Posted by deluded
I dunno about you guys, but i think politics is a really tiring game. At the end of it, it all boils down to Man's greed. For as long as that exists, the world will never be a safe place to live in. It doesn't matter if nobody has nukes. People will just find some other ways to destroy their enemies and the rest of the world along with them. It's not the gun, it's the shooter.
Posted by goldenface
| Quote: |
|
I think they are now in favour of sanctions as long as they will not enforced by military action. The US has made it plain that it has no intention of attacking N Korea.
The weekend will be scary, N Korea has threatened to react strongly to any sanctions imposed by the UN or Japan. Lets see what happens.
Posted by Bandit
| Quote: |
|
Call me evil....but I find this entertaining. I mean, I don't want war and I don't want people dying...but the suspense is great! so much to read and see and hear....it's better than watching a movie.
~LB
Posted by goldenface
@bandit
You are evil :razz.
I know what you mean though, it certainly is suspenseful.
Strong words are coming out of N Korea.
I am a bit worried for Japan because if it comes under attack from N Korea I am not sure how it will defend itself because it was effectively castrated after the 2nd World War. Missiles will come launched at it but it can only try and shoot them down.
If that happens then the US will just have to knock out N Korean missile launchers with its own sea based Tomahawk Missiles.
Posted by brix25
@Bandit: As a political and world affairs fiend I also find the stand-off "entertaining"- if I can use the word. We all know that Kim Jong Il won't easily press the red button, but if he does it's going to get quite messy...especially for the North Koreans.
Japan have had Patriot missiles for years...prepping for the eventuality of an attack from the North Koreans.
Posted by goldenface
@Brix25
You'd think with all the countries in the UN backing sanctions against N Korea that Kim would take a hint!
He is either stupid, stubborn or delusional. Things seem to have calmed down a bit by the looks of it. I wonder what the next steps will be.
Posted by Bandit
Makes me wish I were still in Uni. IR / Econ major w/ a concentration in east Asia. This would've been SO cool (i am officially a nerd now...PWUAHHAHA)
JP doesn't have an 'army' persay...but it's not devoid of military might completely.
As for N.Kr....I'm interested to see how much longer he'll rattle that sabre. I don't think he'll do much more. If he's smart, he'll simmer down after this wkd and sit down for some 'talks'. But then again, the bloke's about as paranoid as Stalin, so *shrug*....who knows.
~LB
Posted by goldenface
More from CNN
| Quote: |
Japan has joined the United States in calling for the Security Council to impose sanctions that would be binding on all U.N. member states in a bid to pressure North Korea to return to negotiations and give up its nuclear ambitions. |
Posted by Bandit
Bush is an idiot. He's rattling his sabre just as much as KJI. His speech guy should be fired. He's already said that he's backing JP and S.Kr. stop rubbing it in the paranoid bloke's face. Isn't it sufficient to say something to the lines of....
'We welcome and encourage KJI and the North Koreans to come back to the table to continue discussions blah blah blah.....bring this situation to a peaceful solution"
rather than his...
"KJI better not push that red button cos if he does, we'll be ready with WMDs?"
*smacks forehead*
~LB
Posted by axxxr
well thats the ever war mongering bush for you!
Things are getting interesting however,lets see what NK next move will be?
Posted by goldenface
@bandit
I agree.
Everytime he opens his mouth his foot goes right in it. Just yesterday he was saying the US had not intention of attacking NK. Now he's saying the opposite.
What a guy! (doh!)
Posted by axxxr
Diplomacy was never his strong point!
Posted by whizkidd
Either you have nuclear weapons or you don't. If you have a stockpile of hydrogen bombs at your disposal, you don't have any right to stop any country from pursuing nuclear ambitions. One reason why India has NOT signed the NPT or the CTBT.. Let all countries collectively "dispose" off these threat to humanity.But i guess nuclear bombs are big factor when it comes to conflicts.The only reason why India did not attack pakistan in 02 was the fear of a nuclear escalation and due to its no first use doctrine.
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
Absolutely agree with you there,The U.S thinks it has a god given right to stockpile every conceivable weaponry on the face of the planet...they should stop harrassing other sovereign nations on what to do...sort out your own house before you tell someone else to fix there's.
| Quote: |
|
Again the U.S should be the first to dispose of its nukes and set an example to everyone else,also it would greatly help if the U.S also makes Israel disarm its nukes aswell.....less powerfull nations such as Pakistan and India would automatically follow suit.
The reason India did'nt attack Pakistan in 02 was not only because of the Nuclear escalation in the region,but since Pakistan is also Nuclear power India also feared an attack.
Posted by whizkidd
@axxxr, that was what i said. India definitely feared a nuclear escalation since Pakistan does not have an official nuclear doctrine. India however has this "no first use" policy which means it will only use nuclear weapons if it faces a nuclear attack. I guess nuclear weapons might have actually averted some of the bloodiest conflicts that could have occurred.
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
Pakistan doesn't have a first use doctrine because it is smaller nation compared to India and India has always been against the idea of Pakistan,don't forget that they have had 3 wars since 1947 so its easy to understand why pakistan would have such a stance....Thankfully the two countries are on much better terms these days,they should just learn to accept that both countries are here to stay and get just along after all they have so much in common,culture,religion,tradition ect..practically the same....The only countries that stand to benefit from a Pakistan/India War would be Israel and the U.S....but thats another debate.
Are we getting awefully off topic here or what.
I think everyone is waiting for NK reaction to the decision that will be passed at the U.N....sanction ect.
If NK does attack South Korea or Japan its bound to get very messy!
Posted by whizkidd
However.... I may add.. A nuclear war would be bloodier than any conventional conflict.. Nuclear weapons are a good deterrent but we can only hope its only a "deterrent".
Posted by Bandit
@axxxr. i highly doubt that KJI will give the order to attack anyone. N.Kr will collapse if it does. There will be no support from China nor Russia. They'll be on their own.
If KJI plays his cards right however, he might get the war mongering bush to make the first mistake, retaliate as a 'victim', and get China and Russia in behind him.
But if he's smart, he'll rattle his sabre a little longer, enough for everyone to take him seriously, and negotiate at the table to help his impoverished nation.
~LB
Posted by goldenface
What a naive point of view.
If the US has nukes it doesn't have the right to stop anyone else having them
People who use this argument obviously haven't thought this through at all. Its a childish, naive point of view and this argument always gets wheeled out because of the principle involved - playground politics.
What you're actually saying is, let any country in the world who wants nukes to have them? OK. Lets just save them the trouble and just give every country in the world nukes, just deal them out like sweets to a classroom - see how bloomin ridiculous that sounds!!!!
If the US has nukes then why not N Korea? By the same token, if N Korea has nukes then why not Iceland, oh, no we can't leave out the Isle of Man- there ya go Isle of Man there's a handful for you too - use them wisely, there's not many left!!!!
The fact is nukes do exist and the only way to get rid of them is to control them 1st of all. If you don't control them you have a Nuclear arms race. If your ideal world is one where thousands of nukes exist without control then you are f*ckin crazy
Oh and btw, if you think that "if one country give up 100% of its nukes then all of the others would automatically follow" then you're living in a dream world. Humans aren't that dependable.
_____________
My Friends 3G World Analysis Mobizines
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-14 10:10 ]
Posted by slattery69
@goldenface your totally correct just cause someone has something does that mean we can all have it. i know some one with a porchse does that mean i should have one (hope so).
really if your going to possess such weapons you have to be capable and intelligent enough to know how to handle them ie youhave to be responsible.
since n koreas people dont live in fantastic conditions the money would be better spent on feeding and clothing people.
so no i dont think everyone should have them if you cant demonstarte your responsible.
the current people who do have them have never used them in over 60 years and never shown any signs of using them so i think we can assume they have the maturity and intelligence to handle them.
[ This Message was edited by: slattery69 on 2006-10-14 12:27 ]
Posted by Bandit
@goldenface
"If the US has nukes then why not N Korea?"
I think that's the point N.Kr, Iran, and most of the 'rogue' states are trying to make. KJI even made the silly comment that if the US gives up its nuclear arms, that so will N.Kr. PWUAHAHHAHAH......hrmm...yes. you destroy the 1/2 of one that you've got, and we'll destroy the thousands. NICE TRADE!
~LB
Posted by whizkidd
As said earlier, i'm for total disarmament. No one should have nuclear bombs. (pipe dream!) BUT, i did make another point earlier as Nuclear weapons being a strong deterrent. I guess, if all nations (there ain't many anyway, maybe 6 or 7 countries who have N-bombs) do decide to give up nuclear weapons, it might cause worldwide instability as currently theres no deterrent as powerful as nuclear weapons. This might make some expansionist/autocratic regimes slighty bolder..
Posted by axxxr
You have to all remember that even though many countries have Nukes its the U.S that only have ever used them surprise-surprise!
And now america has the nerve to force other countries like i.e: Iran,NK that they are not allowed to have them....clean your own house first before you tell someone else to do there's...a country like the U.S should be leading by example....at the moment they are doing a terrible job of this!
Posted by slattery69
the us fired them over 60 years ago so you can hardly compare now with then. that was in the context of a world war and the act was designed to end the war which it did. now we can argue the war may have ended without that event however we will never know.
Posted by goldenface
| Quote: |
|
This was in a war where millions of people had already died. The race to build the atom bomb (The Manhattan Project, I think) was between the US with Britain to build one before the Nazis did.
I am glad the US / Brits built one. God only knows what would have happened had Nazi Germany got there first - a desperate, isolated, autocratic, regime with few friends in the world. Sound Familiar?
| Quote: |
And now america has the nerve to force other countries like i.e: Iran, NK that they are not allowed to have them.... |
God give me strength!! Your telling us you actually want N Korea to have nukes!!? 
My Friends 3G World Analysis Mobizines
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-16 10:12 ]
Posted by Bandit
@slattery - the war was over before the bomb was deployed. or rather, it was ending. JP was on its last legs and so was Germany. that being said, one of the reasons they did it was to beat Germany to the punch of making an A-bomb. if the germans had built it first, who knows how long the war would have lasted, or how it might have turned out?
~LB
Posted by slattery69
that was oneof my points the bombs were dropped in august and the war ended in september.
the main point was you cant compare the current us gov with the one involved in the second world war which axxr seemed to be be implying
Posted by scotsboyuk
An interesting wee debate here ...
Let's start with the right to have nuclear weapons. To be perfectly blunt the right to nuclear weapons is basically a case of the strongest get to have them. You may not like that, but that's how it is. Those countres, which are strong enough to keep nuclear weapons in spite of what other countries might think, or who are supported by powerful countries are unlikely to face the sort of sanctions that North Korea faces. That isn't 'fair', but it is realpolitik.
On the subject of North Korea, the whole situation is mind bogglingly dangerous. The reason the U.S. does not simply launch an attack on North Korea right away is two-fold. First of all there is the possibility of huge casualties. Secondly there are surrounding countries who would probably not take kindly to a major war on their doorstep.
Now one should not mistake this for an inability to act, simply put the U.S. is powerful enough to force its will through no matter who opposes it. If the U.S. considers that an attack is absolutely necessary then there will be an attack irrespective of objections from China, Russia or anybody else. Furthermore that attack will result in victory for the U.S., it may be a bloody victory, but it will be a victory nonetheless.
What we should all be worried about is if North Korea uses WMD on either the U.S. or an ally of the U.S. If you think the U.S. is gung ho now wait and see what would happen if such a situation (heaven forbid) arose. Any sort of attack like that would draw an immediate retaliation. If North Korea was stupid enough to actually use a nuclear device then I doubt there would be very much left of North Korea shortly afterwards.
Imagine what the aftermath of such a war might be like ... If the U.S. or one of its allies had been attacked with a nuclear device the U.S. would quite probably seek to destroy the capability of any hostile nation to use WMD against it or its allies. Such an event would polarise American opinion (and quite possibily Western opinion in general) into an all out defensive mode. Any country that even hinted at acquiring nuclear weapons would likely come in for very severe sanctions or face the possibility of attack to neutralise the perceived threat.
There would be no country capable of opposing this stance, America acts in its own interest first and foremost. If it felt sufficiently threatened then it would damn world opinion and do whatever it felt was necessary to safeguard itself and its allies.
Posted by *Jojo*
Once and for all . . . Uncle Sam SHOULD BOMB those axis-of-evil member countries
I was quite doubtful when I watche The David Letterman Show some months back . . . David said that Kim Jong Il has a LOST brother and his name is: Mentally Il . . . is this TRUE
Posted by scotsboyuk
@jojo
Hopefully no one will bomb anyone else.
The Letterman thing is a joke.
Quite a funny one actually.
Posted by *Jojo*
@scots - There should be some LESSONS to be learned with this NUKE issues . . . specially with those of Iran and Pyongyang ! Though this time . . . the US should have a very SMALL time-frame when it comes to invading countries . . . there should be no more GROUND TROOP-deployment . . . should just be dropped from above . . . I'm smelling a Hiroshima part 2 this time
Yeah . . . I know that JOKE dude . . . just wanna make some commercial-break-discussion here
Posted by scotsboyuk
@jojo
Few wars can be won by air power alone. If the objective was simply to destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities then air power alone could conceivably be used. However, since North Korea already has a nuclear bomb (we think), air power alone might not be enough. In that respect a ground attack would probably be necessary.
The only other option is a nuclear strike, but that would very much be a last resort measure.
Posted by *Jojo*
@scots - Yeah . . . I believe that dude ! However, looking back at the flaws where the US engaged itself on ground-deployment-offensive attacks . . . Vitenam and Iraq . . . they are taking sooooooooo long to accomplish their missions
If it was a basket ball game, the US invasion on Iraq is NOW on it's 10th quintiple-overtime instead of the usual 4 quarters . . . They only achieved a short-time-offensive-success when they dropped that NUKE in Hiroshima !
Being abreast with the news on Pyongyang's fate via CNN and BBC . . . only the US, Australia and Japan are very clearly seen with STRONG opposition with what the N. Korea did with matching pro- SANCTIONS-votes (nuke-test). As what I have initially perceived . . . China and Russia will just PLAY the usual-trick of . . . . as-if-they-truly-care-syndrome . . . but in the end, they will back Pyongyang's stand . . . include CUBA and VENEZUELA on the list !
Posted by gelfen
i think i remember reading somewhere that the test facility is so far underground as to be beyond the reach of conventional weapons. if the west was intent on destroying that facility the only means would either be occupation or nuclear assault.
Posted by scotsboyuk
@jojo
In the Vietnam War America was constrained by domestic and international political considerations. In the Iraq War the actual invasion of Iraq itself was very successful, it's the 'peace' afterwards, which has proven difficult.
I don't think there would necessarily be the same situation in North Korea. What would probably happen in the aftermath of such a war is that the two Koreas would be united.
Posted by *Jojo*
@scots - Well, actually the US' main objective in the Iraq-offensive is just to get Saddam's head ! Now, they've got it . . they now can't control his behaviour in the court-proceedings
Yup, I've watched back then when the S. Korea president visited the North's territory years back . . . that was TRULY a historic moment in the Korean Peninsula ! Everyone then HOPED that a reunification will follow suit . . . but went FORLORN! South Korea is doing a test-drill at the moment . . . a SIREN will sound at around lunch-time . . . preparing themselves in case of a North's nuke attack . . .
Posted by goldenface
Well it looks like they are preparing for another test. Its a good thing it will take at least 5 years before they are able to put one of these nukes on a missle.
For the time being all they can do is load one on a plane and drop it from the sky. Thank god for surveillance and spy planes! It would hopefully be shot down before it reached its target.
Posted by Davo_169
i wouldnt want to shoot at a plane with nukes on it
Posted by goldenface
@Trogdor
If was to save 100,000 lives you would
Posted by goldenface
From the BBC
| Quote: |
Kim Jong Il wrote: |
The fighting talk has started...
Posted by fatreg
roll on WW3...
fatreg
esp after dr rice as stated she will help japan...
Posted by brix25
I thought things had changed when the two countries presented one team at the Sydney Olympics.
Posted by goldenface
Well she has no choice but to really.
After all, if the US is going to insist that Japan has no army for the foreseable future then it has to defend it.
Something tells me this is gonna be a nasty confrontation. S Korea has to be defended as too.
Posted by Davo_169
well im safe...everybody loves aussies and canadians
Posted by Bandit
Wow. So many of you are missing the boat here.
Yes. The US can bomb the heck out of whomever they want and probably win. But what about the consequences? What about the aftermath?
If they invade and conquer, they will be seen as even more imperialist and the world will unite to shut down the US.
If they toss in a nuke. Most of you don't remember Hiroshima and the destruction it caused. Most of you don't remember the Lukemia victims. Many of you have played way too many video games to think that there are no repercussions.
If they just drop bomb after bomb. Also too much collateral damage. Bombs take out buildings, roads, bridges, innocent people.
I they bomb and leave. Think about the aftermath of the war. You're leaving a country that's heavily bombed without support, without a government, without infrastructure. You end up with 2 possible scenarios.
1. Anarchy
2. Military dictatorship
And in all honesty, #1 probably will lead to #2 anyway.
The US government, also requires the support of the people (remember it's a democratic country?). You're already fighting a 2 front war, with a 3rd pressure cooker always about to explode (Isreal vs. WHOMEVER). Public support for the "war against terror" is already waning. Increasing casualties, and hello...what happened to the WMDs? Declaring war on ANYONE even if an ally is bombed, will be tough. The public does not want more of their mothers, fathers, husbands, sisters, brothers, wives, children, friends, co-workers dying; sacrificing lives for something that's not an immediate threat.
The resolution to N.Kr MUST be a diplomatic one. Chinese and Russian governments don't want it any other way. You will only unite them against the US if the US decides to unilaterally move in. S.Kr doesn't have a strong enough army. Japan is armed enough for defence. not for an assault. no one else in the region is armed well enough to stand behind the US. Tony Blair was pretty much forced to step down for his support in Iraq. Canada and Australia are abhorrent to war. Spain pulled out its support to the 'war on terror'. The french are no where to be found. Bombing N.Kr is thus NOT an option.
~LB
Posted by goldenface
@Bandit
But the US has no intention of invading and conquering NK.
It is NK that is threatening war if sanctions are put in place. The US has made a pledge to defend Japan and S Korea - thats all. If that means knocking out NK Missile batteries then so be it.
What else is it supposed to do if Japan is attacked?
Posted by goldenface
Artillery
North Korea has an estimated 13,000 hardened artillery sites, many of the pieces aimed at targets in and around the South Korean capital, Seoul.
Like much of North Korea's armed forces, they are well camouflaged and bunkered in.
4,000 are near the DMZ and 200 to 300 in range of Seoul.
U.S. officials believe every fourth round has a chemical tip.
Chemical/Biological weapons
North Korea has the world's third largest stock of chemical weapons.
Included in the arsenal is mustard gas, phosgene, sarin and V-agents.
Pyongyang also has an active biological weapons program.
Its inventory is believed to include anthrax, botulism, cholera, hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid and yellow fever.
Scary stuff indeed!
Posted by Bandit
| Quote: |
|
I'm not saying that the US has any intentions of attacking N.Kr. But there are people in this thread that seem to believe that it's the way to solve the NK situation. My diatribe was directed towards them.
~LB
Posted by joebmc
| Quote: |
|
Did the US(and UK) not help both Germany and the Japs after ww2?
Posted by Bandit
@joebmc
i said IFFFF they do that. Yes. They did. All the allies helped actually. which is why the berlin wall went up cos they couldn't agree if the country was to be communist or democratic.
They did the same for Japan also (although I'm thinking, more out of guilt). And they're trying to do that with Iraq and Afghanistan.
My point is that you can't leave a country w/o government and without infrastructure. But if you run into a country like Iraq and Afghanistan where you have different groups vehemently opposed to each other, it's no easy task.
You have to give Saddam Hussein and the taliban their due. Although oppressed, there was relative peace. The people now have no idea when they will see that peace again (remember what I said about anarchy and military dictatorship? This is why. people want peace. The people will support whomever can provide that illusory satisfaction).
~LB