Topic: North Korea is now a nuclear power

[angrykeebler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6034873.stm

Man..that Kim Jong Il..he so crazy

[Ghandi]

I disagree. Sovereignty is thrown out the window when it comes to survival of our species.

[iPPi]

I read about that this morning.  I'm not sure what to think of it at the moment though. 

[Quemaqua]

The people in power there should be wiped off the face of the earth.  It takes very little to realize that.  Listening to them talk for more than five minutes should be more than enough to clue you in to their general ideology, and those people going nuclear is probably one of the worst things that could possibly happen to the world.

[Cobra951]

North Korea is not behind an ideological global cancer, so it's not nearly the threat that Iran represents.  If they try to export the shit to Iran, or directly to the terrorist organizations, then it's time to vaporize ass and take names.

[Xessive]

Actually you might surprised. NK having nuclear power is much more threatening than Iran having it. Atleast you can actually have a discussion with President Ahmadinejad, imagine trying to talk to Kim Jong Il!

[Quemaqua]

I'm pretty much of the notion that both nations are the rough equivalent of rabid dogs.

[scottws]

I am not sure what to think about this.  I know I would be much more worried if it was Iran.

[Ace_O_Spades]

Mutually assured destruction... sure to be as big a buzzword it was during the cold war with all these dangerous nations getting nukes

[Quemaqua]

Anybody for some Defcon?

[idolminds]

I was just thinking that...

[Pugnate]

I love that Einstein WWIII quote, which I think is about to apply.

[ender]

It's all politics. One country can have nukes, the other can't. I say fuck it. No one can be trusted with nuclear devices... but there are plenty of other countries that have them, so why does it matter?

Time to watch Dr. Strangelove.

[Quemaqua]

I think it's because they're much more likely to use them.  Obviously nukes = bad pretty much anywhere, but I think there are a lot of places that would be much more eager to use one than some other places might be.  I would qualify Iran and North Korea pretty much at the top of that list.

[gpw11]

It's not an issue of nation rights.  You can argue all day and night about if a nation has the right to posses nuclear weapons, but in the end all you're doing is well....pretty much nothing.  The entire concept of nation rights pretty much only exists in textbooks and in non-policy making love notes in places like the UN.  The fact is that unless some sort of real hegemony develops in regards to international relations arguing over the rights of one nation to do something or how doing something squashes the rights of another nation is purely academic and has no real place in matters such as these.

All that aside, no, there's no way this is a good thing.  We should be moving towords global disarmament rather than furthering nuclear proliferation.  This isn't the 1950's or 1960's....getting nukes doesn't all of a sudden make you a world power, it makes the rest of the world wonder what the hell you need that barganing chip for.

[Cobra951]

Mutually assured destruction... sure to be as big a buzzword it was during the cold war with all these dangerous nations getting nukes

That only works when everyone with nukes doesn't have a death wish.  If just one participant worships death, then the whole MAD scenario can quickly come about for real.  The Russians don't want extermination.  The Chinese don't want it.  We surely don't want it.  Nukes kept us from going to shooting wars with each other for half a century.  I don't think the North Koreans want to be turned into clouds of gas either.  It's those idiots trying to get virgins in heaven that scare the shit out of me.

[Ghandi]

Maybe the North Koreans won't use the weapon, but they have sold every other weapon system that they have ever made to other countries. No one is scared about the North Koreans using it (that is, unless something drastic happens), but they may sell it to someone that will use it. The good thing is that we just started screening all cargo going out of North Korean ports for weapons.

[Xessive]

I think everyone should be disarmed. We should have an organization with the authority and dedication to the eradication of nuclear arms!

[Cobra951]

Then the first asshole to get some illicitly becomes king of the Earth.

We can't un-learn what we have learned.  Nukes are a reality.  Can't bury them in the sand along with our heads.

[Quemaqua]

That's the thing, it's like trying to take guns out of homes and keep them away from criminals.  They're *criminals*.  If they want guns, they'll get them.  Disarming everyone else gives them power.  I'm not trying to debate the whole gun thing as that isn't nearly on the same scale or nearly as relevant, but when you're talking power-hungry nations, there's no way in hell you could truly regulate that.  I don't like nukes and I wish they didn't exist, but what Cobra said rings true -- first guy to get them after that moment owns the universe.

[Xessive]

Sitting on a powder keg is not my idea of living.. That's why I think everyone needs to be disarmed. I understand what Cobra is saying, but what I'm talking about is an absolution. Figuring out a way to completely nullify them would be nice.

And it's not "easy" to actually make a nuclear warhead, let alone an ICBM.. It's not something you can make at home.

By the same model, don't you think anyone who wanted to could just make his own explosives at home and bomb the crap out of whatever he wanted? I mean it has happened, but what I'm saying is we don't need it to happen again to understand that we have to prevent it.

If someone uses or approves the use of a nuclear weapon, they're criminals in my eyes.

The firearms issue is similar. If guns were illegal you'd see a Hell of a lot less of them. Several households now have a gun for "protection."

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I can't say I agree with anything you just said.  Obviously you can't make nukes in your backyard, but we're talking about governments with lots of money and lots of opportunities for shady dealings.  And the whole homemade explosives bomber model doesn't work the same at all.  And I continue to disagree with the assinine assumption that making firearms illegal is suddenly going to make them all disappear.  That's about as shortsighted as you can get.  I know plenty of people who currently own illegal weapons, and they aren't even people with any kind of nefarious intent.  They just like to collect them.  And believe me, it isn't hard to get them if you know where to look.

[Ghandi]

I'm completley 100% with you Xessive that all nukes should be dismantled / destroyed. The ironic thing in my case, though, is that my grandpa was in WWII, and he was going to be on the front lines in the invasion of Japan. If we hadn't used the nukes, I wouldn't be here. That's not to say that that I support them, but its just weird to think that they probably saved my life.

Edit: I agree Que. Not to mention, if guns didn't exist, we would probably beat eachother with sticks. [guns don't kill people...]

[Quemaqua]

And I'd again like to point out that I don't like nukes either.  I don't think anybody really does.  I just don't think that actually disarming everyone is a feasible possibility.

[Xessive]

Well, if gov'ts would stop investing in manufacturing weapons they might achieve the feasibility to disarm and dismantle weapons.

It's amazing how fate works death somewhere means birth elsewhere. Glad to have you among us Ghandi

I believe that guns don't kill people, people kill people. People don't need guns to kill people, there are a million other random objects that can be used to kill a person (including sticks ). Guns just facilitate killing. It's as easy as a click (well, click-click now, considering the safety).

Guns are illegal to average citizens in almost all Arabic countries, and gun violence is at minimal levels. I don't think it's a coincidence. It just makes it that much harder for the average person to wield a gun. Ofcourse "criminals" or anyone who knows where to look may be able to acquire a gun, but the fact is the law limits the acquisition of firearms to those individuals (as they do it outside of the law). Law enforcement is responsible for eliminating and dealing with such individuals in any case. Making guns illegals won't make them disappear, but it helps. It can keep guns out of reach; like dirty magazines are out of reach of kids, they're always on the top shelf.

I totally understand the collectors' sentiments (I collect blades myself). For the sake of collection, such weapons are refitted as "art," or as replicas. They're "impotent" guns, they can't actually shoot. As a collector you should have no intention of ever using it anyway.

Guns are for soldiers, law enforcement, and hunters. The average citizen has no business owning a gun, it doesn't fit in society. It would be like buying a bulldozer just coz it's cool (which it is ), and realizing it's a bitch to park it. Thanks to the provision of all sorts of meat through farming and markets, hunters are in very small demand. As much as I enjoy hunting, I don't need to hunt, the meat is already there waiting for me to buy it, and I'd hate to let the death of the animal go in vain. So really the only people who need guns are those who want to use aggression against people, or those who defend people from the aggressors.

The whole idea behind building nukes during the Cold War was to use them as a deterrant. It's ridiculous because they're live weapons that were never intended to be used, just to instill fear; but they're live just-in-case. Which is usually where most robberies go wrong "I didn't wanna shoot him! I just wanted to scare him!"

[scottws]

New wrinkle:

North Korea is now saying that U.N. sanctions would be considered an act of war.

[Pugnate]

North Korea is now saying that U.N. sanctions would be considered an act of war.

hahaha That is hilarious. Are they crazy? They are going to go up against the world? There is not a single country that supports them... not even China.

[Pugnate]

linky.

So this is interesting. On one hand you had Iraq that never claimed it had WMDs, insisted that it didn't have WMDs, didn't turn out to have WMDs... even till the end did not want a confrontation... and the US of A invaded and raped the country leaving it in chaos and civil war.

On the other we have North Korea that are about to gain nukes, are threatening to use them and want a war but the USA is curled up in a corner.

"If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

"We were compelled to prove that we have nuclear weapons to prevent the increasing threat of war by the U.S. and protect our sovereignty and survival," the North said, criticizing an alleged nuclear threat from Washington and sanctions. "We are ready for both dialogue and confrontation."

If that doesn't shows intent, I don't know what does.

Now why won't the USA invade North Korea for the sole purpose of dismantling their nuclear program? Maybe because they actually have an army? Or is it because there is no oil involved?

If they do, they will have a lot more support than they did with Iraq... and it could pave the way for taking action against Iran under similar circumstances.

[scottws]

Good question, Pug.  But the problem is more complex than you make it seem.  Since we already are in Iraq and Afghanistan, it just isn't feasible to fight someplace else as well.

Another wrinkle:  I've seen it mentioned this morning that North Korea also said they would fire a nuclear missile if the U.S. refused to negotiate with them.  What is it with this guy?

[Cobra951]

Guns are for soldiers, law enforcement, and hunters. The average citizen has no business owning a gun, it doesn't fit in society.

If you read the US Constitution, you'll see how it negates your statement, here at least.  The people are explicitly entitled to take up arms against oppression by the very forces you say are entitled to arms.  The people can't do that if they have zero access to arms.

The whole idea behind building nukes during the Cold War was to use them as a deterrant. It's ridiculous because they're live weapons that were never intended to be used, just to instill fear; but they're live just-in-case. Which is usually where most robberies go wrong "I didn't wanna shoot him! I just wanted to scare him!"

They're still a deterrent.  For instance, the Chinese have one soldier for every person in America.  But it wouldn't do them any good to send them over here if they and China go bye bye afterward.  Nukes won't deter someone looking to die and take the world with them.  Nothing deters them except granting the first part of their wish before they achieve the second.

[Ghandi]

On one hand you had Iraq that never claimed it had WMDs, insisted that it didn't have WMDs, didn't turn out to have WMDs...

Actually there is some evidence that they had them and moved them out. Don't know how accurate it is. In any case, bad decision by us..

If you read the US Constitution, you'll see how it negates your statement, here at least.  The people are explicitly entitled to take up arms against oppression by the very forces you say are entitled to arms.  The people can't do that if they have zero access to arms.

It's such an outdated right. It was fine in 1776 but in 2006 the world is a little bit different. One of the big reasons that it still exists is because the NRA has such a huge amount of lobbying power.

[Quemaqua]

And I continue to disagree.  Why shouldn't we have the right now?  Are things any different if an evil government takes over and refuses to give up power?  How then are we supposed to change anything?  As far as I'm concerned people put far too much faith in our shitty and completely useless political systems.  I'm not saying I'm about to go take up arms against the government, but there might be a time when that would be the only *real* option left, other than the smoke and mirrors the politicians use to let you think you actually have a say in anything that goes on in this country.

And actually, they *did* find WMDs, and saying otherwise is a lie.  No, they weren't nukes, but there was a pretty large selection of chemical weapons (sarin and mustard gases, etc.) which do qualify as WMDs.  I think some of them were older, like from the 80s, but they said even the older ones were still harmful in a degraded state, and they could be traded or packaged into a different format with the same effect.  Plus, most of the people involved insist that the Iraqi government did a horrible job keeping track of everything, and that they didn't keep good records of destroyed munitions.  Most of them think there's still more out there.

[Ghandi]

Are things any different if an evil government takes over and refuses to give up power?  How then are we supposed to change anything? 

You mean like the Bush administration? 

That's the beauty of a democracy. We change things by vote, not by the barrel of a gun. Unless evil barbarians come to my town and start pillaging, or I join the military, I'm not ever going to need a gun. Half the time, people who own handguns misuse them anyways.

[Quemaqua]

Well, again, I have no faith in our political systems, so the whole "oh, we'll just vote everything better!" is pretty much the saddest thing I've ever heard.  What real differences are there between candidates these days anyway?  I couldn't vote for anybody in good conscience last election.  I never really liked Bush, but everyone else was equally if not more evil in their own ways, and this has been the trend for a good long while now.

[Xessive]

New wrinkle:

North Korea is now saying that U.N. sanctions would be considered an act of war.

Haha that is darkly hilarious!

Anyway, the whole idea of average people bearing arms is a little outdated, and it is for exceptional circumstances. I mean you don't see people walking around with swords or knives anymore, and there's a reason (considering they are easier to acquire than guns). It's not everyday that the average person is waging a war against an oppressive gov't, or fending off an assault. In the event that the circumstances change and call for the people to defend themselves, only then is it legitimate for an averagre citizen to take up arms. If the matter involves an oppressive authority, as history has shown us the people will rebel and revolt, regardless of the availability of firearms. When the need arises they will fashion the necessary tools.

EDIT:
I like the idea of democracy, it sounds noble and just. Honestly though it really does feel like façade. Like it's just something to satiate the masses.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin

[Cobra951]

It's such an outdated right. It was fine in 1776 but in 2006 the world is a little bit different. One of the big reasons that it still exists is because the NRA has such a huge amount of lobbying power.

I disagree, and will refer you to Que's posts on it.  Democracy only works while the people in power subscribe to democratic ideals.

If it is outdated, the only way to get rid of it is via a constitutional convention, where 2/3rds of the states agree that it has to go.  No politician, court or legislature has that power.

[idolminds]

Its a precaution. Sure we can SAY we can vote people out...but what if they change that? They could all be in on it and say "Nope, no more elections." Its not likely to happen, but it could. Thats why we have the right to bear arms. *IF* things get so messed up that the only way to fix it is to fight, they made sure that it wasn't going to be a one sided battle.

Also, no ones ever going to start a ground war on the US since damn near everyone is armed. Thats why people saying mexico is going to try take back the southwest are full of it. That will never fly, and we dont need millitary intervention to make sure of it.

[scottws]

People say that Mexico is going to try to take back the Southwest?  I've never heard that in my life.  It sounds pretty comical.

[Cobra951]

Yeah, it's actually more of a long-term surreptitious invasion.  We keep letting them in and hiring them to do low-paying jobs.  They bring their whole families, and have more kids here.  They don't integrate into American society, but stay fully Mexicans.  Eventually, the SW of the USA will be a de facto part of Mexico, regardless of where the official borders are drawn.   

[Quemaqua]

It's the truth.  Unless some drastic changes are made, that's pretty much what's going to happen.  I for one am in favor of drastic changes, like telling Mexicans to piss off and go home.  It's so easy to get into this country.  We just let anyone in, even if there's no beneficial reason to do so.  That's very nice of us, but our country is really turning into a lousy place to live.  Our governmental programs are being abused by people who contribute absolutely nothing at all to the society in general.  That really needs to stop.  And it has nothing to do with racism or anything of the sort -- it has to do with the simple fact that the longer you import people who don't do anything for you but suck taxpayer money, the more chance you have of watching your longstanding systems go up in flames.