Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org banner

1 - 20 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Now you've done it Kim Jong il. You're so asking for a sanction......again. :rolleyes:

I kind of wish Japan had shot it down. North Korea said if they had it would be considered an act of war. Although, can anyone count on the US anymore to have their backs? A bankrupt nation is flirting with the ability to proliferate nuclear weapons technology. Iran is an oil rich nation with plenty of buying power. Not to mention North Korea's previous willingness, and current need to sell. Mean while Obama is cutting defense budget and wants more nuclear cut backs as a "deterant." Anyone else see where this is going? :idunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
The North Korea/Japan situation has Japan feeling much like Israel. Korea just wants the technology for peaceful purpose just like Iran. Yeah Right!
In this growing Nuclear age of rogue nations aquiring this technology, it can't have a happy ending.

Maybe the Messiah will fix things while he's on his apology tour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
The problem is what right do we (other countries) have to say that someone can or cant have certain weapons. Especially when the countries saying this have more and better weapons.

Sure I dont think NK or Iran should have any nuclear weapons - but from their point of view the "other side" has lots of them plus way superior non-nuke capabilities. How do they feel safe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
North Korea is posturing in order to get what it wants.
Once you have a rocket with a range of over 5000 miles suddenly you have Seattle in your sights. (Anchorage, Alaska, is roughly 3,500 miles (6,000 kilometers) from the launch site, Seattle about 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers).

This is generally known as the 'pressure card' and is used by many less developed countries to apply pressure on more developed countries in order to receive technology, trade, aid etc. You don't need to actually use them as 'having them' is enough to get everyones attention.
So the likelihood of North Korea actually attacking anyone with a nuke is actually very small because the real intention is to use them as a way of essentially blackmailing the rest of the world into giving them want they want.

So the question is, do you call their bluff and say "yes go ahead and develop the nuclear missiles. You and I know you can never use them."
Or do you up the anti and try to apply reverse pressure in order to get them to stand down?

Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons are a complete and utter waste of money and resources. Given that a world nuclear war is really just nothing more than collective mass suicide, the sooner we get rid of them the better. And as the old saying goes, you have to lead by example.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
The North Korea/Japan situation has Japan feeling much like Israel.
:plus1: and please don't forget the South Koreans. They really are next door.

Maybe the Messiah will fix things while he's on his apology tour.
:pointup:

North Korea is posturing in order to get what it wants. Once you have a rocket with a range of over 5000 miles suddenly you have Seattle in your sights. (Anchorage, Alaska, is roughly 3,500 miles (6,000 kilometers) from the launch site, Seattle about 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers).

This is generally known as the 'pressure card' and is used by many less developed countries to apply pressure on more developed countries in order to receive technology, trade, aid etc. You don't need to actually use them as 'having them' is enough to get everyones attention.
So the likelihood of North Korea actually attacking anyone with a nuke is actually very small because the real intention is to use them as a way of essentially blackmailing the rest of the world into giving them want they want.

So the question is, do you call their bluff and say "yes go ahead and develop the nuclear missiles. You and I know you can never use them."
Or do you up the anti and try to apply reverse pressure in order to get them to stand down?
Except that you're assuming a rational mind at the helm, because they can and have been used before. There is in fact very little stopping them being used again when the person in charge doesn't subscribe to the rules of the game.

Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons are a complete and utter waste of money and resources. Given that a world nuclear war is really just nothing more than collective mass suicide, the sooner we get rid of them the better. And as the old saying goes, you have to lead by example.
Except that no country trusts the other enough to get rid of them all - remember the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Anyway, if North Korea really does develop nuke missiles it's going to find them EXTREMELY expensive to maintain. It isn't just a question of build 'em and leave them in storage for a rainy day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
Hey Surf, that last quote "Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons....." you had of mine belongs to dr256. I don't know how my name got in there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
Hey Surf, that last quote "Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons....." you had of mine belongs to dr256. I don't know how my name got in there.
Sorry. Copy and pasted the wrong title opener on that paragraph:O

Corrected now:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
No apology needed but accepted Surf. It was funny reading something I remembered reading at some point but certainly not writing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
Except that you're assuming a rational mind at the helm, because they can and have been used before. There is in fact very little stopping them being used again when the person in charge doesn't subscribe to the rules of the game.
Even during the height of the cold war when the US and Russia were effectively playing hardball, both sides new that shipping them Cuba was one thing, launching them was entirely different!
My point being there aren't any rules anyway. Each side takes its position and levers as much as they can out of the situation. Denzee's remark about Israel for example - despite the posturing of both the former Iraq and Iran, they still know they can't nuke them.
So the net effect is the same. You have them to prove you are powerful. But no-one can really use them.

Except that no country trusts the other enough to get rid of them all - remember the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Anyway, if North Korea really does develop nuke missiles it's going to find them EXTREMELY expensive to maintain. It isn't just a question of build 'em and leave them in storage for a rainy day.
True, and this is what makes them so completely pointless. Trident is going to cost the UK about £76 billion. We'll never use them. Completely pointless....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
The problem is what right do we (other countries) have to say that someone can or cant have certain weapons. Especially when the countries saying this have more and better weapons.

Sure I dont think NK or Iran should have any nuclear weapons - but from their point of view the "other side" has lots of them plus way superior non-nuke capabilities. How do they feel safe?
Governments who do things like the following links suggest should not be allowed to have access to a weapon that can start the extinction of mankind. I found these links by simply googling "north korea atrocity" and have done no research on them. Note that some of it is rather startling.....
North Korean and Chinese Atrocities Against Christians Worsen
Daimnation!: North Korean atrocities
The Blue Site: North Korean Atrocities
Death, terror in N. Korea gulag - January 2003: Crisis in the Koreas- msnbc.com

....... and I am fine with the fact that these types of government don't feel safe. They should live in fear everyday, just as their victims do now.

This is generally known as the 'pressure card' and is used by many less developed countries to apply pressure on more developed countries in order to receive technology, trade, aid etc. You don't need to actually use them as 'having them' is enough to get everyones attention.
So the likelihood of North Korea actually attacking anyone with a nuke is actually very small because the real intention is to use them as a way of essentially blackmailing the rest of the world into giving them want they want.

Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons are a complete and utter waste of money and resources. Given that a world nuclear war is really just nothing more than collective mass suicide, the sooner we get rid of them the better. And as the old saying goes, you have to lead by example.
While Kim Jong Crazy is in deed an individual that needs some time on a couch with a therapist, I don't think he is really going to create nuclear war. Launching a warhead at another country would undoubtedly create a backlash from other countries that would wipe them off the face of the planet. He has to know this.... and because he does, he will use it as a bargaining chip to get what he feels he needs as a dictator. But there are no gurantees that he will always think this way. After he gets what he wants from the rest of the world, what would he do next? Thats the big question.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
Even during the height of the cold war when the US and Russia were effectively playing hardball, both sides new that shipping them Cuba was one thing, launching them was entirely different!
My point being there aren't any rules anyway. Each side takes its position and levers as much as they can out of the situation. Denzee's remark about Israel for example - despite the posturing of both the former Iraq and Iran, they still know they can't nuke them.
So the net effect is the same. You have them to prove you are powerful. But no-one can really use them.
Nevertheless if we look at North Korea in isolation, its position is precarious and KJI knows it. He has only a few options:

1. Fully reintegrate with South Korea
Not an option he is likely to agree to given that the full scope of the atrocities he has ordered would be out in the public domain and he would have to concede power and lose his legacy. Although North Korea is on its knees, it is still able to maintain its massive number of troops and keep the country's imperious leader in the lap of god-like luxury.

In addition, South Korea considers little Kimmy an enemy and would probably seek to imprison him or worse. The best he could hope for is exile, but that's just not the same as ruling over millions of people and deciding on a whim whether they live or die. South Korea is actually quite a little power house financially but even so it knows it cannot take on the monumental task of integration of a size last seen in Germany, which nearly collapsed under the strain. If it were going to do so, integration would have to be carried out over decades not years. Therefore there would be no power sharing option.

2. Make the country feared so that he stays in power until he dies and can leave the thorny issue of what happens next to someone else.

This is quite an appealing option for him, if you think about it. Regardless of whatever sanctions the US put on the country, little Kimmy is always going to get what he wants. The rest of the country won't even notice the difference and he'll continue to look powerful by defying the US. He hasn't got too much longer to go anyway given that people have been digging around his brain with scalpels lately and he isn't getting any younger. If progress towards his grand plan of making North Korea the greatest country in the world stops upon his death, it probably won't surprise him. I don't actually think he ever thought about anything further than surrounding the borders with as many bodies as he could so that he could get on doing whatever it is he does (I mean aside from arms dealing).

3. Make new friends

Well, he did try that with China, but they rather stunned him by siding with the Americans on the nuclear development issue. That plus the Russians (after they'd stopped p*ssing around trying to wind the US up) also realised that North Korea probably is a little too close for comfort and back peddled.

I reckon he'll go for option two. As hardly anyone knows anything about little kimmy's potential successor, the country will have breathing space (at least for a good few months) to sort its sh1t out before any country attempts to establish a new working relationship with the government. That means bugger all of any significance will happen for at least a year, protecting little kimmy's so-called legacy. After that the history books will read like he was the country's last great leader before its fall (if that's what happens of course).


True, and this is what makes them so completely pointless. Trident is going to cost the UK about £76 billion. We'll never use them. Completely pointless....
We never will, Dr, you're quite right. We're well and truly in bed with the Americans and have been since WWII. However, the nukes in the UK (I believe but this could have changed) are under US control.

I don't think he is really going to create nuclear war. Launching a warhead at another country would undoubtedly create a backlash from other countries that would wipe them off the face of the planet. He has to know this.... and because he does, he will use it as a bargaining chip to get what he feels he needs as a dictator. But there are no gurantees that he will always think this way. After he gets what he wants from the rest of the world, what would he do next? Thats the big question.
Well, lets not forget that he already has a huge bargaining chip. If he let his armies storm into South Korea, the South would be overrun in a couple of days, even without the use of tanks. He'll also get all the spoils of that rather quick encounter, too. It would actually be positively productive. And who will attack? He knows all the UN and humanitarian groups will get involved to protect the victims and non-combatant North Koreans who haven't got a bowl of rice to eat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
I think it's very important to keep nuclear power from rogue nations almost at all costs. However, let's be honest with ourselves, as nuclear proliferation continues over time, it will not be possible to control. It's almost at that point now. Look how Pakistan's nuclear warheads can even come under threat from the Taliban in Ahghanistan. I can't help but think that some dictator nut job will threaten the US or other countries with a strike. If you're already at the point where you will launch a nuclear attack then you're likely not thinking too clearly about the repercussions of such a move.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
I think it's very important to keep nuclear power from rogue nations almost at all costs. However, let's be honest with ourselves, as nuclear proliferation continues over time, it will not be possible to control. It's almost at that point now. Look how Pakistan's nuclear warheads can even come under threat from the Taliban in Ahghanistan. I can't help but think that some dictator nut job will threaten the US or other countries with a strike. If you're already at the point where you will launch a nuclear attack then you're likely not thinking too clearly about the repercussions of such a move.
Absolutely agree that we're are pretty much at the stage where the proliferation is uncontrollable. The technology and certainly the science are widely available via books and the internet. For most the only real block is the raw materials needed and the processing there of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
Just heard on the news that Iran launched a medium range test missle that has a 1200 mile range. Enough to reach Israel or US bases. Hmmmm, how far is it to the UK from Iran?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
They've a way to go yet Denzee - London to Tehran is 2740 miles.

Plus if they want to rile up the UK and the US at the same time then just zap one over to Israel. Much easier...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
They've a way to go yet Denzee - London to Tehran is 2740 miles.

Plus if they want to rile up the UK and the US at the same time then just zap one over to Israel. Much easier...
Yeh dr but it's one thing worrying about your allies butt and another being concerned about your own. Glad we're nowhere near that sand pit. I kinda wish they'd launch something so we can turn that sand into glass over there. Of course I don't wish theirs would reach its target.
Go ahead and beat me up now. I can take it! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Governments who do things like the following links suggest should not be allowed to have access to a weapon that can start the extinction of mankind. I found these links by simply googling "north korea atrocity" and have done no research on them. Note that some of it is rather startling.....
North Korean and Chinese Atrocities Against Christians Worsen
Daimnation!: North Korean atrocities
The Blue Site: North Korean Atrocities
Death, terror in N. Korea gulag - January 2003: Crisis in the Koreas- msnbc.com

....... and I am fine with the fact that these types of government don't feel safe. They should live in fear everyday, just as their victims do now.
So how about we post links about Israel...
they are regularly condemned by other western countries and the UN for their actions against Palestinians.
Or even the US (torture, assinations, detaining without trial)
France - rainbow warrior.

Sure I think China and North Korea are way worse at human rights, but its not like the other nuclear powers are squeeky clean.

So again - why do we (the world, nations with nukes) have the right to say who can and cant have nukes?

Would you be happy if there was a world body that decided this?
What is they said "US has a bad record, invaded countries without UN approval, they arent allowed to have nukes!"


Thats the big question.
Yes it is a big question.
But again - why do we get to say what he can and cant do?
That is THE big question.

Bush pretty much put the threat of invasion on the "axis of evil".
When you have that threat coming from the major military power in the world why dont you have the right to arm yourself for defense?
Its fine to say Kim Jong is a bit crazy, but why is that any worse than the US president being a bit crazy? The US could launch an invasion and not risk any country retaliating. We have already seen that in Iraq.
But if North Korea did that then there would be talk of dropping the bomb on them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
I kinda wish they'd launch something so we can turn that sand into glass over there.
And you wonder why they want nukes?

When it seems that every second american has the "turn them to glass" attitude, your country has already invaded others - surely they have to be worried and thinking - what can we do to not be the next Iraq.
 
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
Top