North Korea Detonates Nuclear Bomb - Official thread

[Made in China]

"North Korea says it has carried out its first ever test of a nuclear weapon, the state news agency has reported.

It said the underground test, done in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation.

A South Korean official said an explosion had been detected in the north-east of North Korea, measuring 3.5 on the Richter scale."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6032525.stm

--------------------

my elite opinion:

IRANian leaders are watching this event closely.

US/European response to north korea detonation should be swift and deadly.

Why wouldn't Iran follow suit?
__________________

[Yeahman]

So they claim.

[Banana]

Nothing has been confirmed as of yet.

[haplesshobo]

US/European response to north korea detonation should be swift and deadly.


That would pretty much guarntee the destruction of Seoul, the capital and most populous city in South Korea. Look at a map, and see how close Seoul is to the border from North Korea. There's really no good military solution to North Korea. That's one of the reasons we went into Iraq because it was deemed easier target than a country like Iran or North Korea.

What this will do is destabilize the Asian region, with Japan changing its constitution and going nuclear. China is probably regretting its support of North Korea now, since its meant that Japan will go nuclear. But, it'll be interesting to see what China's response will ultimately be.

[tripostrophe]

If this all escalates into war, I can't wait for the harassment I'll get walking around :D

[Yeahman]

I really have no idea what the reaction will be. Redeployment of nukes by the US to the Pacific? The UN will probably say "Hey! Stop it! Please?"

If it wasn't for China, I think the US would've (re)invaded NK a long time ago. So long as there isn't a direct attack, China can effectively hold back any military action against NK.

[Yeahman]

The US Geological Survey is reporting a 4.2 in Northern NK originating near the surface. No doubt that there was a huge explosion. Nuclear? We'll see.

[haplesshobo]

I really have no idea what the reaction will be. The UN will probably say "Hey! Stop it! Please?"

The UN will have serious meetings, where countries like China and Russia will water down anything serious, until UN compromises by passing important resolutions which 'suggest' and 'urge' North Korea to abide by international rules. But, North Korea will keep on rejecting and thumbing its nose at all those UN resolutions. Finally, the US will do something and try to enfore those UN resolutions. And, when US does that, you'll have all these angry posters post threads about how US is destroying the UN all the while ignoring how North Korea was bitch slapping the UN around.

If it wasn't for China, I think the US would've (re)invaded NK a long time ago. So long as there isn't a direct attack, China can effectively hold back any military action against NK.

I think it was more than just China, but also how any invasion of Korean Pensula would doom South Korea. Even without the Chinese, North Korea could rain down missles on Seoul and much of South Korea and destroy large swaths of it in the intial phase of any war. Its like fighting over a Ming Vase, and destroying it in the process.

[thaite]

I think China pretty much wants just the status quo: even a standstill uneasy tension between the US and NK is better than a war in it's own backyard. China would prefer a loudmouth NK over the US gaining a stronger foothold in the Chinese sphere of influence. The problem is that NK seems to be getting louder and louder to the point the US will feel that something has to be done, and China hasn't taken enough of a leadership role to pacify NK, because, like I said, China stands to gain from the status quo.

[TB4000]

Apparantly it is confirmed.

[haplesshobo]

The problem with China's desire for the status quo was this status quo was tenuos and short-lived, predicated on NK not going nuclear. North Korea may have promised to suspend its nucelar ambitions, but sooner or later, this was going to happen. And, after today, there's no going back to the status quo.

This action has totally changed the political landscape of Asia, even the US. Before NK, the Foley headlines were going to dominate the politcal news and those salacious headlines were damaging the Rep. Now, all eyes are going to be on this, instead of Foley. And, we'll probably see the numbers for Bush and Rep. party go up since national security is considered to be Rep. party's strength.

I don't know when elections are in SK and Japan, but this news will discredit the liberals in those two countries who wanted negotiation and who had promised that NK would never go through with this.

[yoMAMA]

Greetings Dear Leader:

we get it, you have a big penis.

sincerely,

the world.

[haplesshobo]

If it wasn't for China, I think the US would've (re)invaded NK a long time ago. So long as there isn't a direct attack, China can effectively hold back any military action against NK.

Also, its only been in the past few years that NK finally scrounged up the technology to go nuclear and finally decided to go through with it. Before that, there was really no good reason to go invade NK if it also meant the mutual destruction of SK.

[LaiSteve66]

meh, nuclear proliferation is an inevitability. Sooner or later this was going to happen.

[BeTheReds]

Well hopefully there won't be a war here. That'd suck.

[LaiSteve66]

That'd suck.

Especially for you.

[Player 0]

Good for NKorea, now if only we could get Iran to do the same it'll be a big step towards world peace.

[Russ]

Unwittingly or not, this action by North Korea has just helped Bush and the Republicans by getting the Foley scandal off the front pages, imo. If NK's goal is a weak President Bush, it probably would have been smarter for it to do this test after the U.S. elections.

[VV o n g B a]

Well hopefully there won't be a war here. That'd suck.it might suck more later if there isn't one. later, everyone in asia might have nukes. u'd hope rationality would reign in that situation, but even w/ rational players, there'd still be a higher chance of nervous or itchy trigger finger mistakes.

as much as i think bush may have exaggerated the case for iraq, i think he played nk down too much. he basically sat idle and refused to negotiate while nk built nukes before his eyes. now what's he gonna do...invade a country w/ nukes?

and the chinese leadership... have they ever looked weaker? while they supply their parasite buddy w/ the stuff he needs to simply exist, here he is basically bitchslapping them.

[Hiroshi2]

If this is true, this does not directly effect the U.S. The news over here is trying to hype this up as if this going to be like another Pearl Harbor - an attack on the U.S. out of the blue from Asia. But it's not. South Korea and Japan are the ones who have something to worry about, they would be the ones who would be nuked, not us.

But seeing as how the U.S. is the world's only superpower, without a doubt we will find a way to drag ourselves into this conflict.


My question is, what do the North Koreans want? Somebody told me they just wanted food (it is a poor Communist country). They do seem to be the ones who just pop out of the blue blowing up shit when everybody's minds is focused on the Middle East.

[LaiSteve66]

My question is, what do the North Koreans want?

Survival. The bomb has deterence value. Other countries will think twice before fucking with them.

[VV o n g B a]

If this is true, this does not directly effect the U.S. .... they would be the ones who would be nuked, not us.u might say that also applied to iran and iraq. and pakistan and india. and libya, south africa, south korea, and taiwan. theoretically, none of those nations having nukes involves a direct threat to the homeland US.

and no, the korean leaders don't want food. they want security from being overthrown by outside powers. the leaders don't care much about the ppl.

[otter p.]

If this is true, this does not directly effect the U.S. The news over here is trying to hype this up as if this going to be like another Pearl Harbor - an attack on the U.S. out of the blue from Asia. But it's not. South Korea and Japan are the ones who have something to worry about, they would be the ones who would be nuked, not us.

The US gets dragged into this because of the fear that North Korea will sell nuclear technology to other countries in the same manner North Korea has a history of selling other weapons to those countries, and that nuclear arms will proliferate and spread to countries the US deem dangerous. There's a number of countries with nuclear weapons, but the feeling is that those countries are mostly responsible enough not to use them. The same can't be said if North Korea starts selling it to the highest bidder.


My question is, what do the North Koreans want? Somebody told me they just wanted food (it is a poor Communist country). They do seem to be the ones who just pop out of the blue blowing up shit when everybody's minds is focused on the Middle East.

North Korea wants to be able to threaten and extort and blackmail Japan and the rest of the world into giving them oil, food, medicine, and anything else they might need.

[thaite]

Godzilla will awaken, if they're not careful.

[BeTheReds]

North Korea just wants to be left alone. That's it! Those in power want to continue to live their privelaged life in their 1984 state. The bomb is only so that they are left alone.

[thaite]

here's (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/10/bush_made_a_big_mistake.html) a rational opinion.

[Chad]

USA doesn't do diplomacy with non-nuclear states.
Iraq was attacked and invaded on the grounds that they had WMD. DPRK probably figured they might as well have the WMD if the USA is attacking countries that don't have them.
Sadly this is really the only way for a country like DPRK to get respect from the bullies. Try to appease the bullies and they will just go further. Point a gun at their face and they might fuck off.

[Player 0]

here's (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/10/bush_made_a_big_mistake.html) a rational opinion.

And unsurprisingly a lord of fucktards now swarm around it, complaining that it's everyone's fault but Bush's, a new trend seems to be to blame the SKoreans for being 'too proud' and 'childish'.

[Hiroshi2]

Is it really that simple? Pull out the bomb so that the big bad USA won't fuck with them? Don't they have age-old beef with Japan, and more recently, South Korea? Doesn't this pose a threat to those two countries, if to nobody else? How do we know that a poor, struggling country like North Korea won't sell nukes to those jackasses in the Middle East who will stop at nothing to destroy the Jews (and America as well)?


In 2006, after 9/11, hurricane Katrina, etc. we should not limit our imagination and rule things out simply because they seem too crazy or outside the realm of possibility. One thing we should've learned from the past five years is the exact thing that people speculate might happen but say is too crazy or far-fetchted to actually happen, will eventually happen if we don't do something to stop it.


Bottom line, we should be taking this shit seriously. Find out what the hell's really going on.

[Woody]

How do we know that a poor, struggling country like North Korea won't sell nukes to those jackasses in the Middle East who will stop at nothing to destroy the Jews (and America as well)?

Syria, Yemen, UAE, Egypt, Jordan are these relatively stable Mid-East countries, 'jackasses'?!!

Is it really that simple? Pull out the bomb so that the big bad USA won't fuck with them?

It really does help a lot! What other WMD do you, or can u suggest!

One thing we should've learned from the past five years is the exact thing that people speculate might happen but say is too crazy or far-fetchted to actually happen, will eventually happen if we don't do something to stop it.

US-Messiah complex in full swing here!

Bottom line, we should be taking this shit seriously. Find out what the hell's really going on.

Humm...

How many war fronts do u suggest the US can sustain at anyone time?

[Aurutus]

I heard that China did a lot of work in trying to please NK and worked really hard to unify Korea before the 2008 olympic games in Beijing. I guess China is loosing faith in the NK government who insist in living in their old world. The nuclear test did make China very uneasy due to the proximity of NK and Beijing. China wishes a peaceful East asia more than anyone else since they have invested so much money and time on rebuilding the nation. Having a nuclear test is going to disturb the stability of the region...just wondering what would NK do next....and what's South Korea's role.

Kim Jong II's mentality is beyond hope....

[haplesshobo]

Survival. The bomb has deterence value. Other countries will think twice before fucking with them.

North Korea's nuclear bomb has nothing to do with survival or deternce value. First of all, it doesn't have the technology to couple that with a missle system that could reach the United States or even Japan. Instead, it could devastate South Korea, but North Korea doesn't need nuclear bombs to do that. It already has enough conventional missles aimed at South Korea to destroy it so I don't see how nuclear bombs provided any more deterrence. That's why the US was never going to invade North Korea anyways.

If anything, the bomb will force US hand into doing something before NK can develop missle system with nuclear bomb attached that can reach the US or before NK starts selling all this nuclear technology know how to other rogue states.

[LaiSteve66]

North Korea's nuclear bomb has nothing to do with survival or deternce value. First of all, it doesn't have the technology to couple that with a missle system that could reach the United States or even Japan. Instead, it could devastate South Korea, but North Korea doesn't need nuclear bombs to do that. It already has enough conventional missles aimed at South Korea to destroy it so I don't see how nuclear bombs provided any more deterrence. That's why the US was never going to invade North Korea anyways.


They have missiles that can reach the west coast and they shot a missile over Japan. A nuclear armed missile isn't too far off. The North Korean leadership may not agree with your assertion that the U.S. or its allies will never attack. Japan and the U.S. are hostiles who have the potential to attack and the North Koreans can never be certain these hostiles will never attack and I'm sure the notion of deterence crossed their minds when decided to build nukes. If they're not worried about being attacked, then why do they maintain such a huge army.


If anything, the bomb will force US hand into doing something before NK can develop missle system with nuclear bomb attached that can reach the US

You just said they don't have this capability. Why would they want to put a nuclear warhead on an ICBM? So they can nuke the U.S. first and then be destroyed by a U.S. retaliation? No, deterence. And if the U.S. is going to do something, they had better do it quick.

or before NK starts selling all this nuclear technology know how to other rogue states.

You have a point here. They can get into the business of selling nukes and I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding customers, however what type of response would this provoke? Would the world just sit there and say "eh, who cares if North Korea is selling nukes."? Couldn't this possibly provoke an armed response? Wouldn't it raise the need for deterence? Deterence may not be the sole motivation, but to say that North Korean nukes have no deterence value is just simply wrong.

[Hiroshi2]

Syria, Yemen, UAE, Egypt, Jordan are these relatively stable Mid-East countries, 'jackasses'?!!



Yes, the jackasses in the Middle East who are hell bent on destroying this country and everything in it. The jackasses who make no distinction between military forces and innocent civilians. And the jackasses who are sympathetic to their "cause".


Look, I realize not everybody in the Middle East is a terrorist and that there are (relatively) stable countries over there. I never said this was not true. But apparently you've already labeled me as some kind of Bush supporter or something. Trust me, I'm not.



It really does help a lot! What other WMD do you, or can u suggest!


This statement is besides the point. The point was that the idea that they're doing this so we, a percieved (and I do mean, percieved) bully will not fuck with them is, well you know..............simple minded.


It completely overlooks the fact that, if given the chance, NK would much rather attack South Korea and/or Japan since their beef with them is much deeper, not to mention both of those countries are a fraction of the size of the U.S., not to mention they're a fraction of the distance (or in the case of SK, virtually no distance at all). Again, why make such a foolish move to attack a nation that is made up of fifty diffferent governments, each of which is roughly the same size, if not larger, than your own country?



US-Messiah complex in full swing here!


Actually I believe the U.S. should stay out of as many foreign conflicts as possible. However, I also understand the basic psychology of people as well as nations. When there's one, and only one, big dog around people tend to throw shots at him cause everybody wants to bring down the champ. I believe that's a big part of the worldwide hatred for the United States. At the bottom of all of this hatred for us, is fear. Fear that we will run the world basically. And don't be surprised if many, many nations come together just to take us down. I've seen it happen with gangs on the street, it can happen in global politics and world affairs as well. The mentality is the same, it's just on a different scale.


How many war fronts do u suggest the US can sustain at anyone time?



Kind of depends on how many troops, resources, etc. are on each front, don't you think? Probably one or two would be an OK, managable number, assuming they're the same size as the one we have in Iraq.


That's about the same number we have going on right now. One in Iraq, one in Afghanistan.

[VV o n g B a]

This statement is besides the point. The point was that the idea that they're doing this so we, a percieved (and I do mean, percieved) bully will not fuck with them is, well you know..............simple minded.please elaborate as to why u think this. everything i've read about nk points to the idea that it's gov't thinks the US will initiate regime change given the chance. it has in the past pointed to bush & co. remarks about including, among other things, the axis of evil speech that bear out that belief. history has so far shown that only 1 weapon guarantees one nation not fucking w/ another nation on a large scale. so b/c they haven't been able to get the US to the bargaining table in direct talks, they up the ante in order to get the US's attention. in this respect, they did pretty well. bush apparently thinks that giving in to direct talks amounts to caving. i think that's a failed policy b/c it amounts to sitting on the sidelines while ur opponent walks in for a touchdown.
It completely overlooks the fact that, if given the chance, NK would much rather attack South Korea and/or Japan since their beef with them is much deeperi don't understand the reasoning here. do u think nk is imperialistic? why would they want to invade skorea and guarantee their own demise? the same goes for japan. there's nothing nk can do militarily against other nations in the region that won't cause their immediate demise. they're only hope of survival is peace. if u mean just a general wish to conquer other ppl and take land in a consequence free environment, wouldn't india take pakistan or the other way around? wouldn't iran take iraq? or the US take canada given half a chance? a lot of nations would take over other nations if there weren't consequences.

[haplesshobo]

You just said they don't have this capability.

Yes, and that's why I said before it can develop a missle system that can do that.

They have missiles that can reach the west coast and they shot a missile over Japan. A nuclear armed missile isn't too far off. The North Korean leadership may not agree with your assertion that the U.S. or its allies will never attack. Japan and the U.S. are hostiles who have the potential to attack and the North Koreans can never be certain these hostiles will never attack and I'm sure the notion of deterence crossed their minds when decided to build nukes. If they're not worried about being attacked, then why do they maintain such a huge army.

Actually, its a lot more difficult than you realize. Just because North Korea has missles and now has capability to detonate a nuclear bomb
doesn't necessairly mean they can then use a missle to deliver a nuclear attack onto the mainland of America.

First of all, there's the issue of how reliable their missles are in the first place. Their last test was a failure, where it ended up sputtering into the ocean. With only limited materials for nuclear weapons, you better be damn sure you hit your target. Right now, the furthest their missles could reach is Alaska, not the mainlands. And, with Alaska being so vast and empty, if you're off, then its not going to cause the damage you want.

Secondly, there's the problem of how heavy nuclear material can get, and how that makes it that much more difficult to aim the missle. You need to do further tests on the delivery system to account for that, and that's why its been so controversial when North Korea has done its tests. Its not going to be easy to make one small enough to fit on a missle, without it affecting the flight profile.

So, having all said that, North Korea's current nuclear capabilities are not really a threat to the US or Japan, but it is a threat to South Korea since you could launch it via free flight artilery onto South Korea. But, North Korea already has the capability to destroy and devastate South Korea anyways with its conventional weapons so I don't see how this is really anything more of a deterrence. The true deterrence has always been the fact that we wouldn't be able to take down the North Korean government fast enough before it unleashed all those artilery and missles at South Korea and prevent that destruction.

If anything, I think North Korea's move was less of a deterrence and more of a bargaining chip at the negotiating table where it will demand more aid and help from the international community. Now, it has greater leverage where it can threaten to export its nuclear technology unless its demands are met. But, this move has seemed to backfire on the North Koreans as it seems the countries like South Korea that had been giving aid now feel betrayed.

[yoMAMA]

If anything, I think North Korea's move was less of a deterrence and more of a bargaining chip at the negotiating table where it will demand more aid and help from the international community. Now, it has greater leverage where it can threaten to export its nuclear technology unless its demands are met. But, this move has seemed to backfire on the North Koreans as it seems the countries like South Korea that had been giving aid now feel betrayed.


what else can s korea do other than appeasement?

they are the ones having to live next door to a rogue cousin.

[LaiSteve66]

Yes, and that's why I said before it can develop a missle system that can do that.

So they might have the capability in the future to hit the U.S. is that right? Sounds like a plan to develop a nuclear deterence.

Actually, its a lot more difficult than you realize. Just because North Korea has missles and now has capability to detonate a nuclear bomb
doesn't necessairly mean they can then use a missle to deliver a nuclear attack onto the mainland of America.

First of all, there's the issue of how reliable their missles are in the first place. Their last test was a failure, where it ended up sputtering into the ocean. With only limited materials for nuclear weapons, you better be damn sure you hit your target. Right now, the furthest their missles could reach is Alaska, not the mainlands. And, with Alaska being so vast and empty, if you're off, then its not going to cause the damage you want.

Secondly, there's the problem of how heavy nuclear material can get, and how that makes it that much more difficult to aim the missle. You need to do further tests on the delivery system to account for that, and that's why its been so controversial when North Korea has done its tests. Its not going to be easy to make one small enough to fit on a missle, without it affecting the flight profile.


Despite all those shortcomings, Japan and the U.S. are still raising quite a stink about this aren't they! A bigger stink than everyone else it seems.


So, having all said that, North Korea's current nuclear capabilities are not really a threat to the US or Japan, but it is a threat to South Korea since you could launch it via free flight artilery onto South Korea. But, North Korea already has the capability to destroy and devastate South Korea anyways with its conventional weapons so I don't see how this is really anything more of a deterrence. The true deterrence has always been the fact that we wouldn't be able to take down the North Korean government fast enough before it unleashed all those artilery and missles at South Korea and prevent that destruction.


Yes this has been quite an effective deterence but I think Kim's gotten a little paranoid after being placed in the "Axis of Evil" and watching the U.S. invade Iraq despite international opinion.


If anything, I think North Korea's move was less of a deterrence and more of a bargaining chip at the negotiating table where it will demand more aid and help from the international community. Now, it has greater leverage where it can threaten to export its nuclear technology unless its demands are met.

Use it as a bargaining chip to demand more aid? Why would they want more aid? Survival perhaps?

But, this move has seemed to backfire on the North Koreans as it seems the countries like South Korea that had been giving aid now feel betrayed.

They won't use it first. Maybe now they'll finally collapse.

[haplesshobo]

what else can s korea do other than appeasement?

they are the ones having to live next door to a rogue cousin.

Oh, I don't know, South Korea could have given its aid conditional on North Korea stopping its nuclear ambititions instead of just rewarding bad behavior. South Korea could have been generous with its aid, but only on the condition if there were inspections to prevent North Korea from going nuclear.

You could make the argument that all that aid really did was allow North Korea to shift even more of its resources into developing nuclear capability. And, that this aid was able to keep North Korea from imploding, long enough for it to develop the nuclear bomb.

When you mention appeasement, let's not forget how its most infamous case, before WWII, where England rolled over as Nazi Germany swallowed up large parts of Europe.

[haplesshobo]

So they might have the capability in the future to hit the U.S. is that right? Sounds like a plan to develop a nuclear deterence. Despite all those shortcomings, Japan and the U.S. are still raising quite a stink about this aren't they! A bigger stink than everyone else it seems.

The international community has pretty much condemned North Korea, even its main benefactor, China. But, Japan's relationship with North Korea has been especially frayed after it learned that North Korea had been sending in agents and kidnapping Japanese citizens.

And, I don't know how I can this anymore clearly or simply, but how can this be considered a deterrent to an invasion when North Korea already has that same deterrence with its conventional weapons aimed at South Korea?

Yes this has been quite an effective deterence but I think Kim's gotten a little paranoid after being placed in the "Axis of Evil" and watching the U.S. invade Iraq despite international opinion.

Dude, look at the chronology of events. Bush made that comment after 9/11 in 2001. But, North Korea had already withdrawn from Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty in 93, kicked out inspectors, and was suspected by Blix to have secretly started creating weapons grade plutonium in the early 90s. We now know that in 97 that North Korea traded its missle technology with Pakistan for Pakistan's nuclear technology. That train had already left the station by the time Bush even made that comment, or invaded Iraq.

Plus, you're ignoring the fact that we went into Iraq because we knew it would be easiest to take down since we had already pretty much decimated the Iraq army after the first Gulf War. With North Korea, a military option is pretty much limited since North Korea would destroy much of South Korea, with just its conventional weapons, before we could even topple the North.


Use it as a bargaining chip to demand more aid? Why would they want more aid? Survival perhaps?


Or, they could have gotten more aid by dismantling their nuclear ambitions for one. Yes, its about survival, but only for Jung to keep his thuggish control over North Korea. North Korea could open its borders and start a process of unification, where it would get hundreds of billions of dollars from the South, but Jung would rather have his people starve to death than to give up control.

[Martino]

So they claim.

Shock horror. Axis of Evil country which repeatedly explicity stated it wants to develop a nuclear weapon and is seen to have an advanced weapons programme isn't attacked by US, whilst another Axis of Evil country which says it didn't have WMD and for which evidence had to be fabricated is attacked.

What a whacky world.

[Martino]

So they might have the capability in the future to hit the U.S. is that right? Sounds like a plan to develop a nuclear deterence.

Right.

The lessons of history is that nuclear deterrence works. The Cold War is all the proof you need. You don't attack someone who has the ability of killing tens of millions of your people.

And post 9/11, we shouldn't just be worrying about hi-tech delivery systems. If I had a nuke and a target, but didn't have a missile with the range to hit that target, I'd send it another way. A nuke being detonated from the hold of a freighter sailing into San Francisco will do the same damage as a nuke delivered by an ICBM...

[LaiSteve66]

The international community has pretty much condemned North Korea, even its main benefactor, China. But, Japan's relationship with North Korea has been especially frayed after it learned that North Korea had been sending in agents and kidnapping Japanese citizens.

And, I don't know how I can this anymore clearly or simply, but how can this be considered a deterrent to an invasion when North Korea already has that same deterrence with its conventional weapons aimed at South Korea?


Not necessarily a deterent to invasion, but an attack in general. And what the North Koreans view as deterence may not be the same as what is actually detering the U.S. and its allies. These governments do have different worldviews. The North Koreans may think they need a nuclear deterence even though in reality, they may not. They may believe that a nuke pointed at the U.S. or Japan serves a better deterence than cannons pointed at SK even though it may not. You and I know that the U.S. probably won't attack for the reasons you stated but the North Koreans may not feel the same way.


Dude, look at the chronology of events. Bush made that comment after 9/11 in 2001. But, North Korea had already withdrawn from Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty in 93, kicked out inspectors, and was suspected by Blix to have secretly started creating weapons grade plutonium in the early 90s. We now know that in 97 that North Korea traded its missle technology with Pakistan for Pakistan's nuclear technology. That train had already left the station by the time Bush even made that comment, or invaded Iraq.


So you think back in the early ninties (or earlier) when they decided to build nukes, they did it just to have something to demand more aid? If recall correctly Sung was still in power in 93 and NK didn't get all fucked up until his son took over.


Plus, you're ignoring the fact that we went into Iraq because we knew it would be easiest to take down since we had already pretty much decimated the Iraq army after the first Gulf War. With North Korea, a military option is pretty much limited since North Korea would destroy much of South Korea, with just its conventional weapons, before we could even topple the North.


Why we invaded Iraq and not NK was not the point. The North Koreans think the U.S. is out to get them and they feel threatened. They've felt this way for a very long time. Those comments by Bush and Iraq only reenforced that view and their perceived need for deterence.

Or, they could have gotten more aid by dismantling their nuclear ambitions for one. Yes, its about survival, but only for Jung to keep his thuggish control over North Korea. North Korea could open its borders and start a process of unification, where it would get hundreds of billions of dollars from the South, but Jung would rather have his people starve to death than to give up control.

And why are we having this debate?

[haplesshobo]

what else can s korea do other than appeasement?

South Korea's Sunshine Policy should have stuck to its original goal, where it provided economic assistance with repricocity or concessions from the North Koreans in return. What ended up happening was that the South Koreans provided all that aid, and North Korea didn't have to give anything in return. How are you seriously going to expect North Korea to act in a more responsible behavior, if you give it money no matter what it does? It would have been better to only give money when North Korea behaved, and stop giving money when North Korea behaved inappropriately.


So you think back in the early ninties (or earlier) when they decided to build nukes, they did it just to have something to demand more aid? If recall correctly Sung was still in power in 93 and NK didn't get all fucked up until his son took over.


Under the communism regime, the North Korean economy had been shrinking for years. But, at that point, with the collapse of the USSR, countries like North Korea and Cuba which had depended on aid from Soviet Union, took a especially big hit.

There were probably different reasons why NK went on the path to go nuclear long before 9/11 or Bush came into office:

The nuclear club is a small, elite club, where most of the members are powerful countries. By going nuclear, North Korea probably thought that that would increase its prestige in the world's eyes sorta how East Germany used to pride itself on its athletic performance in the Olympics.
And, by going nuclear, North Korea thought that it would increase its negotiating leverage on a host of other issuses. For example, if the world didn't give it aid, then North Korea could threaten to use its nuclear weapons or sell that technology to other rogue states to get the money it needed.

The irony is its debatable how much in the end trying to get nuclear weapons ended up helping North Korea's financial bottom line. It probably did to some extent, where Clinton administration made that deal that if North Korea stopped its nuclear ambition we were going to give it aid. (Some have argued that the Clinton administration only made that deal because they thought North Korea would collapse first before it could go nuclear). But, you could also argue that with all the time and money and energy North Korea put into its nuclear program, how that outweighed any aid it might have received.

The lessons of history is that nuclear deterrence works. The Cold War is all the proof you need. You don't attack someone who has the ability of killing tens of millions of your people.

No, that only works when you're dealing with rational players in that situation. Kim Il Jung with his behavior has not always struck me as the most rational or sane leader out there. I'm sorry, but kidnapping movie stars and directors because you want them to make movies for you just doesn't strike me as somebody completely rational.

And post 9/11, we shouldn't just be worrying about hi-tech delivery systems. If I had a nuke and a target, but didn't have a missile with the range to hit that target, I'd send it another way. A nuke being detonated from the hold of a freighter sailing into San Francisco will do the same damage as a nuke delivered by an ICBM...

Huh, but how much trade does the US do with North Korea? That scenario would make more sense if we were talking about a country which we traded with.

[LaiSteve66]

haplesshobo

You and I simply have different interpretations/worldviews and you've made your point. At the end of the day, neither one of us was inside the NK leadership's head.

We agree to disagree.

[yoMAMA]

north korea: the nigthmare comes to pass.

very good analysis from the economist about the current nuclear test, and what may happen if the kim regime collases...

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8028537

[yoMAMA]

No, that only works when you're dealing with rational players in that situation. Kim Il Jung with his behavior has not always struck me as the most rational or sane leader out there. I'm sorry, but kidnapping movie stars and directors because you want them to make movies for you just doesn't strike me as somebody completely rational.




Kim is perfectly rational.

he's playing the nuclear game to make sure his regime stays in power.

now, if we take away his huge porn collection.......on the other hand

[haplesshobo]

Kim is perfectly rational.

he's playing the nuclear game to make sure his regime stays in power.



He's being as perfectly rational as a petulant five year old child who throws a tantrum when you won't give him everything he wants.

And, explain how its rational that he basically ended up weakening his biggest supporters and apologists in various countries, while strengthening the hawks who want to take him down. How does that keep his regime in power, when South Korea is now going to decrease or shut down its aid to North Korea after all this.

[Faithless]

Greetings Dear Leader:

we get it, you have a big penis.

sincerely,

the world.
Why doesn't Bush just put out the assassination order on KJIL?

[LaiSteve66]

Why doesn't Bush just put out the assassination order on KJIL?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jM9Qzs9isY

[yoMAMA]

Why doesn't Bush just put out the assassination order on KJIL?

it's not easy to kill paranoid tyrants.

[yoMAMA]

baby dr. evil :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Kim-il-sung_Kim-jong-suk_Kim-jong-il.jpg

[yoMAMA]

baby dr. evil :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Kim-il-sung_Kim-jong-suk_Kim-jong-il.jpg

[haplesshobo]

now, if we take away his huge porn collection.......on the other hand

Nah, he could always go out and kidnap more young girls, some as young as 13, to be concubines as part of his harem. Or, he could send more spys and agents over into South Korea, and kidnap some more directors and actresses to film and direct any more movies he wants to produce, this time porn films to replace his porn collection.

I mean, the guy is perfectly rational- who wouldn't do whatever it takes to keep afloat his regime where he has that kind of power.

[Faithless]

baby dr. evil :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Kim-il-sung_Kim-jong-suk_Kim-jong-il.jpg

"Someday I will wipe the fuggin' smirk off of pop's face for putting me in this stupit outfit!"

Why don't dictator's learn from Saddam's mistakes. Stop being in the radar of the Bushter, when he's looking to score political points.

[Faithless]

Ye-oh! Fuck me! In a nuclear way. 30 more countries could have nukes soon (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061016/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_proliferation).

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 16, 1:55 PM ET

VIENNA, Austria - The head of the U.N. nuclear agency warned Monday that as many as 30 countries could soon have technology that would let them produce atomic weapons "in a very short time," joining the nine states known or suspected to have such arms.

Speaking at a conference on tightening controls against nuclear proliferation, Mohamed ElBaradei said more nations are "hedging their bets" by developing technology that is at the core of peaceful nuclear energy programs but could quickly be switched to making weapons.
...
Canada, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania are among nations that either have the means to produce weapons-grade uranium if they chose, could quickly build such technology, or could use plutonium waste for weaponization. All are committed non-nuclear weapons states, and no one has suggested they want to use their programs for arms.
...

[tripostrophe]

Uh oh. This can lead to nothing but bad things...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/18/urice.xml

[haplesshobo]

Uh oh. This can lead to nothing but bad things...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/18/urice.xml

Its always been US policy to defend Japan. If Japan didn't feel it could depend on the protection of the US, it could easily go nuclear and it has enough money to trigger a arms race in Asia.

[Martino]

Funny how the members of the 'nuclear club' who keep banging on about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are themselves doing virtually nothing to bring about the Treaty's main aim: total nuclear disarmament.

Instead, certain war-like countries talk about developing 'battlefield nukes' and then wonder why our enemies feel that they need nukes so bad.

It's fine and dandy the US warning North Korea about testing a nuclear device, when the US itself wont ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty... do as I say, don't do as I do?

(The British government is currently looking at proposals to replace its Trident fleet. The British Navy, one of the smallest members of the Nuclear Club, has some 200 nuclear tipped ICBMs constantly at sea, ready to launch a devastating attack against ... um ... who exactly?).

Face it folk, the world was always going to slide towards an On The Beach the scenario where untrustworthy countries (starting with Pakistan, incidently) would have their own nuclear 'deterents', simply because we wouldn't give up ours.

We've made our bed ...

[Yeahman]

Funny how the members of the 'nuclear club' who keep banging on about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are themselves doing virtually nothing to bring about the Treaty's main aim: total nuclear disarmament.

Instead, certain war-like countries talk about developing 'battlefield nukes' and then wonder why our enemies feel that they need nukes so bad.

It's fine and dandy the US warning North Korea about testing a nuclear device, when the US itself wont ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty... do as I say, don't do as I do?

(The British government is currently looking at proposals to replace its Trident fleet. The British Navy, one of the smallest members of the Nuclear Club, has some 200 nuclear tipped ICBMs constantly at sea, ready to launch a devastating attack against ... um ... who exactly?).

Face it folk, the world was always going to slide towards an On The Beach the scenario where untrustworthy countries (starting with Pakistan, incidently) would have their own nuclear 'deterents', simply because we wouldn't give up ours.

We've made our bed ...
You really think that others would not pursue nukes if the US gave up their's? Pretty naive if you ask me.


Anyway, reports indicate that the US's tough stance on the tests have worked. NK is willing to conceed to 6-party talks if the US backs off the sanctions according to reports. We'll have to wait and see how it works out.

[Martino]

You really think that others would not pursue nukes if the US gave up their's? Pretty naive if you ask me.

It can happen, if there's the political will. You think that naive? Why?

A majority of the world's states (with a few notable exceptions, i.e. Israel) signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, only to see one of the main aims of the treaty - disarmament - repeatedly ignored by those that already have nuclear weapons. This is bound to cause frustration and resentment, but there has been no great rush to join the 'nuclear club'.

Many nations have categorically stated that they will never develop nuclear weapons - including Germany, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden. Many of these countries have the capability to develop weapons, but the political will not to. One of these countries had already developed nuclear weapons and disarmed unilaterally.

If you think the aspirations of these nuclear-free states are naive, then, if you ask me, you're just being small minded and unimaginative.

[haplesshobo]

You really think that others would not pursue nukes if the US gave up their's? Pretty naive if you ask me.


I have to agree with ye11owman on this statement.

You could point to a number of states that have the technology that could produce nukes yet haven't. But, in a lot of cases, its because of the protection of the US, including america's nuclear capabilities. If the US bowed out, you'd see a lot of those states scrambling for nukes despite their categorical statement that they'll never develop nuclear weapons.

[friedfishribs]

In 1994, it came to US awareness that North Korea had an activated nuclear power plant. Whether or not this constituted a "nuclear program" was unclear, but the by-products from this reactors could certainly have been used in a nuclear weapon. This led to the Agreed Framework pact established between the Clinton Administration and the Pyongyang regime.

North Korea agreed to close its nuclear power plant in exchange for the promise of two non-nuclear reactors to make up for the equivalent loss of power, as well as supplemental energy and oil in the interim before those reactors were completed. The agreement also promised to lift the diplomatic and economic sanctions that had kept North Korea in poverty throughout the previous 40 years.

Hoping that the regime would simply collapse in on itself, the Clinton administration stalled the implementation of these agreements for 3 years, and even after that, significant funding was not underway until well into the year 2000. North Korea, lacking any independent energy sources, was plunged into darkness, relying on the often late and insufficient oil provisions. At the same time, the promised economic sanctions were not lifted and the country-side starved.

In 1999, Pyongyang warned the US that if economic and diplomatic sanctions were not lifted, they would restart their old power reactor. Once again, the US government stalled. In 2000, the South Korean president, Kim Dae-jung, acting independently of the US, ennacted the Sunshine policy with North Korea as an attempt at reconciliation. It is relevant to note that North and South Korea were divided by Western Imperialist powers following WWII, without any consultation of the Korean people. The Korean War was a civil war for unification - before US involvement escalated the conflict by pushing towards the border of China. The resulting aftermath caused the deaths of 3 million Korean soldiers and civilians, and an infrastructure which, just barely reconstructed following the brutal Japanese occupation, was once again razed to the ground.

In 2002, after the Bush administration's State of the Union address, that included the right to wage preemptive war, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted its old nuclear reactor. In 2003, after the preemptive invasion of Iraq, North Korea announced that only with "tremendous military deterrent" could it hope to prevent a similar military breach of sovereignty. "The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it.... This suggests that even the signing of a nonaggression treaty with the US would not help avert a war."

In light of all this, I only have one thing to say personally. The nuclear "crisis" in North Korea is a direct result of unilateral American military imperialism. We reap what we sow.

[Made in China]

America developed nuclear weapons. It is idiotic to relinquish ours to persuade others to give up theirs. HAHA.

In the 21st century Nuclear weapons are too danger to human life to be used in any war.