Unfortunately the decision to invade Iraq after Bush named "the Axis of Evil" would scare the remaining countries. NK is a very mountainous and tactically inhospitable terrian, with over 1 million soldiers ready to defend against an invasion, if the US had the troops.
The problem with a nuke attack is as soon as fallout began falling on China or Russia, who would more than likely retailate against the US and you can bet that they have enough nukes that can take out the whole east or west coasts. So you can't do that.
Simply it is attempting to open dialogue with NK and bring it back to the civilised world, while prehaps sending people into the country to ferment a coup.
The situation is a continuation of the US policy of punishing Communist countries, the more they get backed into a corner the more reason for them to do extreme things.
Draw them close and then us the CIA to help the people usurp Kim. I know you have sucked at it in the past but it is the only reasonable option.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- North Korea tested a nuke
North Korea tested a nukeFollow
Jophiel wrote:
I chose not to answer it because I was too busy laughing at you.
Heh. Good excuse!
Quote:
I didn't argue about Git or Ambrya or anything else. I pointed out a statement you had made and noted that it was inaccurate. That you chose to start going on about the "direct quotes" and "forest for the trees" and whatnot instead of saying "Yeah, I was wrong on that point" is typical.
Not really. "Typical" would involve me going step by step through the argument Neph was having about how it is unfair to critisize the Bush administration's policies toward's NK without presenting an alternative "solution", and you responding to that with your clever quip about Bush's "axis of evil" statement not working. I'd then point out that since you made this statement in direct response to Neph's, that this meant that you intended it to be exactly an example of why it is legitimate to blame Bush for the current status of NK's nuclear program (else why mention it in response to his statement?).
I'd have done that, but I was *trying* to be brief and to the point. I only needed *one* example of someone blaming Bush, so I felt no need to elaborate on the more contexual "axis of evil" comment.
But hey. If you want to bring the wrath of the Nobby upon us all, be my guest... :)
On a somewhat unrelated tack, what I find most amusing about the entire NK nuclear thing, is how it shows how the critics seem to always find what's "wrong" with the current plan, regardless of how inconsistent that may be in a broader sense. With Iraq we're blamed for ignoring the international community as a whole and "going it alone". In NK, however, the same voices attack the decision to stick with the six party talks and insist that we should deal with NK directly...
Dunno. I just find it interesting. The only consistency seems to be to always insist that if we'd done the "other thing", it would have worked better. That's great and all, but isn't that a safe bet? You can never be proven wrong...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
I'd have done that, but I was *trying* to be brief and to the point.
If this is true, then NK and any Axis of Evil that may be out there are the least of our worries.
gbaji wrote:
On a somewhat unrelated tack, what I find most amusing about the entire NK nuclear thing, is how it shows how the critics seem to always find what's "wrong" with the current plan, regardless of how inconsistent that may be in a broader sense. With Iraq we're blamed for ignoring the international community as a whole and "going it alone". In NK, however, the same voices attack the decision to stick with the six party talks and insist that we should deal with NK directly...
I thought the criticism was more like: "If you're 'going it alone' against Iraq because they had WMD's, why aren't you 'going it alone' against North Korea and Iran, too?"
So a dirt poor country with no money and a madman at the helm can build a nuclear weapon in under 20 years. How fast could an oil rich country with a madman at the helm have done it? Or still do it, in the case of Iran?
gbaji wrote:
I'd then point out that since you made this statement in direct response to Neph's, that this meant that you intended it to be exactly an example of why it is legitimate to blame Bush for the current status of NK's nuclear program (else why mention it in response to his statement?).
gbaji wrote:
With Iraq we're blamed for ignoring the international community as a whole and "going it alone". In NK, however, the same voices attack the decision to stick with the six party talks and insist that we should deal with NK directly.
In Korea, an invasion was never an option. We were trying to resolve the issue diplomatically and, at the same time, refusing to engage in the diplomatic talks that the target nation desired. Former U.S. National Security Advisor Donald Gregg phrased the problem with this better than I could:
Donald Gregg wrote:
Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends -- a huge mistake.
The CNS wrote:
Pyongyang has demanded bilateral negotiations with the United States, but the Bush administration flatly rejects them as "a concession" or "rewarding bad behavior." Bilateral and multilateral negotiations are not mutually exclusive, but the Bush administration has viewed the two options as a zero-sum proposition. In fact, they are complementary because they would bring North Korea back to the negotiating table at little or no cost to the U.S., and they would also increase the prospects for the institutionalization of the six-party framework for dealing with a number of other regional issues after settling the North Korean nuclear problem.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Just for info:
USA:
- Number of Long-range nuclear weapons: 5948
- Number of short-range nuclear weapons (for the Mexicuns): 1120
Total: 7068.
Russia:
- Long-range: 4852
- Short-range: 3380
Total: 8232
Other countries have them in the hundreds (UK has 185 LR and 0 SR, France has 348 LR and 0 SR, China has 282 LR and 120 SR)) or in the tens (Pakistan and India).
Why countries need thousands of nuclear weapons is beyond me. And we are all supposed to reduce them under the NPT. Another side of the bargain we havent kept.
The most worrying, however, are the countries that are believed to have nuclear reactors capable of making material needed for a nuclear bomb. Amongst those are nasty places like Algeria, incredibly poor ones like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Bangladesh, and slightly dodgy ones (security-wise) like Ukraine, Turkey, Colombia, Indonesia, and Egypt.
Not cool.
Let's just hope that, for once, we won't have to wait until a global catastrophy before doing something about it. And I don't mean just the US, but the whole of the international community.
USA:
- Number of Long-range nuclear weapons: 5948
- Number of short-range nuclear weapons (for the Mexicuns): 1120
Total: 7068.
Russia:
- Long-range: 4852
- Short-range: 3380
Total: 8232
Other countries have them in the hundreds (UK has 185 LR and 0 SR, France has 348 LR and 0 SR, China has 282 LR and 120 SR)) or in the tens (Pakistan and India).
Why countries need thousands of nuclear weapons is beyond me. And we are all supposed to reduce them under the NPT. Another side of the bargain we havent kept.
The most worrying, however, are the countries that are believed to have nuclear reactors capable of making material needed for a nuclear bomb. Amongst those are nasty places like Algeria, incredibly poor ones like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Bangladesh, and slightly dodgy ones (security-wise) like Ukraine, Turkey, Colombia, Indonesia, and Egypt.
Not cool.
Let's just hope that, for once, we won't have to wait until a global catastrophy before doing something about it. And I don't mean just the US, but the whole of the international community.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Just for info:
USA:
- Number of Long-range nuclear weapons: 5948
- Number of short-range nuclear weapons (for theMexicuns Canadiuns): 1120
Total: 7068.
USA:
- Number of Long-range nuclear weapons: 5948
- Number of short-range nuclear weapons (for the
Total: 7068.
Fixed for accuracy. You get that from Wiki or sumtin'?
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist's 2006 Report wrote:
As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads. Approximately 4,225 additional warheads are held in the reserve or inactive stockpiles, some of which will be dismantled. Under plans announced by the Energy Department in June 2004 (and possibly revised in spring 2005), some 4,365 warheads are scheduled to be retired for dismantlement by 2012 (see Nuclear Notebook, September/October 2004). This would leave approximately 5,945 warheads in the operational and reserve stockpiles in 2012, including the 1,700-2,200 "operationally deployed" strategic warheads specified in the 2002 Moscow Treaty or Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
BoAS wrote:
France currently has two nuclear weapons systems: submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) carried by nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and medium-range air-to-surface missiles carried by Mirage 2000N and Super Étendard aircraft. [1] Fifteen years ago, it had four additional systems that have now been removed from service. France retired, and presumably disassembled, the 175 warheads associated with these systems.
Though France is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is bound by Article VI's goal of nuclear disarmament, it shows no signs of giving up its remaining ******** Instead, it is making plans to develop, procure, and deploy new nuclear weapons, and to maintain its existing ******* without nuclear testing, for years to come.
Though France is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is bound by Article VI's goal of nuclear disarmament, it shows no signs of giving up its remaining ******** Instead, it is making plans to develop, procure, and deploy new nuclear weapons, and to maintain its existing ******* without nuclear testing, for years to come.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jawbox wrote:
Fixed for accuracy. You get that from Wiki or sumtin'?
From today's Independent. But the link on the website was pay only, so I had to type it all out. Oh, the things I wouldn't do for my favourites asylumites!
Joph wrote:
The time to invade France is now!
Yep. And if you don't, we'll blow up some more fishies in the Pacific! HA!
Having said that, when the war in Afghanistan started, we sent out the "pride of the nation" we know as the "Charles-de-Gaulle" aircraft carrier. A beautiful, new, deadly, and state-of-the-art plane carrier.
It arrived three weeks after major combat operations had ended.
So yeah... Watch out!
Quote:
Having said that, when the war in Afghanistan started, we sent out the "pride of the nation" we know as the "Charles-de-Gaulle" aircraft carrier. A beautiful, new, deadly, and state-of-the-art plane carrier.
It arrived three weeks after major combat operations had ended.
So yeah... Watch out!
It arrived three weeks after major combat operations had ended.
So yeah... Watch out!
It would have arrived on time, but the croissants got stale and they had to turn back to resupply.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
It would have arrived on time, but the croissants got stale and they had to turn back to resupply.
Well, we couldn't arrive in Afghanistan without croissants!
We have a reputation to uphold...
Quote:
NK is a very mountainous and tactically inhospitable terrian, with over 1 million soldiers ready to defend against an invasion, if the US had the troops.
I dunno, you don't think those soldiers would turn at the first sign of a real meal? These people are starving.
Ok, so I haven't been following this thread much and I apologize if this has already been addressed but...How would having one on one diplomatic talks with North Korea be a reward for them?
I mean is this like the ignore the kid in the corner routine? As you can probably tell i'm not up to snuff on international diplomacy.
I mean is this like the ignore the kid in the corner routine? As you can probably tell i'm not up to snuff on international diplomacy.
I'm by no means an expert, but I think it comes from the school of thought that countries get nuclear weapons in order to sit at the "big boy" world politics table, and that to invite them to sit at such as a result of their nuclear spree is the equivalent of rewarding a tantrum.
Paskil wrote:
How would having one on one diplomatic talks with North Korea be a reward for them?
The administration stance, near as I could tell, is that and the "this is a global problem so we have to include everyone" line. Which ignores the point I quoted earlier, that it's not an either/or situation. Having bilateral diplomacy is not mutally exclusive to having multilateral diplomacy as well.
To steal an example from another board, Bush sounds like a junior high school girl in this, saying "Tiffany and Michelle, you tell Kimberly that if she doesn't stop that RIGHT NOW, I'm going to be REAL MAD at her! No, I WON'T tell her myself! I'm MAD at her! I'm not going to talk to her until she STOPS IT!"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
I also recall someone else saying something about how if we'd not called them part of the "axis of evil", maybe it wouldn't have happened either.
Quote:
Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.
Each problem appears to feed on the others, making the stakes higher and requiring Bush and his advisers to make difficult calculations, analysts and U.S. officials said. The deteriorating situation in Iraq has undermined U.S. diplomatic credibility and limited the administration's military options, making rogue countries increasingly confident that they can act without serious consequences. Iran, meanwhile, will be watching closely the diplomatic fallout from North Korea's apparent test as a clue to how far it might go with its own nuclear program.
Each problem appears to feed on the others, making the stakes higher and requiring Bush and his advisers to make difficult calculations, analysts and U.S. officials said. The deteriorating situation in Iraq has undermined U.S. diplomatic credibility and limited the administration's military options, making rogue countries increasingly confident that they can act without serious consequences. Iran, meanwhile, will be watching closely the diplomatic fallout from North Korea's apparent test as a clue to how far it might go with its own nuclear program.
Scholar
27 posts
Thre real answer to NK having nukes, and even terrorism, be they religious political, envoronmental etc is to bring them into the "Cold War" fold.
I remember the "Bomb Drills" of duck and cover.
I remever when I found out what a real Nuclear war would do.
Why didn't WWIII happen between The then 2 superpower of US and USSR? It came closer than most think, more times than any same person would care to imagine. f is wasn't as bad as they say it was why didn't it happen?
In a simple word MAD
MAD Mutually assured destruction. With over 20 THOUSAND Nuclear warhead going off the world would not survive. If the blasts or the radiation didn't kill everyone on the planet the radioactive fallout on the surface would. Simply put it would kill everyone, and would make the world unable support human life for another 50 or so THOUSAND years.
So its simple. Brimg these Rogue nations into the fold. Don't take away their little toys. Show them what nuclear war is, and promise them that should the EVER pop a nuke on us or an ally, we would destroy the WORLD!!!!
Even the worst nutcases only employ suicide bombers, but are not suicidal themselves. They do still want a world to control when it is all said and done.
I remember the "Bomb Drills" of duck and cover.
I remever when I found out what a real Nuclear war would do.
Why didn't WWIII happen between The then 2 superpower of US and USSR? It came closer than most think, more times than any same person would care to imagine. f is wasn't as bad as they say it was why didn't it happen?
In a simple word MAD
MAD Mutually assured destruction. With over 20 THOUSAND Nuclear warhead going off the world would not survive. If the blasts or the radiation didn't kill everyone on the planet the radioactive fallout on the surface would. Simply put it would kill everyone, and would make the world unable support human life for another 50 or so THOUSAND years.
So its simple. Brimg these Rogue nations into the fold. Don't take away their little toys. Show them what nuclear war is, and promise them that should the EVER pop a nuke on us or an ally, we would destroy the WORLD!!!!
Even the worst nutcases only employ suicide bombers, but are not suicidal themselves. They do still want a world to control when it is all said and done.
Didn't the axis "of evil" include NK, syria and iran?
No. Substitute "Iraq" for Syria.
Edit: Back to the bit about the test itself,...I guess they used the c.1990 model for their test 
Edited, Oct 10th 2006 at 3:15pm PDT by Jophiel
Edit: Back to the bit about the test itself,...
CNN wrote:
The United States believes North Korea attempted to detonate a nuclear device and that "something went wrong," a U.S. government official told CNN Tuesday.
The official confirmed North Korea informed the Chinese government prior to the test that it would be a 4 kiloton nuclear device.
The official added that the unexpectedly small blast, of a half kiloton or less, indicated "something went wrong."
Nuclear tests in 1998 by India and Pakistan were about 24 to 50 times as powerful - or in the 15 kiloton range, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
The United States still cannot say for sure the underground detonation was a nuclear blast; the working assumption is that it was, but not very successful, the official said.
The official confirmed North Korea informed the Chinese government prior to the test that it would be a 4 kiloton nuclear device.
The official added that the unexpectedly small blast, of a half kiloton or less, indicated "something went wrong."
Nuclear tests in 1998 by India and Pakistan were about 24 to 50 times as powerful - or in the 15 kiloton range, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
The United States still cannot say for sure the underground detonation was a nuclear blast; the working assumption is that it was, but not very successful, the official said.
Edited, Oct 10th 2006 at 3:15pm PDT by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
33 posts
I say we just send N. Koreas leader a good computer and WoW so he gets addicted to it and forgets about Nukes.
Quote:
North Korea attempted to detonate a nuclear device and that "something went wrong,"
yeah, the guys pushing the button saw "Made In Korea" written on the missle and **** his pants.
Quote:
Another option, which I think the Rep would like, would be to build your super-duper Shield of Missile Protection that shoots Nukes from space, or something. After all, yu guys would've done it if it hadn't been for 9/11. So I am sure it's still on the cards somewhere in the WH.
They probably already have it.
Quote:
So, if NK is unlikely to sell its nukes, why should the US worry? The chances of the US being hit are tiny. NK does not have the capabilities to do that yet.
They do have that capability. Heck give me enough money, I can have that capability. Seriously if you can build a plane, you can drop a nuke. It doesn't have to be a rocket.
I don't think it's much to worry about honestly. I bet Japan has nukes too. Noone's stupid enough to actually use them. It would be suicide.
Yodabunny wrote:
Noone's stupid enough to actually use them. It would be suicide.
Yep.
But with Kim, you just never know.
Recent Visitors: 284
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- North Korea tested a nuke
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC