North Korea Acknowledges Having Nukes

[Galaril]

This is the first time sort of that the North Koreans have come right out and said they would no longer engage in the 6-way talks and that they now got nukes(Uranium) for defense purposes. So, what do peoepl think should be done about it? Do we go after them militarily? Let them be kind of status quo? Get the UN on it? Rely on the Chinese and our ....ahem....allies the South Koreans to push to encourage them back to 6 way talks?

N. koreans confirm having nukes. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_nuclear)

[Neon_Chaos]

Let's get WW3 started with a BANG! :mad:

[WrongWay]

It called a Nuclear Deterent.

Once a country HAS a nuclear weapon the US will gladly look the other way and even give you "Most favored Nation status"

Like a Bully, the US will only pick on the little, defenseless guys.

I would say North Korea is now home free. And it probably explains why we have been looking the other way for the last couple of years.

[gottimd]

It called a Nuclear Deterent.

Once a country HAS a nuclear weapon the US will gladly look the other way and even give you "Most favored Nation status"

Like a Bully, the US will only pick on the little, defenseless guys.

I would say North Korea is now home free.

That is the wrongway of looking at things.

But seriously, I wouldn't say they are home free to do anything they want.

[Noop]

Its not like they have ICBM's...

[Airhog]

No, but they have missles that could strike Japan. If they attacked Japan, we would be forced to defend them and invade NK

[WrongWay]

Actually, thanks to the Clinton administration they now have China's American guidance system that can circumnavigate the globe.

[PilotMan]

I have a feeling that this is still saber rattling from NK. It has been their MO in the past. Whenever they felt like they had the upper hand, they went all out to try and press the situations. This is from an article that I read this morning.





North Korea may be trying to raise the stakes while U.S. attention is focused on Iran's nuclear programs to obtain better terms in its own negotiations, analysts said.

"I believe North Korea hardened its stance because the Bush administration has eased its stance," said Noriyuki Suzuki, chief analyst at the Tokyo-based Radiopress news agency, which specializes in monitoring events in North Korea.

"North Korea is trying to win more concessions from the United States by hardening its stance," he said.

"But I think this approach will have the opposite effect to what was intended," Suzuki said.

A senior South Korean official involved in the talks hinted that the North may be using brinksmanship to try and gain the upper hand in a delicate diplomatic situation. "North Korea is using its typical harsh rhetoric, but it still makes it clear that this is not the end of the talks," the official said.






Its the same thing that they have been doing for years. I would still doubt that they had any at all, given their penchant for big talk.

[sachmo71]

Could be talk, or it could be the truth. We aren't in a position to do anything about it anyway. Well, at least alone. Any military conflict would have to be done with lots of international help.

[Fritz]

Strategy page just had 2 interesting articles related to nuclear weapons. The first one talked about the relatively short shelf life of the weapon, which keeps a nuclear power tied to refeshing the system. The second article talked about a suspected high "dud" rate for the weapons, especially true if the system has not yet been tested.

[Logan]

Actually, thanks to the Clinton administration they now have China's American guidance system that can circumnavigate the globe.

As someone completely out of the loop, would you be able to give some details about this?

[Fritz]

Actually, thanks to the Clinton administration they now have China's American guidance system that can circumnavigate the globe.

why would the north koreans attack a globe?

[JAG]

Strategy page just had 2 interesting articles related to nuclear weapons. The first one talked about the relatively short shelf life of the weapon, which keeps a nuclear power tied to refeshing the system. The second article talked about a suspected high "dud" rate for the weapons, especially true if the system has not yet been tested.

Not that we really want to test this though, right?

[PilotMan]

I don't think he was talking about the NK attaking a globe, just circumnavigating it, ya know, like Magellen.

[Dutch]

Get the UN on it?
lmao! :)

[cartman]

I'm still of the mindset that if things got really bad over there, an "accident" would be arranged. One of our tactical nukes would be smuggled in, detonated, and it would be passed off as an accident while NK was handling one of their own.

[Fritz]

Not that we really want to test this though, right?

right. I guess I am just saying that a) I don't think the NKs can produce something that goes boom when they want it to, and b) even if they can, I am not sure they can launch it.

That said, they probably have a long narrow tunnel to Tokyo they can run it down.

[Galaril]

I'm still of the mindset that if things got really bad over there, an "accident" would be arranged. One of our tactical nukes would be smuggled in, detonated, and it would be passed off as an accident while NK was handling one of their own.

Kidding right? Too many James Bond reruns my friend.

[rkmsuf]

Isn't there a point when the world will have to accept the fact that every power has nuclear capability?

I mean fine, freak out about NK but it's inevitable that countries we don't necessarily trust develop the means.

[Klinglerware]

I'm still of the mindset that if things got really bad over there, an "accident" would be arranged. One of our tactical nukes would be smuggled in, detonated, and it would be passed off as an accident while NK was handling one of their own.

Hmm... what kind of a scenario are you envisioning here? Why would we go to all the trouble to do something elaborate like that? If "things got really bad over there", I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese would take matters into their own hands. But that all depends on your definition of "things getting bad".

Seriously though, the nukes aren't such a big deal. Almost everybody considers nuclear weapons as deterrents, with limited usefulness as an offensive weapon.

[Galaril]

I have often thought that if North Korea really had become a threat and we no longer could tolerate them we might behind the scenes trade out taiwan card for North Korea with the chinese. Just a thought. I don't think we could afford a nuke war with China over Taiwan anyways and it is starting to sound like Taiwan might want to go the way of Hong Kong eventually.

[DanGarion]

If NK was to strike Japan I think they would have many more countries to worry about other then just the US.

[Surtt]

Its not like they have ICBM's...


Tenet: North Korea has ballistic missile capable of hitting U.S

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/

[Tekneek]

Maybe we will get a lot more stuff made in North Korea now...

After all, which country imports the most from China? You've got it, it's the United States. We might think they are horrible to their people, but we sure love that Made in China price. As of 2003, we get 12.5% of our imports from China (21.1% of their total exports) which was second to Canada's 17.4%. China sends 21.1% of their exports to the U.S., with Hong Kong second at 17.4% (2003).

[sachmo71]

I don't think we could afford anuke war with China over Taiwan anyways and it is starting to sound like Taiwan might want to go the way of Hong Kong eventually.

No, you are probably right. A nukewar would "probably" but unaffordable. :eek:

[Flasch186]

Im of the opinion that most advanced countries have or will have nuclear capabilities and trying to stop them is not likely to happen. We are going to have to use diplomacy to make sure that theyre never used but keeping them from having them is a fruitless and dangerous endeavor.

[sachmo71]

Im of the opinion that most advanced countries have or will have nuclear capabilities and trying to stop them is not likely to happen. We are going to have to use diplomacy to make sure that theyre never used but keeping them from having them is a fruitless and dangerous endeavor.
But we can't let countries in the Axis of Evil have them!!!!
I mean, they're evil!

[Tekneek]

Im of the opinion that most advanced countries have or will have nuclear capabilities and trying to stop them is not likely to happen.

What we must do, though, is "liberate" the non-advanced countries that make any attempt to acquire that technology. From what I have read, the State Department thinks North Korea will sell anything to anyone. If that doesn't pose a clear risk to the United States and the rest of the world, I don't know if anything does.

[Flasch186]

What we must do, though, is "liberate" the non-advanced countries that make any attempt to acquire that technology. From what I have read, the State Department thinks North Korea will sell anything to anyone. If that doesn't pose a clear risk to the United States and the rest of the world, I don't know if anything does.

So then the admin. is lying when it says that there are no plans to invade NK? So then NK is right in trying to deter us from invading by pursuing their nuclear goals?

[Noop]

If they want to get into a nuclear throwing contest with the U.S. then so be it. If they strike us first I wouldn't be surprised if we used enough to wipe out more then 2/3 of their population. Including going after all their politcal leaders.

[rkmsuf]

Tell me why this is the land of confusion.


http://img221.exs.cx/img221/8161/genloc1ud.jpg

[I. J. Reilly]

If only we had some sort of system that would blow up incoming missles with a laser or something.
*sigh*

[sachmo71]

If they want to get into a nuclear throwing contest with the U.S. then so be it. If they strike us first I wouldn't be surprised if we used enough to wipe out more then 2/3 of their population. Including going after all their politcal leaders.
Kim has a long way to go, and a lot of bombs to buy, if he wants to get on the MAD train with the US.

However, if for some unknown reason he did launch a nuke at a US city, it's highly doubtful that we would unleash a full on barrage at them, unless the president could justify revenge as being a factor. That and pissing on a Chinese ant hill...

[Surtt]

If they want to get into a nuclear throwing contest with the U.S. then so be it. If they strike us first I wouldn't be surprised if we used enough to wipe out more then 2/3 of their population. Including going after all their politcal leaders.

I really don't care about North Korea enough to trade LA for it.

But, if he has a missle aimed at Redmond........

[Flasch186]

If only we had some sort of system that would blow up incoming missles with a laser or something.
*sigh*

attached to a shark

[dunkem]

The Bush administration is a bunch of hypocrites. We launch an attack in a country LOOKING for weapons of mass destruction while we have no intentions of launching one in a country that ADMITS to having weapons of mass destruction. You bet we're being a bully and picking on the little guys.

This is why I'm saddened to see our troops dying in Iraq over some b.s. cause. Unfortunately all of this fighting for our freedom stuff in Iraq is all just an excuse to increase military spending. If our president really believed in all the excuses he's pushing on us Americans, his stance against North Korea would need to echo that of Iraq.

[Arles]

The Bush administration is a bunch of hypocrites. We launch an attack in a country LOOKING for weapons of mass destruction while we have no intentions of launching one in a country that ADMITS to having weapons of mass destruction. You bet we're being a bully and picking on the little guys.

This is why I'm saddened to see our troops dying in Iraq over some b.s. cause. Unfortunately all of this fighting for our freedom stuff in Iraq is all just an excuse to increase military spending. If our president really believed in all the excuses he's pushing on us Americans, his stance against North Korea would need to echo that of Iraq.
I love this answer: "We invaded Iraq, so now must invade everyone else that's bad to be consistent" (imagine a "Nanny-nanny boo-boo" in the background).

My response to this line of thinking is fairly simple: the moment that North Korea launches multiple attacks on its neighbors, systematically slaughters its own people, shows no progress with diplomatic means over a decade and violates over a dozen UN resolutions related to aggression and weapons development, I agree that we should invade. But, until that point, I see no reason why we should leap to that conclusion with exausting other means.

The first rule in diplomacy (which could involve military action) is to tailor your methods to each individual situation. Think of world diplomacy as a big toolbox. The solution to every problem is not a hammer. It could be a socket wrench, screwdriver or even a small amount of electric tape.

[Glengoyne]

...

Think of world diplomacy as a big toolbox. The solution to every problem is not a hammer. It could be a socket wrench, screwdriver or even a small amount of electric tape.
Come on. This is North Korea we are talking about. We're going to at least need Duct Tape.

[Surtt]

My response to this line of thinking is fairly simple: the moment that North Korea launches multiple attacks on its neighbors, systematically slaughters its own people, shows no progress with diplomatic means over a decade and violates over a dozen UN resolutions related to aggression and weapons development, I agree that we should invade. But, until that point, I see no reason why we should leap to that conclusion with exausting other means.



Korea has been doing this for over 50 years now

It was called the Korean War,
which technically hasn't ended yet, there is no peace treaty only a case fire.

The KIm dynasty is infamous for its human rights violations.
And I would say developing nuclear weapons violate a few UN resolutions.

[Easy Mac]

I love this answer: "We invaded Iraq, so now must invade everyone else that's bad to be consistent" (imagine a "Nanny-nanny boo-boo" in the background).

My response to this line of thinking is fairly simple: the moment that North Korea launches multiple attacks on its neighbors, systematically slaughters its own people, shows no progress with diplomatic means over a decade and violates over a dozen UN resolutions related to aggression and weapons development, I agree that we should invade. But, until that point, I see no reason why we should leap to that conclusion with exausting other means.

The first rule in diplomacy (which could involve military action) is to tailor your methods to each individual situation. Think of world diplomacy as a big toolbox. The solution to every problem is not a hammer. It could be a socket wrench, screwdriver or even a small amount of electric tape.
They've been starving and murdering their own people for decades, has spurned any diplomatic talks, thrown out weapons inspectors and violated non-proliferation treaties... so I don't really see the difference.

[Glengoyne]

They've been starving and murdering their own people for decades, has spurned any diplomatic talks, thrown out weapons inspectors and violated non-proliferation treaties... so I don't really see the difference.
North Korea wouldn't millitarilly be a walk in the park to overthrow. I think it would be foolish to not include that criteria as making a difference.

[Surtt]

North Korea wouldn't millitarilly be a walk in the park to overthrow. I think it would be foolish to not include that criteria as making a difference.


That is the problem, isn't it.

[Easy Mac]

North Korea wouldn't millitarilly be a walk in the park to overthrow. I think it would be foolish to not include that criteria as making a difference.
That wasn't a criteria in the posts listed before me. I think the far larger thing is that in one corner (Iraq) there are terrorists while in the other corner (North Korea) there is China... As many people as terrorists can hurt, I would think China has the ability to do far worse. The chances of China saying "sure, feel free to handle this" is far lower than Saudi Arabia doing the same.

However, I also don't think the size of the army equates to its strength. I know NK has one of the larger world armies, but we don't know if they're strong or just numerous. It's also fairly well isolated, as China probably wouldn't let us base there, who knows what SK will do, and Japan may also say no if they fear SK would shoot nukes at them in retaliation (unless they think it is inevitable anyway).

But I also don't have any real grasp on military or international happings, only an offhand knowledge from old classroom memories (and even then I was half asleep)

[Coffee Warlord]

Problem isn't North Korea. We could level the country in a few months of gloves-off invasion. Problem is China bitchslapping those who fuck with North Korea.

[Solecismic]

I'd like to sit back and let China, Japan and South Korea handle this one. In fact, I'd like the US to withdraw entirely from that area of the world.

Not to be an isolationist, but since China shows signs of wanting superpower responsibility, I think it would make the world more stable to give them that responsibility. We're never going to have any peace until we stop trying to be the entire world's police.

China has changed so much in the last ten years alone. Why can't we acknowledge that and trust that they don't want to take over the world any more than we do?

[Dutch]

The Bush administration is a bunch of hypocrites. We launch an attack in a country LOOKING for weapons of mass destruction while we have no intentions of launching one in a country that ADMITS to having weapons of mass destruction. You bet we're being a bully and picking on the little guys.

This is why I'm saddened to see our troops dying in Iraq over some b.s. cause. Unfortunately all of this fighting for our freedom stuff in Iraq is all just an excuse to increase military spending. If our president really believed in all the excuses he's pushing on us Americans, his stance against North Korea would need to echo that of Iraq.
I am stunned that it took 36 posts to get to the "IT'S ALL GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT!" post. The bloggers are slippin'... :)

[I. J. Reilly]

China has changed so much in the last ten years alone. Why can't we acknowledge that and trust that they don't want to take over the world any more than we do?
One of the biggest changes that China has made is to move away from the mindset that international presence only comes shows of military might. They are much more concerned with growing their trade surplus then proving to the world that they can make the North Koreans heel.

[Dutch]

I'd like to sit back and let China, Japan and South Korea handle this one. In fact, I'd like the US to withdraw entirely from that area of the world.

Not to be an isolationist, but since China shows signs of wanting superpower responsibility, I think it would make the world more stable to give them that responsibility. We're never going to have any peace until we stop trying to be the entire world's police.

China has changed so much in the last ten years alone. Why can't we acknowledge that and trust that they don't want to take over the world any more than we do?
I would love to see us walk out of Korea. From what I can tell in the media, most of South Korea does not trust us and even hates us. Let's pack up and leave.

[cartman]

I'd like to sit back and let China, Japan and South Korea handle this one. In fact, I'd like the US to withdraw entirely from that area of the world.

Not to be an isolationist, but since China shows signs of wanting superpower responsibility, I think it would make the world more stable to give them that responsibility. We're never going to have any peace until we stop trying to be the entire world's police.

China has changed so much in the last ten years alone. Why can't we acknowledge that and trust that they don't want to take over the world any more than we do?

The way that it's going, with our ever increasing budget deficits, the only country that has enough surplus cash to buy that debt is China. Currently Japan is the biggest buyer of US government debt instruments, but they are being caught quickly by the Chinese.

So instead of taking us on with armed forces, they are simply gonna let us spend our way into subservience.

[sachmo71]

Problem isn't North Korea. We could level the country in a few months of gloves-off invasion. Problem is China bitchslapping those who fuck with North Korea.

We would need quite an expansion of combat power in the region to even come close to this outcome.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm


But I agree that China would frown on any military action on our part.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Anyone have a link or past articles about how fast NK Army will be in Seoul if anything breaks out? I have heard from 5 days to 3 -7 hrs.

[sachmo71]

Anyone have a link or past articles about how fast NK Army will be in Seoul if anything breaks out? I have heard from 5 days to 3 -7 hrs.
It all depends, but they have a lot of combat power allocated to the mission, and Seoul isn't far from the DMZ.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I read somewhere that North Korea has been sneaking sappers and covert ops agents into South Korea for decades now to wait for D-DAY, where they will create havoc etc across the countryside. Sounds far fetched but Ive heard it from many sources.

[Coffee Warlord]

We would need quite an expansion of combat power in the region to even come close to this outcome.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm


Oh absolutely. S'why I said 'gloves-off'. By that I meant a massive contingent of troops, arms, etc, etc, etc shuffled over. I think it safe to say that weapons and plans have long since been built/designed to counter NK's defenses. It'd be pricey, it'd probably involve some WW2-esque industry retooling, but I have no doubts a full fledged assault would theoretically work.

Now, in the real world of course. Political suicide on both a national and global scale, and responses by several nations would stop it before it started.

Makes me wish a GOOD version of that one computer game existed. (Forget the name, the horribly horribly buggy global strategy game, and it's horribly horribly buggy sequel.)

[Bearcat729]

Makes me wish a GOOD version of that one computer game existed. (Forget the name, the horribly horribly buggy global strategy game, and it's horribly horribly buggy sequel.)


Superpower?

[Galaril]

I read somewhere that North Korea has been sneaking sappers and covert ops agents into South Korea for decades now to wait for D-DAY, where they will create havoc etc across the countryside. Sounds far fetched but Ive heard it from many sources.

Having lived here for over 11 years and worked for both the US and Korean governments over 10,000 "sleeper agents" si widely accepted as a fact here. And an attack from North korea initial would start would a barrage of there some 9,000 atrillery pieces and short-mid range missile systems pulverizing targets in the south.

[Galaril]

I am stunned that it took 36 posts to get to the "IT'S ALL GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT!" post. The bloggers are slippin'... :)

Yeah south koreans at least the under 45 crowd has really become the definition of ingrates. They fucking HATE the US and Americans especially the military.They think we are the enemy not the North.http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501280038.html

[judicial clerk]

I say we nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

[Buccaneer]

Having lived here for over 11 years and worked for both the US and Korean governments over 10,000 "sleeper agents" si widely accepted as a fact here. And an attack from North korea initial would start would a barrage of there some 9,000 atrillery pieces and short-mid range missile systems pulverizing targets in the south.
I hope one of them is not head of Kang Enterprises.

[lighthousekeeper]

I have what's probably a naive question: Why is the US upset that NK has nukes? Doesn't our government also possess nukes? I guess from my naive perspective I don't see why other countries can't have them if we can. BUt maybe I'm stupid and we destroyed all our nukes after the cold war (?)

[Dutch]

I have what's probably a naive question: Why is the US upset that NK has nukes? Doesn't our government also possess nukes? I guess from my naive perspective I don't see why other countries can't have them if we can. BUt maybe I'm stupid and we destroyed all our nukes after the cold war (?)I see what you are saying. But what's your point? Are you suggesting that the USA should dismantle all of it's nuclear weapons first AND then fight the good fight against crazed dictators with nuclear weapons?

That doesn't sound the least bit daffy to you?

[ISiddiqui]

I see what you are saying. But what's your point?
I think his point is who cares. Not like North Korea is going to use the nukes or try to invade South Korea (doing so would make sure that China abandons its support for the DPRK).

[Dutch]

I think his point is who cares. Not like North Korea is going to use the nukes or try to invade South Korea (doing so would make sure that China abandons its support for the DPRK).I tend to agree, but madmen tend to do things we wouldn't expect. In this day and age of suicidal bombers and going out with a bang, why do you trust him so much with that sort of power?

But another concern we should have is North Korea's very real import/export business. We make fun of the label "Axis of Evil", but North Korea has been caught exporting illegal missle parts to Syria and Iran, maybe Yemen/Iraq, illegally importing nuclear material from China/Russia--you have to wonder if the only thing that concerns this man is the price. Not to mention that much of Libya's dismantled nuclear program is more than likely traced back to North Korea. (Libya would not have dismantled that program if the USA didn't care, btw.)

But we should dismantle our nukes before we are allowed to deal with this guy? The logic is senseless...but very partisan.

[Crapshoot]

I tend to agree, but madmen tend to do things we wouldn't expect. In this day and age of suicidal bombers and going out with a bang, why do you trust him so much with that sort of power?

But another concern we should have is North Korea's very real import/export business. We make fun of the label "Axis of Evil", but North Korea has been caught exporting illegal missle parts to Syria and Iran, maybe Yemen/Iraq, illegally importing nuclear material from China/Russia--you have to wonder if the only thing that concerns this man is the price. Not to mention that much of Libya's dismantled nuclear program is more than likely traced back to North Korea. (Libya would not have dismantled that program if the USA didn't care, btw.)

But we should dismantle our nukes before we are allowed to deal with this guy? The logic is senseless...but very partisan.

I dont agree with the logic about making the Americans dismantle (the door has closed on a non-nuclear earth a long time ago, and it would be inane for the Americans to give up their stockpile) but in the history of nuclear warfare, only one country has seen fit to use it - to argue that it is the best person to trust is somewhat debatable at best.

[Dutch]

I dont agree with the logic about making the Americans dismantle (the door has closed on a non-nuclear earth a long time ago, and it would be inane for the Americans to give up their stockpile) but in the history of nuclear warfare, only one country has seen fit to use it - to argue that it is the best person to trust is somewhat debatable at best.
The history of nuclear warfare? We dropped those bombs about a week after our first test. I don't think we fully understood how dangerous those weapons are.

Howerver, today I think it's fair to say we do. We've had nuclear capability for 60 years and have fought quite a bit since then and haven't utilized nuclear weapons in an offensive manner. We go through GREAT lengths to secure these items, as had the Soviet Union and China among others.

But here we have a guy who is pissed off at everybody, armed to the teeth with little regard towards making the quality of life of his people better, selling off everything and anything on the black market...and....it's Bush's fault. I'm not going to win this am I? :)

[Tekneek]

So then the admin. is lying when it says that there are no plans to invade NK? So then NK is right in trying to deter us from invading by pursuing their nuclear goals?

I never suggested they were making invasion plans, although I would be stunned if there were not existing strategies on file at the Pentagon to deal with a North Korea that flies off the handle (if it were to happen today we would have a tough time beefing up our forces over there because they are too busy in two other countries, unfortunately). The State Department is concerned about North Korea selling the technology they already have. This is widely documented. There is a chance they are completely wrong about it, though, just like they were on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction."

[Flasch186]

I never suggested they were making invasion plans, although I would be stunned if there were not existing strategies on file at the Pentagon to deal with a North Korea that flies off the handle (if it were to happen today we would have a tough time beefing up our forces over there because they are too busy in two other countries, unfortunately). The State Department is concerned about North Korea selling the technology they already have. This is widely documented. There is a chance they are completely wrong about it, though, just like they were on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction."


my point though is that to NK they have a point that we validate each and every week. They say, "The US is going to invade us!!" and we say no we are not....but in the meantime we say that actions could be coming their way if they dont stop it, and say that their evil, and then invade Iraq (whom we lumped into the same group as NK)....so OF COURSE they are going to start deterring us. I assume that they are scared shitless and according to our track record they should be.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I never suggested they were making invasion plans, although I would be stunned if there were not existing strategies on file at the Pentagon to deal with a North Korea that flies off the handle (if it were to happen today we would have a tough time beefing up our forces over there because they are too busy in two other countries, unfortunately). The State Department is concerned about North Korea selling the technology they already have. This is widely documented. There is a chance they are completely wrong about it, though, just like they were on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction."

We need to re incarnate Gen McArthur and ldrive em back to The Talu River. The rest would take care of itself.

[CamEdwards]

the last story about north korea that i saw before this one had to do with the NK's trying to get "Team America: World Police" banned in Prague.

I'm thinking those missiles are headed straight for Trey and Matt's houses.

[Arles]

my point though is that to NK they have a point that we validate each and every week. They say, "The US is going to invade us!!" and we say no we are not....but in the meantime we say that actions could be coming their way if they dont stop it, and say that their evil, and then invade Iraq (whom we lumped into the same group as NK)....so OF COURSE they are going to start deterring us. I assume that they are scared shitless and according to our track record they should be.
I think that if all countries think they will be treated the same as Iraq (invaded neighbors, slaughter their own people and violated dozens of UN resolution in the last 15 years), they are not being realistic in their expectations. While North Korea may talk a big game, last I checked they've been pretty docile over the past 20 years from a stance of actions towards other countries and overall aggression. There is no reason for anyone to think that a combination of pressure by China, Japan and the US will not be enough to handle this.

Heck, if Iraq had a nearby neighbor with the regional respect that a China or Japan had pursuading them to not attack Kuwait back in 90, maybe all of this could have been avoided with any war. Again, the people that paint the situation in Iraq and North Korea with the same brush are just not looking at all the facts. Instead, they are cherry picking info to help fit an agenda of bashing the policies of the US.

[Klinglerware]

We need to re incarnate Gen McArthur and ldrive em back to The Talu River. The rest would take care of itself.

And remember what happened the last time the North Koreans were driven to the Yalu? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Dutch]

I think that if all countries think they will be treated the same as Iraq (invaded neighbors, slaughter their own people and violated dozens of UN resolution in the last 15 years), they are not being realistic in their expectations. While North Korea may talk a big game, last I checked they've been pretty docile over the past 20 years from a stance of actions towards other countries and overall aggression. There is no reason for anyone to think that a combination of pressure by China, Japan and the US will not be enough to handle this.

Heck, if Iraq had a nearby neighbor with the regional respect that a China or Japan had pursuading them to not attack Kuwait back in 90, maybe all of this could have been avoided with any war. Again, the people that paint the situation in Iraq and North Korea with the same brush are just not looking at all the facts. Instead, they are cherry picking info to help fit an agenda of bashing the policies of the US.
On top of that, the left-wing anti-bush blogger crowd buy this argument because they repeat "axis of evil" over and over and over again. Yet, strangely, the US has stated for 4 years now that they believe we should have a course of diplomacy to solve this. And that the US has led efforts to allow regional countries a say in these diplomatic efforts and the road block has been by North Korea, not the USA.

But the bloggers will believe what they want.

[Tekneek]

the last story about north korea that i saw before this one had to do with the NK's trying to get "Team America: World Police" banned in Prague.

Cam, why do they care if people in the Czech Republic get to see that movie?

[Flasch186]

I think that if all countries think they will be treated the same as Iraq (invaded neighbors, slaughter their own people and violated dozens of UN resolution in the last 15 years), they are not being realistic in their expectations. While North Korea may talk a big game, last I checked they've been pretty docile over the past 20 years from a stance of actions towards other countries and overall aggression. There is no reason for anyone to think that a combination of pressure by China, Japan and the US will not be enough to handle this.

Heck, if Iraq had a nearby neighbor with the regional respect that a China or Japan had pursuading them to not attack Kuwait back in 90, maybe all of this could have been avoided with any war. Again, the people that paint the situation in Iraq and North Korea with the same brush are just not looking at all the facts. Instead, they are cherry picking info to help fit an agenda of bashing the policies of the US.


BUT in NK they view it from the other side of the looking glass and from where they sit (government wise) Im sure they view their fears as legitimate....we may be able to rationalize our side but the reason theyre building their arsenal, in their view, is fear of us.

[Dutch]

BUT in NK they view it from the other side of the looking glass and from where they sit (government wise) Im sure they view their fears as legitimate....we may be able to rationalize our side but the reason theyre building their arsenal, in their view, is fear of us.
Kind of like how Mexico, Canada, and Namibia are hard at work building Nuclear weapons and starving their people to do it....to protect themselves from the evil USA. :rolleyes:

[Flasch186]

Kind of like how Mexico, Canada, and Namibia are hard at work building Nuclear weapons and starving their people to do it....to protect themselves from the evil USA. :rolleyes:

Theyre not dictatorships, stay with Apples and Ill talk apples, would you like to switch to oranges.

Are you trying to say that from the NK leader's point of view he has nothing to worry about considering Bush's inauguration speech? C'mon, thats naive.

[Tekneek]

Kind of like how Mexico, Canada, and Namibia are hard at work building Nuclear weapons and starving their people to do it....to protect themselves from the evil USA. :rolleyes:

Are they part of the "Axis of Evil?" Were they pointed out as an "outpost of Tyranny" by the Secretary of State recently? Just wondering, since you lump them all together and compare them to North Korea.

[Anthony]

I'd like to sit back and let China, Japan and South Korea handle this one. In fact, I'd like the US to withdraw entirely from that area of the world.

Not to be an isolationist, but since China shows signs of wanting superpower responsibility, I think it would make the world more stable to give them that responsibility. We're never going to have any peace until we stop trying to be the entire world's police.

China has changed so much in the last ten years alone. Why can't we acknowledge that and trust that they don't want to take over the world any more than we do?

I agree 154% with this. if they wanna eat at the big boy's table then give them some big boy chores.

[Dutch]

Are they part of the "Axis of Evil?" Were they pointed out as an "outpost of Tyranny" by the Secretary of State recently? Just wondering, since you lump them all together and compare them to North Korea.What I am saying is that North Korea made the bed they are lying in, not the US. Mexico, Canada, and every other responsible nation are completely relevant to the discussion for comparison's sake.

[Galaril]

I came across this article, in the local paper here in Korea. It is offers something regardless, of if you are Democrat or Republican could be agreed upon. I for one think after all these years (10) of negotiating with the North that this is the best idea.

More than two years of negotiation have proven futile. An alternative, military force, is an option that nobody in any capital wants because it would cause unspeakable death and destruction. Perhaps it is time for the United States to adopt a third option, which would be to disengage itself completely from the Korean Peninsula.

Link (http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2005/02/18/200502180012.asp)

[Desnudo]

Theyre not dictatorships, stay with Apples and Ill talk apples, would you like to switch to oranges.

Are you trying to say that from the NK leader's point of view he has nothing to worry about considering Bush's inauguration speech? C'mon, thats naive.

If I were a Cognac-guzzling nut who has no right to be running a fruit stand, nevermind a nuclear country, I definitely would be worried.

[Dutch]

I came across this article, in the local paper here in Korea. It is offers something regardless, of if you are Democrat or Republican could be agreed upon. I for one think after all these years (10) of negotiating with the North that this is the best idea.



Link (http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2005/02/18/200502180012.asp)I personally do not see the importance of South Korea. But I do see the importance of keeping the spread of nuclear arms under control. Let's face it, it's the worst virus the Earth could have. Kyoto can't fix what nuclear war will create. We can blame the US or Germany for it's invention all we want, but the reality is that it's here.

The responsible thing now is to not be "politically correct" and turn away from every little warring nation that wants it because we have it. Screw the idea that it would make us hypocrites. Who cares.

If the choice is being a hypocrite or being responsible, I hope the worlds powers take control of these situations and correct them.

The nuclear bomb was invented in order to kill people. Kill lots of people.

What should we do about it?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I just pray that terror like that would never be unleashed again. I'm feeling tat one of these days though....