need to have a nuclear arsenal? These are questions we should ask ourselves before assuming that the Koreans' WMD program is the reason behind all woe.

Seriously Morty, with economic sanctions, there is a chance that North Korea will be forced to end it's nuclear program.

There's a chance that the North Koreans having nuclear weaponry will do no harm, too. But you don't like to deal in chances, it seems.

If I lived in South Korea and my options were 1. Have Russia and the US have enough nukes to kill me or 2. Russia, the US, and North Korea having nukes to kill me, I think I'd go with #1, along with most of the other sane people in the world.

Then South Korea can do something about it. Frankly, this isn't the United States' problem. If North Korea attacks, it becomes our problem due to our economic ties. Until then, we are just doing South Korea's dirty work.

Remember that good old thing called Murphy's Law? What can go wrong will go wrong?

Except that law is false. Want me to randomly make up a law that only works part of the time and call it an absolute anyway? Nah, I didn't think so.

Yeah, the best way to fight that is to limit the number of things that CAN go wrong. That means limiting the numbers of nuclear weapons, and the number of people with the ability to set them off.

But doesn't that give off just as many possibilities for other things (that can be just as catostrophic) to go wrong? And again, Murphy's Law is false.

Ahh, my mistake, now find me a free society without gun control laws. Actually, scratch that, show me that the majority of people living in free societys aren't under gun control laws.

You said the United States' justice system. I refuted your gun control agruement after that.

Once again, just because the US and NATO have done things doesn't meant that it is correct. Murder isn't the right thing to do, even if OJ Simpson got away with it. I don't see why you're getting the impression that I think the US is all high and mighty. I've already said that they have acted wrong in several times.

Yet you think they have a right to enforce rules they don't even follow themselves. Once the USA gives up its nuclear program, THEN AND ONLY THEN will it have ANY right to tell another nation to stop its nuclear program. End of story.

Do you have an evidence to back up the idea that an invasion would follow a blockade?

I said it was universally known act of war. Wars between pitful third world nations and the most powerful nations on earth normally end with an invasion of aforementioned third world nation and the further destruction of their nation - beyond the already inflicted damage that made them a third world nation. That's just how things tend to work.

I mean, you've said yourself, North Korea's dictator wants to stay in power. I doubt he would be very likely to increase hostilitys, and American politicians aren't going to want to suffer the fact that they'd all lose their next election if they started a war.

Well, that line of thinking kind of eliminates the need of a blockade in the first place, doesn't it? Therefore we have just harmed the lives of a few million Koreans for no reason. So, not cool.

Perhaps it has yet to be a big improvement in the practical sense, but since 3 is between 10 and 0, we have to be at three sometime.

But are we really working towards 0, or are we just making a budget cut on an obscenely beefed up arsenal? You said yourself there is no plan to get rid of them, which then suggests that they plan to keep them.

Article? Source?

1, 2, 3

My opinion on North Korea's potential to export Nuclear weapons is based on their exportation of missile technology to Pakistan, where there is a strong extremist muslim movement.

Also a Western-friendly government. And it is a country that very much knows the danger of MAD.

Now if they exported them to a place like Yemen, we could definitely have a problem on our hands.

But they've made no moves suggesting they would export to Yemen or anywhere like it.

A drunk driver is a danger to society, as is North Korea.

But more dangerous than a serial killer?

What about the other non-nuclear countrys that have condemned North Korea? This is hardly a unilateral stand by the US. Or do they have a couple of parking tickets?

Wonderful, they have the right to do so. They should also scold the other nuclear nations though, you know, in case anybody has some crazy idea like "they are doing it because they aren't friends with North Korea and it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons - this is just a handy excuse." But only an absolutely insane person would think such an outrageous thing, because every nation in the past has always been fair about things like this

Then don't seek to prove that North Korea isn't going anything wrong by referencing the US.

I'm not. I'm saying if the USA wants to say, "You can't have nukes, cause they are dangerous" then we shouldn't have nukes of our own.

If you wish to make a stand about the US's wrong doings, your welcome to make a new thread. Just don't attempt to use such things as justification for North Korea's actions because that false logic simply doesn't fly around here (I hope).

But the 'z0mgz tehy g1v3 n00kz 2 turr0r3sts!!!1' agruement does fly?
Again, I'm not justifying DPRK's actions. I don't condone them. But I also don't condone a country like the USA telling North Korea that it can't have nuclear weapons. The latter I condemn, the former I tolerate until something changes in this world, in the interest of fairness.

[comike14]

Sorry Morty and Rat, jumping in here because I have a few things to say.

morty14 said:

Well, I've not seen any sanctioning of the USA, China, Russia, France, or UK over this 'ideal.' But we all seem perfectly ready to slap them on DPRK.

Sanctioning USA, China, Russia, France, and the UK for what? Having HAD nukes for decades, long before any nonproliferation treaties were conceived? While we're at it, we can slap Thomas Jefferson on the wrists for having slaves.

So, tell me again why we are being self-righteous enforcers of arbitary international laws?

International laws concerning weapons that can kill tens of thousands, or millions, of people per use are not arbitrary. And this enforcement is hardly unilateral. But aside from the countries in the immediate vicinity, we (the US) has the most interest in the region due to our obligations to both Japan and South Korea. And a destabilized east-Asia would hurt the entire world economy far more than you're admitting, or willing to realize.

I'm willing to accept the fact that nuclear war could happen and it could end all life on this planet. You seem to be worried about a few million, when the entire world is already at stake.

Which is exactly why an unstable, ruthless, intelligent, patient, brutal dictator should not have the power to start something that could snowball into such a scenario. You act as if Kim Jung Il is perfectly normal, and can be reasoned with like any other democratically elect world leader. Well, he can't.

Forgive me if I believe that it is not at all 'idealistic' to believe in, fight for, and enforce equal treatment under law.
The powerful can protect themselves, the weak need the protection of the law. If we are to have an international government, which is what you seem to be working for, then we need to treat nations equally. If that's too idealistic for you, then stop trying to enforce international law on other nations and come over to the nationalist side.

Enforcing international laws in the best interest of the majority of the world's population doesn't necessarily preclude the involvement of a world government. It calls for international cooperation only. It's not so black and white as you're painting it.

But does it? Is it really North Korea which has set off the international desire for WMD? Or is it the fact that the most powerful and influential nations on earth have WMD, and those that don't aren't considered powerful enough to matter? Is it the fact that to get a seat at the big boy table you need to have a nuclear arsenal? These are questions we should ask ourselves before assuming that the Koreans' WMD program is the reason behind all woe.

It isn't that they aren't considered powerful enough to matter. North Korea has the 4th largest military in the world. Their entire social structure is very militaristic. They have power. I've said before--Kim Jung Il is an unstable threat to world peace. He isn't trying to afford for his country protection from the US. That notion is rediculous. Even if we were so inclined to invade NK, China and Russia would both eat us for breakfast. No, Kim is throwing a tantrum, but instead of throwing his toys, he's willing to throw a nuke, regardless of the consequences. THAT'S the reason behind all the woe.

There's a chance that the North Koreans having nuclear weaponry will do no harm, too. But you don't like to deal in chances, it seems.

I'd much rather take the chance that they might to harm and take the proper precautions than assume they won't do anything.

Then South Korea can do something about it. Frankly, this isn't the United States' problem. If North Korea attacks, it becomes our problem due to our economic ties. Until then, we are just doing South Korea's dirty work.

We aren't doing South Korea's dirty work. I'm not sure if you follow US sentiment in the region, but even SK wants us out of there.

Except that law is false. Want me to randomly make up a law that only works part of the time and call it an absolute anyway? Nah, I didn't think so.

But doesn't that give off just as many possibilities for other things (that can be just as catostrophic) to go wrong? And again, Murphy's Law is false.

Murphy's Law IS based on silly assumption. But again, I'd rather take the necessary precautions to prevent something from going wrong, and to be ready if they indeed DID go wrong.

Yet you think they have a right to enforce rules they don't even follow themselves. Once the USA gives up its nuclear program, THEN AND ONLY THEN will it have ANY right to tell another nation to stop its nuclear program. End of story.

A world without nukes would be a better place. But nukes were theorized, planned, and developed. The idea now exists, and the only way to purge them from the human experience is to erase all trace that they ever existed. That won't happen. The world is how it is, and to say "Once we get rid of nukes, then we can talk..." is akin to saying, "Once we go back in time and change the course of history..." This is the world we live in, and we can't wish for some fanciful paradise to solve all our problems. If we get rid of nukes, other countries will still develop them.

I said it was universally known act of war. Wars between pitful third world nations and the most powerful nations on earth normally end with an invasion of aforementioned third world nation and the further destruction of their nation - beyond the already inflicted damage that made them a third world nation. That's just how things tend to work.

I'd like to know what you base this on. Somalia? Iraq? And even if it's a valid point, this situation is different. China and Russia would never, ever, and I repeat NEVER allow any kind of occupation force in that area of the world.

Well, that line of thinking kind of eliminates the need of a blockade in the first place, doesn't it? Therefore we have just harmed the lives of a few million Koreans for no reason. So, not cool.

My biggest concern is with the North Korean general population. This is my only point of wavering uncertainty. Civilians don't deserve to be punished like this. But then again, the dictatorship itself inflicts plenty of damage. I don't know--I have a lot to think about there.

But are we really working towards 0, or are we just making a budget cut on an obscenely beefed up arsenal? You said yourself there is no plan to get rid of them, which then suggests that they plan to keep them.

It actually costs more to dismantle a nuke than it does to construct one. And we're actively still decomissioning nuclear sites. This kind of thing takes a lot of time and money. But yes, we will likely never fully deplete our arsenal. In my opinion, it would be very foolish to do so. But not as foolish as actually using one.

But they've made no moves suggesting they would export to Yemen or anywhere like it.

A majority of the North Korean income is from black market sales. Did you know they are one of the world's largest suppliers of hash, not far behind some South American countries? And they have exported military technology to Iran.

But more dangerous than a serial killer?

Irrelevant. Both kill, both are equally responsible, and both are dangerous.

Wonderful, they have the right to do so. They should also scold the other nuclear nations though, you know, in case anybody has some crazy idea like "they are doing it because they aren't friends with North Korea and it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons - this is just a handy excuse." But only an absolutely insane person would think such an outrageous thing, because every nation in the past has always been fair about things like this

Would it be more fair to allow NK to have nukes? Because you can live in that world, and I'll live in this one, and we can compare notes at a later date. The world isn't about being fair. Life isn't fair--something we all learn at a very young age.

I'm not. I'm saying if the USA wants to say, "You can't have nukes, cause they are dangerous" then we shouldn't have nukes of our own.

I've addressed this already. The world is how the world is. There's no going back and pretending that nuclear bombs were never invented, which is what it would take to purge the planet of them. I'd love it, but it's not gonna happen.

But the 'z0mgz tehy g1v3 n00kz 2 turr0r3sts!!!1' agruement does fly?
Again, I'm not justifying DPRK's actions. I don't condone them. But I also don't condone a country like the USA telling North Korea that it can't have nuclear weapons. The latter I condemn, the former I tolerate until something changes in this world, in the interest of fairness.

Just like this past election, you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Let me reiterate that this is NOT a unilateral US effort. That said, does the rest of the world have a right to tell any sovereign nation what it can or cannot do? Probably not. But does a decidedly unstable country have the right to defy world pressure and attempt to destablize and entire region, spewing war rhetoric and threats of physical harm? No.

[morty14]

comike14 said:

Sanctioning USA, China, Russia, France, and the UK for what? Having HAD nukes for decades, long before any nonproliferation treaties were conceived? While we're at it, we can slap Thomas Jefferson on the wrists for having slaves.

Wrong, that is a false analogy.
I was replying to Ratwar's comment that we are putting sanctions on the DPRK because they pose a danger. And we still pose an even greater danger, so why are we without sanctions slapped on us?
Had Thomas Jefferson continued to hold slaves after slavery was banned, you better believe we would punish him.

International laws concerning weapons that can kill tens of thousands, or millions, of people per use are not arbitrary.

So when does the international firearm ban go into effect? When does the conventional weapons ban go into effect? Nuclear weapons thus far have killed a few hundred thousand. Conventional weaponry seems to be the greater danger, no?
Don't be silly.

And this enforcement is hardly unilateral.

So 10 tyrants is better than one?

But aside from the countries in the immediate vicinity, we (the US) has the most interest in the region due to our obligations to both Japan and South Korea.

I'm not aware of any "obligations" we retain to protect Japan and South Korea against any possible threat that might ever come up.

And a destabilized east-Asia would hurt the entire world economy far more than you're admitting, or willing to realize.

So we stabilize it by provoking DPRK into war? Interesting theory.

Which is exactly why an unstable, ruthless, intelligent, patient, brutal dictator should not have the power to start something that could snowball into such a scenario. You act as if Kim Jung Il is perfectly normal, and can be reasoned with like any other democratically elect world leader. Well, he can't.

No, I really DON'T act like that. I act like him being not a complete moron. Which seems to not be the prevailing belief in America. Surprise, surprise.

Enforcing international laws in the best interest of the majority of the world's population doesn't necessarily preclude the involvement of a world government.

Then does enforcing laws "in the best interest of the majority" in the United States mean we don't have a national government? Jeez, we sure seem to have a lot of hype about nothing, eh?

It calls for international cooperation only. It's not so black and white as you're painting it.

But countries that refuse to cooperate are sanctioned/invaded. Kinda like how if a citizen in the United States decided not to follow a law they are fined or imprisoned. But don't worry, the United States doesn't have a national government, just like the world doesn't have an international government.

It isn't that they aren't considered powerful enough to matter. North Korea has the 4th largest military in the world.

I think there was a time, just before Operation Desert Storm, that IRAQ had the 4th largest army in the world. Isn't that right? We sure had a lot of trouble with them...

Their entire social structure is very militaristic. They have power. I've said before--Kim Jung Il is an unstable threat to world peace.

Wow this sounds like the rhetoric that got us into Iraq... Can someone find a list of reasons we had to attack Iraq for me, so we can compare?

He isn't trying to afford for his country protection from the US. That notion is rediculous.

Yeah, nothing to fear from a country like us.

Even if we were so inclined to invade NK, China and Russia would both eat us for breakfast.

Yeah, Russia and China are really behind DPRK right now... oh wait...

No, Kim is throwing a tantrum, but instead of throwing his toys, he's willing to throw a nuke, regardless of the consequences. THAT'S the reason behind all the woe.

Again you make the mistake of thinking Kim is an idiot with a mission. He knows full well what would happen if he nuked [insert anywhere]. North Korea would be wiped off the map in an instant. He loses power. Why, please explain, would he do something like that?

I'd much rather take the chance that they might to harm and take the proper precautions than assume they won't do anything.

I think we have a lot more potential for harm in taking so called 'proper precautions' than in rolling the dice on Kim not being a retard. Kinda like how we don't all have our appendixes taken out as a child. Although it is possible that we could get appendicitis if we keep it, it is much more likely that something will go badly during the operation.

We aren't doing South Korea's dirty work. I'm not sure if you follow US sentiment in the region, but even SK wants us out of there.

So? That doesn't mean we aren't doing their work. If something needs to be done by South Korea and we do it for them, whether they like us or not, we did their work for them.

Murphy's Law IS based on silly assumption.

So why would you use it to prove a point?

But again, I'd rather take the necessary precautions to prevent something from going wrong, and to be ready if they indeed DID go wrong.

Refer to earlier agruement against.

A world without nukes would be a better place. But nukes were theorized, planned, and developed. The idea now exists, and the only way to purge them from the human experience is to erase all trace that they ever existed. That won't happen.

We got rid of our chemical and biological weapons stockpiles pretty easily. I think those were "theorized, planned, and developed" for centuries.

The world is how it is, and to say "Once we get rid of nukes, then we can talk..." is akin to saying, "Once we go back in time and change the course of history..."

No, it isn't. Try again.

This is the world we live in, and we can't wish for some fanciful paradise to solve all our problems. If we get rid of nukes, other countries will still develop them.

Well duh. But then at least we have a reasonable agruement when we say, "You can't have those because they are dangerous." Kinda like how we do with chemical and biological weapons...

I'd like to know what you base this on. Somalia? Iraq? And even if it's a valid point, this situation is different. China and Russia would never, ever, and I repeat NEVER allow any kind of occupation force in that area of the world.

What makes you so sure? They've already proved they don't give a what happens to DPRK, and in fact are supporting the war mongerers. Maybe THEY will be the ones to occupy it.

My biggest concern is with the North Korean general population. This is my only point of wavering uncertainty. Civilians don't deserve to be punished like this. But then again, the dictatorship itself inflicts plenty of damage. I don't know--I have a lot to think about there.

Yeah, you do. Especially if you are going to go along with the line of thought that I was referring to.

It actually costs more to dismantle a nuke than it does to construct one.

Maintainance costs add up fairly quickly. You lose more than a weapon when you dismantle a nuke, you also lose a big strain on the maintainance and security budget for your military.

And we're actively still decomissioning nuclear sites. This kind of thing takes a lot of time and money. But yes, we will likely never fully deplete our arsenal. In my opinion, it would be very foolish to do so. But not as foolish as actually using one.

Why can we have them, but no one else? Which country is the only one to have ever used nuclear weapons in a war? The one that is allowed to keep a stockpile forever, it seems.

A majority of the North Korean income is from black market sales. Did you know they are one of the world's largest suppliers of hash, not far behind some South American countries?

Comparing drug sales to selling nuclear technology is absurd.

And they have exported military technology to Iran.

The United States armed terrorists in Afghanistan. The United States armed countless dictators. Russia has armed nations around the world. China helped arm North Korea in the first place.
There are a lot of countries that have armed a lot worse people than Iran.

Irrelevant. Both kill, both are equally responsible, and both are dangerous.

Tell me you are joking. A drunk driver is as dangerous as a serial killer? Yeah, now I guess I see why you feel the need to attack North Korea.

Would it be more fair to allow NK to have nukes?

Yep.

Because you can live in that world,

Not really.

and I'll live in this one, and we can compare notes at a later date. The world isn't about being fair. Life isn't fair--something we all learn at a very young age.

You're right. So, why protect fairness? Let the strong destroy the weak. Social Darwinism. No laws, no order.

Why don't you tell a slave that to rest easy knowing that life isn't fair, and that although their life sucks and they had nothing to do with it, that's just tough luck.

I've addressed this already. The world is how the world is. There's no going back and pretending that nuclear bombs were never invented, which is what it would take to purge the planet of them.

So, we all pretended that chemical and biological weapons didn't exist when the treaties against them were signed? We all pretended that torture didn't happen when the Geneva Convention was signed?

I'd love it, but it's not gonna happen.

If you won't fight for what you love, then what WILL you fight for?

Just like this past election, you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

I refuse to take part in such an activity. Do not encourage evil's existance.

Let me reiterate that this is NOT a unilateral US effort.

Let me reiterate that ten tyrants are no better than one.

That said, does the rest of the world have a right to tell any sovereign nation what it can or cannot do? Probably Absolutely not.

Fixed.

But does a decidedly unstable country

DPRK looks pretty stable to me. Not free, nor good, but stable.

have the right to defy world pressure

Sovereignty.

and attempt to destablize and entire region,

How so?

spewing war rhetoric

Free speech + Sovereignty.

and threats of physical harm?

Walk up to a gang whose members all have uzis on them with a butter knife and say, "I'm going to kill you." Then you can find out what it is like to be North Korea threating the world.

No.

Wrong.

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

Well, I've not seen any sanctioning of the USA, China, Russia, France, or UK over this 'ideal.' But we all seem perfectly ready to slap them on DPRK.

In addition to what Comike has already said, I don't see many nations willing to hurt themselves economically to uphold an ideal. Once again, we live in a world were the pratical trumps the ideal.

morty14 said:

So, tell me again why we are being self-righteous enforcers of arbitary international laws?

Because we are a member of the international community. Why are we a member of the international community? Economics. I like to be well paid and have cheap products thank you very much.

morty14 said:

I'm willing to accept the fact that nuclear war could happen and it could end all life on this planet. You seem to be worried about a few million, when the entire world is already at stake.

I am worried about others because I have compassion for my fellow man. If your logic was true, it wouldn't be wrong for me to kill you. There's billions of other people in the world living under threat, so your life obviously doesn't matter.

morty14 said:

Forgive me if I believe that it is not at all 'idealistic' to believe in, fight for, and enforce equal treatment under law. The powerful can protect themselves, the weak need the protection of the law. If we are to have an international government, which is what you seem to be working for, then we need to treat nations equally. If that's too idealistic for you, then stop trying to enforce international law on other nations and come over to the nationalist side.

Is that too idealistic for me? No. What is too idealistic is to expect that to happen tomorrow. Just because currently realitys put the idealistic goal out of reach doesn't mean that we should throw our hands up in the air and give up attempting to better the world. If all nuclear nations were put under sanctions the world's economy would crash. We must protect people from such a fate, and if that means making exceptions to nuclear powers, most of us are willing to make that sacrafice.

morty14 said:

But does it? Is it really North Korea which has set off the international desire for WMD? Or is it the fact that the most powerful and influential nations on earth have WMD, and those that don't aren't considered powerful enough to matter? Is it the fact that to get a seat at the big boy table you need to have a nuclear arsenal? These are questions we should ask ourselves before assuming that the Koreans' WMD program is the reason behind all woe.

Or is it that diplomats are going to have a hellish time convincing the US to lower its nuclear stockpiles as long as North Korea is activily researching better nuclear weapons.

morty14 said:

There's a chance that the North Koreans having nuclear weaponry will do no harm, too. But you don't like to deal in chances, it seems.

And the chance that a North Korea without nuclear weapons attacking another country with nuclear weapons is 0. No, I don't like chances, I'm not a gambler, especially when the payoffs are nothing and I'm betting with my life.

morty14 said:

Then South Korea can do something about it. Frankly, this isn't the United States' problem. If North Korea attacks, it becomes our problem due to our economic ties. Until then, we are just doing South Korea's dirty work.

Translation: Let's hide our heads in the sand and yell "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to anyone that talks to us until someone decides to use our exposed butt for a little sex.

You said the United States' justice system. I refuted your gun control agruement after that.

You have yet to refute that North Korea has a dangerous background. You have disputed the backgrounds of other countrys, but you haven't given me any reason why they should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Stop talking about other countrys. You cannot prove that North Korea is less likely to kill millions of people now than it was before they had nuclear weapons.

Yet you think they have a right to enforce rules they don't even follow themselves. Once the USA gives up its nuclear program, THEN AND ONLY THEN will it have ANY right to tell another nation to stop its nuclear program. End of story.

I think the world has a right to enforce its laws. I think people have the right to live in the safest world possible. You cannot argue that North Korean weapons don't endanger millions of people. You cannot argue that North Korean WMD make the world anything but less safe, yet you insist on allowing those dangers to continue.

I said it was universally known act of war. Wars between pitful third world nations and the most powerful nations on earth normally end with an invasion of aforementioned third world nation and the further destruction of their nation - beyond the already inflicted damage that made them a third world nation. That's just how things tend to work.

Deal with the specific situation, Morty, not general 'what usually happens'.

Well, that line of thinking kind of eliminates the need of a blockade in the first place, doesn't it? Therefore we have just harmed the lives of a few million Koreans for no reason. So, not cool.

Both of our plans run a low risk of war, mine moves the world forward, yours holds it back.

But are we really working towards 0, or are we just making a budget cut on an obscenely beefed up arsenal? You said yourself there is no plan to get rid of them, which then suggests that they plan to keep them.

They plan on keeping them until international agreements are reached upon their elimination.

1, 2, 3

Yum, conspiracy! Dark matter bomb? Maybe, I love physics way to my to go that far into theoretics. Government activily working on it? Far from proven.

Also a Western-friendly government. And it is a country that very much knows the danger of MAD.

I'm sure that North Korea was thinking about that when they sealed the deal.

But they've made no moves suggesting they would export to Yemen or anywhere like it.

Their history is against them.

But more dangerous than a serial killer?

A danger is a danger. Just because a serial killer is on the loose doesn't mean we should let the drunk driver off.

I'm not. I'm saying if the USA wants to say, "You can't have nukes, cause they are dangerous" then we shouldn't have nukes of our own.

Good to know your opinion. I think it is a good one and on some level, I share it.

But the 'z0mgz tehy g1v3 n00kz 2 turr0r3sts!!!1' agruement does fly?

I don't think that North Korea would give (or even sell) nuclear weapons directly to a terrorist group. I think they could be a vector from wish nuclear weapons could spread to natons that just might sell them to terrorists.

[comike14]

First, let me point out the impartial tone with which I replied to you, compared to the quite uncalled-for hostile one with which you answered me. I don't know why you seem to think I'm attacking you personally--you don't need to bend over backwards to roll your eyes and assume I'm a moron. Your attitude is hardly condusive to a logical debate.

morty14 said:

comike14 said:

Wrong, that is a false analogy.
I was replying to Ratwar's comment that we are putting sanctions on the DPRK because they pose a danger. And we still pose an even greater danger, so why are we without sanctions slapped on us?
Had Thomas Jefferson continued to hold slaves after slavery was banned, you better believe we would punish him.

False analogy? Sounded perfectly legit to me.

So when does the international firearm ban go into effect? When does the conventional weapons ban go into effect? Nuclear weapons thus far have killed a few hundred thousand. Conventional weaponry seems to be the greater danger, no?
Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly. A few hundred thousand from two detonations is a far deadlier ratio than deaths by conventional weapons. It's the potential.

So 10 tyrants is better than one?

Matter of opinion. You call the nations responsible from preventing nuclear war tyrants. I don't.

I'm not aware of any "obligations" we retain to protect Japan and South Korea against any possible threat that might ever come up.

Then you may have forgotten about a little thing called WWII and the Japanese occupation. We don't let them rebuild an army--thus we owe them protection. Oh, and the mishap known as the Korean War. I don't feel like giving you a history lesson right now.

So we stabilize it by provoking DPRK into war? Interesting theory.

We push hard enough, there will be no war. You yourself state later in the post that Kim isn't THAT dumb.

No, I really DON'T act like that. I act like him being not a complete moron. Which seems to not be the prevailing belief in America. Surprise, surprise.

I never said he was a moron. I said he was intelligent, patient, etc.

Then does enforcing laws "in the best interest of the majority" in the United States mean we don't have a national government? Jeez, we sure seem to have a lot of hype about nothing, eh?

I don't even understand the point of this.

But countries that refuse to cooperate are sanctioned/invaded. Kinda like how if a citizen in the United States decided not to follow a law they are fined or imprisoned. But don't worry, the United States doesn't have a national government, just like the world doesn't have an international government.

You make absolutely no sense. I can read sarcasm just fine, but you imply that we have some kind of world government. Which we don't. I really, really don't understand where you get that notion.

I think there was a time, just before Operation Desert Storm, that IRAQ had the 4th largest army in the world. Isn't that right? We sure had a lot of trouble with them...

Yes. And they chose to invade Kuwait. And we crushed them. What's your point?

Wow this sounds like the rhetoric that got us into Iraq... Can someone find a list of reasons we had to attack Iraq for me, so we can compare?

Why are you trying to turn this into anti-Iraq war conversation now? I know you hate everything the US does, but this is about Korea. Make a new thread about it if you'd like.

Yeah, nothing to fear from a country like us.

You overestimate our ambitions, and underestimate world opposition. We are not going to invade North Korea.

Yeah, Russia and China are really behind DPRK right now... oh wait...

And why aren't they? Oh, because they realize Kim is being haughty and petulent, and severely damaging their own relations in the region. Der, not hard to think that one through.

Again you make the mistake of thinking Kim is an idiot with a mission. He knows full well what would happen if he nuked [insert anywhere]. North Korea would be wiped off the map in an instant. He loses power. Why, please explain, would he do something like that?

Why, please explain, would he test a nuke in the first place?

I think we have a lot more potential for harm in taking so called 'proper precautions' than in rolling the dice on Kim not being a retard. Kinda like how we don't all have our appendixes taken out as a child. Although it is possible that we could get appendicitis if we keep it, it is much more likely that something will go badly during the operation.

Harm in sanctions? Let me issue a rebuttal of your comment about drug trafficking analogous to nukes-- comparing apendectomy to international sanctions is absurd.

So? That doesn't mean we aren't doing their work. If something needs to be done by South Korea and we do it for them, whether they like us or not, we did their work for them.

Pull us out of the DMZ and see what happens.

So why would you use it to prove a point?

I didn't.

We got rid of our chemical and biological weapons stockpiles pretty easily. I think those were "theorized, planned, and developed" for centuries.

Wrong. We still have chemical and biological weapons.

No, it isn't. Try again.

Oh, good point. Now I see how I was mistaken.

I don't have time to finish. But Morty, you're trying to take all this to a personal level. I'll let you have your say, but I can't respond again because, quite honestly, my biggest pet peeve is people who argue like that. A little respect goes a hell of a long way.

[lucia]

Chemical weapons were used in Iraq. By our military. White phosphorous was used in Operation Phantom Fury.

And about exporting nuclear weapons... here's how I see it. Japan won't trade with North Korea, and neither will Russia or South Korea. China's border is the only one relatively open... and China already has them.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

In addition to what Comike has already said, I don't see many nations willing to hurt themselves economically to uphold an ideal. Once again, we live in a world were the pratical trumps the ideal.

Well then say it like it is and just admit that this isn't because North Korea has nukes, it is just a handy excuse to attack people we don't like.

Because we are a member of the international community. Why are we a member of the international community? Economics. I like to be well paid and have cheap products thank you very much.

Yes, our soldiers can die for your low prices at Walmart.

I am worried about others because I have compassion for my fellow man. If your logic was true, it wouldn't be wrong for me to kill you. There's billions of other people in the world living under threat, so your life obviously doesn't matter.

That's not what I said. To use your analogy, it would be like you threatening to kill me after I'd already been threatened a million times over. Kind of a moot point by then.

Is that too idealistic for me? No. What is too idealistic is to expect that to happen tomorrow. Just because currently realitys put the idealistic goal out of reach doesn't mean that we should throw our hands up in the air and give up attempting to better the world. If all nuclear nations were put under sanctions the world's economy would crash. We must protect people from such a fate, and if that means making exceptions to nuclear powers, most of us are willing to make that sacrafice.

What I'm saying is until we are ready to get rid of our nuclear stockpiles, we should not be telling other nations that they can't have nuclear weapons, most especially countries not bound by any treaties (if they broke a treaty then we may have some duty to enforce that treaty, depending on how it is written, etc). If we want to say, 'Nuclear weapons are a danger to all on Earth and they therefore MUST be eliminated' then we CANNOT do so without first getting rid of our own. That is my only major issue with the whole sanctions thing at this time.

Or is it that diplomats are going to have a hellish time convincing the US to lower its nuclear stockpiles as long as North Korea is activily researching better nuclear weapons.

Yes, I'm sure North Korea's 1950s style nuclear weapons are such a massive danger to a nation that has thermonuclear weapons and effective delivery systems
Again, I'm all for just leaving the situation alone, letting Kim have his nukes and letting us have ours. He's not going to nuke anyone, we aren't going to nuke anyone, it is all about a status symbol in the world community. Frankly, I think North Korea would have no clue what to do if we decided to one day just ignore them. Kim would scream and rant about reuniting the peninsula and we continued to not listen and eventually he'd just shut up because he isn't getting attention anymore and knows he is making empty threats.

And the chance that a North Korea without nuclear weapons attacking another country with nuclear weapons is 0. No, I don't like chances, I'm not a gambler, especially when the payoffs are nothing and I'm betting with my life.

Well geez, under that doctrine why don't we just kill everyone? Then the chances of war starting are 0, the chances of murders occurring are 0, the chances of any crime happening are 0. What a blissful place, besides that little issue with no one being left and all.

Translation: Let's hide our heads in the sand and yell "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to anyone that talks to us until someone decides to use our exposed butt for a little sex.

As opposed to your plan of killing anyone who might, maybe someday decide to attack us? Based on...guesses and speculation?
Your translation of my idea leaves out the important part of the idea - which is that anyone who would abuse us would then have the wrath of the most powerful nation on earth that could crush them quite easily. I'm not aware of anyone who would risk that just to mess with us.

You have yet to refute that North Korea has a dangerous background. You have disputed the backgrounds of other countrys, but you haven't given me any reason why they should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Stop talking about other countrys. You cannot prove that North Korea is less likely to kill millions of people now than it was before they had nuclear weapons.

I'm using other countries as examples of groups let into the nuclear club, and if we were to compare those who got in without question to North Korea, then we see why North Korea should be the least of our worries.
You cannot prove that North Korea plans to use or sell these nuclear weapons either, which is the basis of your entire rationale. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused - do well to remember that.

I think the world has a right to enforce its laws. I think people have the right to live in the safest world possible.

I've already discussed the 'safest world possible' idea. You can refer back to that.

You cannot argue that North Korean weapons don't endanger millions of people. You cannot argue that North Korean WMD make the world anything but less safe, yet you insist on allowing those dangers to continue.

You cannot prove that it makes the world more dangerous either. Nor can you prove that sanctions on North Korea will work. Nor can you prove that a non-nuclear DPRK is any less dangerous than a nuclear DPRK.
You can't prove a lot of things. My plan rests on what we know for sure right now - North Korea has not been in any wars since the end of the Korean War. North Korea has said they will not use nuclear weapons in a first strike. North Korea has said that sanctions mean war and under that idea if we place sanctions we have made the world a more dangerous place and created a war that didn't have to happen. North Korea has not made any offensive moves to do anything in regards to reuniting the peninsula. North Korea has a credible concern that they may face an invasion by the United States, as it has been placed in a VERY select group of countries (the Axis of Evil) of which one country has been invaded and occupied, another has about one inch left on its string before an invasion happens there as well (carrier groups are moving in, generals for the invasion have already been selected, the government is hyping the threat, etc), and the best deterrent for being invaded is now in the grasp of their scientists - why they would think to miss this opportunity to defend themselves is beyond me. North Korea is a dictatorship, run by a madman who certainly doesn't want to lose power and the fastest way for him to do so would be to use a nuclear weapon offensively in a first strike, MAD and whatnot.

Deal with the specific situation, Morty, not general 'what usually happens'.

Well the last time we had a war with North Korea we attempted an invasion, and the last two wars we've had we invaded and occupied the country. So, since the war with North Korea hasn't happened yet, we can really only use what's happened thus far in history.

Both of our plans run a low risk of war, mine moves the world forward, yours holds it back.

Yours has a promise of war, mine has essentially zero chance of a war or incident. So, please stop with the just guessing what will happen - North Korea has said sanctions mean war. Can we know that they are planning to do? No. Can you prove they won't do exactly what they say they will? No.
MAD has worked with far more powerful nations than North Korea, North Korea has been in just one war in its lifetime, North Korea has a credible reason to need defense forces.

They plan on keeping them until international agreements are reached upon their elimination.

And in the meantime we will just be hypocritical and decide that we and our friends are the only nations allowed to take this doctrine?

Yum, conspiracy! Dark matter bomb? Maybe, I love physics way to my to go that far into theoretics. Government activily working on it? Far from proven.

We all have our theories, I suppose. You have your theory that North Korea plans to destroy the world with their amazing nuclear weapons and their terrorist connections to super networks that will put these bombs in the places where the Koreans can't get to. I have my theory that the government is creating new, more powerful weapons with the latest sciences. Whatever.

I'm sure that North Korea was thinking about that when they sealed the deal.

Maybe they were. Perhaps, you know, they realize that the consequences of supplying terrorists with weapons would be fairly negative. Just a little bit.

Their history is against them.

Proof coming?

A danger is a danger. Just because a serial killer is on the loose doesn't mean we should let the drunk driver off.

Nope, but the serial killer shouldn't be the one invested with the power to enforce the laws either.

Good to know your opinion. I think it is a good one and on some level, I share it.

Oook? What level would that be?

I don't think that North Korea would give (or even sell) nuclear weapons directly to a terrorist group. I think they could be a vector from wish nuclear weapons could spread to natons that just might sell them to terrorists.

Oh my. That's getting pretty ridiculous. "Well they might give it to someone, who might give it to someone, who might give it to someone, who might sell it to terrorists. Maybe."
You can't possibily be planning to risk war over something like that?

[powerslide]

comike14 said:

I'd just like to pipe in and say that it was a confirmed nuclear test. Air samples from around the site indicate radiation. It was small, but it was a nuke.

This could easily be replicated by using the concussion of a non nuclear blast to stir up radioactive dust planted at the test area.

But my solution? It's the final solution buddy.