North Korea tests a nuke

[rynnor]

Sorry








Uh-oh - just seen this :

"US President George W Bush has said North Korea will face "serious repercussions" over its claim to have carried out a nuclear test."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6041604.stm

 

[TdC]

Finally, does anyone think it maybe wasnt a nuke at all? It strikes me that you could get a pretty good seismic effect with normal explosives if you combined this with destroying a number of tunnels in a deep coal mine.

A very large mass of rock would shift if you collapse deep tunnels - it would be detectable via seismic sensors in the region...

I like it but imo it doesn't float Rynnor-san:

-NK is effectively a military dictatorship run by a non-army type. Kim may be top dog but he stays that way by being percieved as tough by his generals so...
-nothing makes him more butch than having a real live nuke so...
-the nuke test is real because otherwise...

-Kim would very quickly become/be the military's puppet meaning...
-something really bad would happen because...
-the generals aren't career army because they love peace as...
-they have to show themselves to be tough and agressive or they in turn dissapear.



also, I just saw on telly an NK person explaining how they'd managed to continue work on a nuke when they'd expressly agreed to not work on nukes with the US. It's the type of radioactive material used that they point to as allowing them to continue. I'm inclined to agree with this explaination due to the strange concept of face. Imo NK, ie Kim, won't break an agreement he's made....but he will try to weasel his way around it however possible. You have to think of the man himself as North Korea. He's very smart, very confident, and honorable in his own way. I don't think he will break his word once you manage to get him to give it. Wierd, I know.

 

[SoWat]

What can George Bush do? Ban the export of iPods or something?

The US cannot attack North Korea, no matter how much they might want to. China wouldn't stand for it, and China is a country that even Dubya wouldn't want on the other side of a shooting match.

South Korea is probably itching to put out Kim's lights, but they won't either (again because of China).

It's all moot anyway, as the NK are playing the nuclear card for a reason, and that reason is trade, food aid and the lifting of restrictions. All their talk about viewing any further restrictions as a declaration of war is just sabre rattling. China (once again) would not allow it, not now their leaders are getting the hang of this capitalism and making a pretty penny thankyouverymuch.

My guess is that after the obligatory exchange of harsh words, the US will (once again) engage North Korea in talks, promising aid, iPods, whatever in return for a quiet time. This will keep NK happy... until the next time they need economic relief.

The only wildcard here is Japan. They might just go for it, and to hell with the consequences!

I like to think of international politics as a school playground; you have your bullies, cowards, hangers on and backstabbers, all with devious little plans to get what they want. The fact that world leaders get to fly around in personal jets and get on the telly doesn't mean they're any good at it; They just like us to think they are.

Then again, I've just returned from an evening down the pub so this could just be Mr Tetley talking.

 

[Scouse]

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.

Nail + Head situation there Mr Catsby. I think CNN's a big pile of dogshite!

I really like those two other examples tho - aside from the stuff going on in this thread they make very interesting reading for anyone who likes to see how different news organisations treat the same story

 

[Scouse]

...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...

I like this

 

[Athan]

The US cannot attack North Korea, no matter how much they might want to. China wouldn't stand for it, and China is a country that even Dubya wouldn't want on the other side of a shooting match.

South Korea is probably itching to put out Kim's lights, but they won't either (again because of China).

You missed the possibility of China getting annoyed/worried enough to do something. No-one took the bait of speculating with me as to what the US/UK/EU/NATO would do if China suddenly invaded NK.

...

I like to think of international politics as a school playground; you have your bullies, cowards, hangers on and backstabbers, all with devious little plans to get what they want. The fact that world leaders get to fly around in personal jets and get on the telly doesn't mean they're any good at it; They just like us to think they are.

See my initial post in this thead for a comment relevant to this. Far too many such problems are due to the "I am or want to be better than you" mentality.

Then again, I've just returned from an evening down the pub so this could just be Mr Tetley talking.

You have made, and showed, a lot more sense than many others in this thread.

-Ath

 

[SoWat]

You missed the possibility of China getting annoyed/worried enough to do something. No-one took the bait of speculating with me as to what the US/UK/EU/NATO would do if China suddenly invaded NK.

I think it would be high fives all around in the White House, Downing street and Brussels, in private at least. In public it would be harsh words and condemnation.

South Korea would be very unhappy. Even though they detest the NK leadership, they provide a substantial amount of food aid to the north and are probably playing the long game to reunify the peninsula. It would be far harder for them to to achieve this with the likes of China, for whom playing the long game is a way of life.

There's the possibility that South Korea would try for a land grab in the south of NK if China invaded. However, I'm sure the South Koreans would get kicked out, either by China threatening to drop a real nuke in downtown Seoul or by the US who would basically leave them to their fate.

But I don't think China would invade, not overtly anyway. They have their position as the next superpower to protect and wouldn't want to give that title to India.

They would, instead, get the NK military (or Kim's relations) to do their work for them; overthrow Kim (or he might suddenly pass away), and then call on their friend China to 'assist' them in their work. That's the asian way; if a full on shooting match can be avoided then they will (but they are not averse to getting stuck in if required).

The US/UK/EU/NATO would know what's going on and huff and puff mightily, but in the end they'll realise that China is someone they can 'do business' with, as opposed to NK who like to get their way by banging on the table and shouting. China would still retain the lucrative commercial infrastructure they now have (funded by the west) and it'll be business as usual... for the west anyway. South Korea and Japan would not be happy, and Taiwan would be very nervous, but as long as Joe Schmo can get his Reebok's at a reasonable price they won't care.

The last variable here is India. They could very well take over the role of the west's sweatshop if required, but the possibility of interruption of profits for the western multinationals would rule that out, at least in the short term.

 

[Athan]

China would still retain the lucrative commercial infrastructure they now have (funded by the west) and it'll be business as usual... for the west anyway. ...the role of the west's sweatshop if required

*checks bottom of new Logitech MX518 Gaming Mouse*

Yup, "Made in China" *sigh*. Then again I guess I'd have paid 2-3 times as much if it was made in 'the west'.

My god this world is fucked up.

-Ath
P.S. Have some rep

 

[Alliandre]

Do you really think, that with all the bribery and dodgey beaurocracy in the Indian government, that they could overtake China in becoming the next superpower?

The main difference I see between China and India is that the Chinese government work together slightly better than the Indian government. Correct me if I'm wrong about the Chinese government.

 

[Athan]

Well, yes, China is an effective dictatorship*, whereas India is at least ostensibly a democracy of some sort, and thus there's more leeway for criticism and pulling in opposite directions.

-Ath

* - I wanted to add an 'ocracy' here, but I can't find one that seems to fit well. Theocracy kind of does if you consider the PLA/NPC a form of religion. Meritocracy fits if you use a narrow view of achieivement/intellectual criteria. It's not a Plutocracy, although no doubt those in power ARE the effect rich. Any thoughts?

 

[Lester]

North Korea pose no Risk. Anyone knows that you need to own America and South America to take over the world. You can only invade that continent from South Africa (to Brazil) and Iceland and the Russian bit at the top right of the map.

 

[tris-]

North Korea pose no Risk. Anyone knows that you need to own America and South America to take over the world. You can only invade that continent from South Africa (to Brazil) and Iceland and the Russian bit at the top right of the map.

i dont think thats the best strat. you need to keep expanding base and get pillboxes and SAM sites everywhere. and if you can keep all your ore harvesters alive then its even better. although being allied their harvesters can chrono shift.

 

[Skyler]

http://www.everybody-dies.com

In all seriousness though, the Nuclear debate is a complicated one.

The behaviour of America as the 'World Police' right now creates a certain nervousness amongst the "Axis of Evil". If you add past history of conflicts involving America into the mix, many of these states will come to the conclusion of "let's get our hands on some sort of nuclear weapon to deter invasion from America". Of course there are other reasons to why some places would want these weapons, but this is a new thing which America is bringing on themselves (and the rest of us) by their behaviour.

It's also important to remember how different 'Western' society is compared to the "Axis of Evil" and other dubious or rogue states. Personally I don't really want more people to have nuclear weapons, certainly not people I perceive to be unstable or uneducated in the M.A.D. scenario, or worst of all - do not care about the M.A.D. scenario. To me North Korea or Iran are not stable or reliable enough to posess world destroying weaponary.

However, if you grew up in one of those countries and you're part of their society, you would be worried that America (among others) has nuclear weapons. Even worse probably, because you know your country doesn't.

What I'm trying to say with that is, if I try and visualise being on the other side of the fence so to speak, I find my doubts and worries about a state like Iran having nuclear weapons as hypocritical and almost unfair, especially considering Israel has weapons and we never complain about that. People preach on about the Iranian leader calling death upon random things, Israel have said several times they will use nuclear weapons without hesitation if provoked.

I think we should be far more worried about Israels posession of such weapons rather than North Korea.

 

[Athan]

I think we should be far more worried about Israels posession of such weapons rather than North Korea.

Only because they're FAR closer to Europe than North Korea is.

I'm just as worried about the destabilising effect on Asia, and by extension of the whole world, of NK having nukes.

Note, I said "just as worried", not more. There's no practical reason for anyone to have nukes other than deterrent. And then it could be argued, given the subjective nature of justice, right and wrong, that if you need such a deterrent, say because your other military forces are too small and/or weak to resist the perceived enemy, then maybe the enemy is inevitably in the right anyway.

As I've said way up-topic, what we really need is for everyone to drop all the testosterone-fueled macho "must prove I'm better than you for my own self-esteem" bullshit and focus on just doing the best we can for ourselves and each other with the minimal of negative impact on anyone or anything.

-Ath, waiting for the "kumbyar" comments