North Korea tests a nuke

[DaGaffer]

...o...k.

I'll just say now, for the record, that i don't give a rats behind on how f*cked up some country is or is not. I found it cool that they had the balls/crazy to say "bring it on". Full stop. No diplomatic ideas, no wings one way or other about the issue other then that.

And i REALLy don't imply anything, i say it straight if i think something.

Maybe you need to stop assuming.

OK so thermonuclear brinkmanship is "cool" is it? I'm sorry, but you can't separate who's doing this from what they're doing. You said yourself "Thumbs up to N. Korea though since they are the only ones who said "Bring it on" to the US threats. Time someone did". In actual fact it isn't the US who are threatened (maybe Alaska at a push), but S.Korea and Japan. If anyone is doing the threatening here its N.Korea, not the US. The only threat the US has made is to cut off N.Korea's food aid, which if N.Korea can afford to spend billions on nuclear weapons research to threaten its neighbours, is the right and proper thing to do. Its not as if their neighbours (apart from China) even have nuclear weapons, so its hardly an argument for regional stability.

You're displaying the typical Euro "if its against America, that's all right" attitude, which is just childish. Apart from anything else, the US has treaty obligations to Japan and S.Korea which means its their job to wave a big stick at N.Korea. I have far more sympathy towards the US attitude towards N.Korea than their attitude towards Iran. The Iranians bluster, but they play the diplomatic game, Kim Il-Jong is the living embodiment of 'loose cannon' and is far scarier for that very reason.

 

[Tom]

If anything it destabilises the region, since surrounding countries will now feel decidedly nervous about not having their own nuclear deterrant.

I've been reading the papers today, and I tend to agree with The Times view on the reasoning behind all of this - mostly that Kim Sung Il is determined to stay in power, and how can you possibly remove him when he possesses a nuclear arsenal? I'm certain its tactically very possible to eliminate their nuclear capability within a few short hours, and that retaliatory strikes from North Korea are frankly not possible, but politically is it feasible? I don't think so.

The only country that can do anything about this now is China, since they're the only people who are trading with North Korea. I doubt they'll do anything tbh, since their foreign policy appears to be non-intervention.

 

[old.Tohtori]

OK so thermonuclear brinkmanship is "cool" is it? means its their(snip...snip) of 'loose cannon' and is far scarier for that very reason.

What i meant with my post had really no meaning towards a possible thermowar or not.

I thought that it was "cool" that they stood up towards the US.

"You're displaying the typical Euro "if its against America, that's all right" attitude, which is just childish."

No, i've got nothing against the US. I think the US is cool too, McDonalds(hangover gold) and game industry on top. Sure some silly things there, but those are everywhere.

Please, as said before, don't assume, if i want to say something i will.

Like that a thermonuclear war would be a great thing to see, but not necessarily something i need. Ok now?

 

[Tom]

There won't be a thermonuclear war.

The only reason they've done it is so the regime can extort more money and aid from countries around the world. Its pretty much a criminal organisation, they manufacture and distribute drugs on a large scale.

Imagine what fun they'd have leaning over the bargaining table and saying to Hans Brix "It wud be a shame if one of dese nukes acridentry fwell into the hands of a tewowist"?

 

[TWS]

Hans BLix

/pedant mode
Hans Blix, not Brix
/pedant mode

 

[old.user4556]

I take it you've not seen Team America, or are you just really truly thick?

 

[rynnor]

Um - yeh :/

Really - did you miss the bit that came out last week where it came out that the Bush administration had threatened to 'bomb them back to the stone age' when threatening Pakistan after 9/11?

 

[rynnor]

If anything it destabilises the region, since surrounding countries will now feel decidedly nervous about not having their own nuclear deterrant.

I've been reading the papers today, and I tend to agree with The Times view on the reasoning behind all of this - mostly that Kim Sung Il is determined to stay in power, and how can you possibly remove him when he possesses a nuclear arsenal? I'm certain its tactically very possible to eliminate their nuclear capability within a few short hours, and that retaliatory strikes from North Korea are frankly not possible, but politically is it feasible? I don't think so.

The US have destabilized this region by their continued pressure on North Korea and the crippling sanctions - a country that feels backed into a corner by the worlds only superpower is going to be desperate enough to do anything.

The nuke is more to make themselves feel safer as it shows they are not to be trifled with - its not un-reasonable for countries the US villifies to feel scared - the US have twice shown they have no compunction about invading their enemies.

 

[rynnor]

Same thing to all intents and purposes, silly person.

Not really - its a question of one making the decisions and the other following along meekly behind.

 

[rynnor]

but Ryn, surely you've noticed that the US are only serious about things that lie in their best intrests?

Aye - the best quote I saw today was in the metro - "Telling North Korea to abandon its weapons programme is like telling a stranger not to ride a scooter because of CO2 emissions - while your revving a Harley"

 

[Tom]

The US have destabilized this region by their continued pressure on North Korea and the crippling sanctions - a country that feels backed into a corner by the worlds only superpower is going to be desperate enough to do anything.

The nuke is more to make themselves feel safer as it shows they are not to be trifled with - its not un-reasonable for countries the US villifies to feel scared - the US have twice shown they have no compunction about invading their enemies.

If we're going to be picky, the sanctions are imposed by the UN, and China is a member of the UN - if it wanted to veto these sanctions, it could have since its one of the few members with a veto.

The nuke isn't anything about safety - its about 'hey we have nukes, now give us more money' - thats it.

The USA will certainly not invade NK any time soon, it has no real reason to. China has massive trade with the USA so theres your political pressure.

China will be the one to watch.

 

[Furr]

Well this could ultimatly be the moment that China starts to develop itself as a major world power.... Or the UN shows that is incapable of being the organisation bringing order to the chaos. If the UN because of the permanent members not agreeing don't properly punish NK. Many countries (mainly Israel) are going to start going it alone to defend and strike counties (i.e Iran) on their own.

Either way how this goes in the next few months is going to set up how the world is in 15 years.

 

[Wij]

Really - did you miss the bit that came out last week where it came out that the Bush administration had threatened to 'bomb them back to the stone age' when threatening Pakistan after 9/11?

It's a common expression. How else would you like a threat to sound ?

 

[Wij]

The US have destabilized this region by their continued pressure on North Korea and the crippling sanctions - a country that feels backed into a corner by the worlds only superpower is going to be desperate enough to do anything.

The nuke is more to make themselves feel safer as it shows they are not to be trifled with - its not un-reasonable for countries the US villifies to feel scared - the US have twice shown they have no compunction about invading their enemies.

Destabilised the region ? Who's unstable around there EXCEPT North Korea ? North Korea's regime is built on insanity, USA did not cause that. Have you fucking WATCHED Team America ???

 

[Wij]

Not really - its a question of one making the decisions and the other following along meekly behind.

Well I take it you have the transcripts of all Bush/Blair phone calls to back that up. You're sounding like George Micheal now.

 

[Wij]

Aye - the best quote I saw today was in the metro - "Telling North Korea to abandon its weapons programme is like telling a stranger not to ride a scooter because of CO2 emissions - while your revving a Harley"

Unfortunately it's not about being FAIR. I don't like the idea of Kim Jong Il having nukes even though I accept they can probably only be launched from bottle rockets. Most of the rest of the world doesn't seem to like it either, that's just reality. 'Fair' doesn't come into it. We're all older than 5 now.

 

[Escape]

NK isn't the issue. The resulting nuclear-arms race in Asia is what's going to change the region.

Japan is already talking about a nuclear "deterent"(and they can justify it now), South Korea will want nukes, then it's neighbours, then their neighbours...

China and Russia are becoming bigger players than the US in global politics. How strongly did they condemn NK?

 

[Wij]

NK isn't the issue. The resulting nuclear-arms race in Asia is what's going to change the region.

Japan is already talking about a nuclear "deterent"(and they can justify it now), South Korea will want nukes, then it's neighbours, then their neighbours...

China and Russia are becoming bigger players than the US in global politics. How strongly did they condemn NK?

Nah - you're getting ahead of yourself. Japan is not in a rush to get nukes. China already has them. South Korea has the US's. China and Russia did condemn this. Nobody likes Kim Jong Il now. They just have a little face to save as they may have courted him a tad in the past.

South Koreans aren't about to start a max-exodus. It's just that nobody likes it. The old billions on nukes, fuck all on food, rhetoric rings true. Fuck the little twat up his 'ronery winger'.

 

[Athan]

One of my initial thoughts about this whole thing goes like this:

1) If the threat from NK is perceived to be great enough there may be a feeling the people need liberating from their oppressor
2) The US/UK/NATO etc forces are already way over-stretched in Iraq, Afghanistan, various African countries
3) China is most definitely threatened by NK having nukes and being batshit
4) However the US still doesn't have exactly peachy relations with China

So, what happens if China feels threatened enough to decide to 'pull a US' on NK, a la Iraq ?

Now, a few other thoughts to define my point of view before tossers like old.Tohtori decide to read what they like into the above rather than engaging their brain for a few seconds (hint, note the two words I highlighted in bold).

The US is most definitely no paragon of virtue. On the whole the political scene in the US is entirely fucked up, too much predicated on having enough money personally or via sponsors, too much obsession with right-wing forms of 'Christianity' and in general unable to admit that on a lot of issues (environment, over-use of resources, debt) THEY are the problem.

So, I'm no fanboy of the USA.

China of course has a despicable human rights record (Tianamen Square anyone? Not to mention recent problems with blogging, and the whole Great Firewall of China thing), and much of the country still survives on a subsistence basis, despite the high-tech in other parts.

North Korea of course feels threatened. China to the north is vaguely an ally, but maybe only because they themselves don't like the US/west. South Korea, well their bosom-buddies with the US. The same goes, to a great enough extent, for other countries in the region like Japan. So I can understand NK wanting some bargaining chip to bring to the table. On the other hand their leadership is demonstrably batshit, as others have put it.

Oh, and Israel... they're a mini-US basically, with the added impetus of having enemies right on their doorstep. They have absolutely no position of 'being in the right' to base their actions on, and ride roughshod over any UN intervention.

Now, who here thinks that North Korea would actually agree to let 'independent' observers into the country to oversee the dismantlement of their nuclear weapons program, if that was the major condition for them being given open and full aid to improve their economy, including conventional military (for the reason of them feeling safe from invasion) ? I can't see any other way you'd now get NK to give up their nuclear capability.

Oh, and anyone got a cite for what kind of weapon it's thought was tested? I've so far only seen a figure of "between 550 and 15000 tonnes" (which will be talking TNT equivalent), and some vague supposition that it's likely of the very primitive design like the US initially tested way back in WWII. i.e. the thing is going to weigh *tonnes* and the chances of them having anything to launch it on are slim. They might just about be able to find something to fly it on.

And one final comment. Much of the cause of these issues, and indeed of some of the tosspot comments in this thread, is the problematic thinking pattern which is summed up by "I am, or would like to be, better than you". The way a significant majority of people feel they have to constantly prove they are better than anyone else, and certainly their peers, just feeds into causing an endless cycle of pointless competition, bullying and other violence, pettiness and waste of resources. YES YES YES, by all means strive to be 'the best you can be' (no, I'm not recruiting for the army), but that is a PERSONAL thing for self-improvement, but as a happy consequence will likely be to the benefit of society, humanity, the planet, and ultimately the Universe as a whole. Using anysuch need for improvement as justification for fucking others over is a root cause in many of the world's problems.

Anyone else here read Kim Stan Robinson's "The Years of Rice and Salt" ? I really like the basic concept of Buddhism, i.e. there is no God, but the whole of existence is Holy, and you should strive to 'worship' that through honorable action, seeking to improve yourself and helping those around you.

-Ath, "meh, guess I'll go see what wikipedia has to say"

 

[Athan]

Oh, and anyone got a cite for what kind of weapon it's thought was tested? I've so far only seen a figure of "between 550 and 15000 tonnes" (which will be talking TNT equivalent), and some vague supposition that it's likely of the very primitive design like the US initially tested way back in WWII. i.e. the thing is going to weigh *tonnes* and the chances of them having anything to launch it on are slim. They might just about be able to find something to fly it on.

...

-Ath, "meh, guess I'll go see what wikipedia has to say"

Yup, should have done that to start with. Wikpedia has much to say on the subject, including speculation (something I'd been thinking myself) that it wasn't nuclear at all, but simply a lot of conventional explosives. Apparently ~1K tonne is VERY small for a nuclear explosion. The initial US and Indian ones being over 10K tonnes.

-Ath

 

[Catsby]

Methinks Catsby should source opinion from something other than CNN

Catsby wonders if Scouse does not believe CNN is a reputable news source?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/318CADA8-C505-45D8-B937-FCADD657BEC1.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615172.stm


Catbsy would try to link you to the official transcript of Mr.Ahmadinejad's speech, but his Farsi is rusty at best.

 

[Schlippe]

Seems like folks only accept that the US decides who is allowed to have nukes, and who is not...the big tread to the world is named Bush..is he the one to decide?..

 

[JBP|]

I did type out a very long post (by my standards) but i decided not to post it and go and bang my head up against a brick wall instead. (should i blame America or Isreal?).

 

[Ch3tan]

Really - did you miss the bit that came out last week where it came out that the Bush administration had threatened to 'bomb them back to the stone age' when threatening Pakistan after 9/11?

Everyone knows Bush never intended to do that, it's much easier to just let India and Pakistan bomb each other back to the stone age. Which will happen before N. Korea is involved in any conflict, or Isreal and Iran start making louder noises when they both have nukes.

 

[TdC]

Seems like folks only accept that the US decides who is allowed to have nukes, and who is not...the big tread to the world is named Bush..is he the one to decide?..

no you're missing the point. nobody wants anybody to have nukes, and people do tend to see the irony of a country like the US telling others they mustn't make them.

 

[rynnor]

Well I take it you have the transcripts of all Bush/Blair phone calls to back that up. You're sounding like George Micheal now.

Are you saying that the UK doesnt do whatever the US says??? Are we living in the same plane of existence or something? Its been the UK's official line since the Suez crisis to support them just as France went the other way to opposing them on everything...

Well this could ultimatly be the moment that China starts to develop itself as a major world power.... Or the UN shows that is incapable of being the organisation bringing order to the chaos. If the UN because of the permanent members not agreeing don't properly punish NK. Many countries (mainly Israel) are going to start going it alone to defend and strike counties (i.e Iran) on their own.

Either way how this goes in the next few months is going to set up how the world is in 15 years.

Not really - the UN is just a talking shop its been a long time since anyone expected it to take any action over things so no-one will expect any real action over NK.

It's a common expression. How else would you like a threat to sound ?

Both sides say stupid and threatening things was my point - and both sides have official lies such as the US still maintaining that Iraq was a base for terrorists when it was idealogically opposed to Al Qaeda...

Destabilised the region ? Who's unstable around there EXCEPT North Korea ? North Korea's regime is built on insanity, USA did not cause that. Have you fucking WATCHED Team America ???

Team America looked like shit so no - the US exerts a destabilising influence on the region because it has tried for decades to cause NK to collapse - trade sanctions etc. designed to hurt the population who in turn were expected to rise up against the leadership - the point is that the US have again tried to use the threat of force to make another country behave as it wishes and this time its backfired.

Its like firing a warning shot - it will always get a reaction - sometimes its the reaction you want i.e. obedience but sometimes its going to go pear shaped...

 

[TdC]

merged your posts Rynnor

 

[Calaen]

Stop whining you faggots. I am sick of you all crying over fucking America, if they were as bad as you make out why dont they just go and destroy NK?
The amount you moan about them surely could not get any worse.

Everyone hates someone who has power, I would love to see some of you morons in control of a fucking country, you couldn't control your fucking breathing.


I dont care about the war in Iraq, Saddam was a cock he needed to be destroyed. As for Israel they are surrounded by tools aswell.

p.s.

not aimed at anyone dircetly just thought I would air my views

 

[rynnor]

merged your posts Rynnor

Nice edit! Must be special Mod powers

Note to self - try n block em all together...

 

[TdC]

no worries mate. just thought I'd let you know in case someone noticed the edit