North Korea claims nuclear test

[ericschand]

ignore

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Are you kidding? Nuclear weapons is a 'great leap forward' when it comes to North Korea's military capabilities. Thats why everyone is so concerned about their posession of these weapons, because it (could) dramatically shift the balance of power in North-East Asia.

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and N. Korea believe it is a 'great leap forward', they've poured a lot of resources into these projects.

I didn't mean it in that way. I was thinking they should chose different a different phrase other than 'great leap forward' because of the last time they were used millions died.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As far as I am concered...this arguement doesn't fly. I am not even going to touch the "they are the only ones who have used it".

However, the US continually builds more, makes them more sophisticated,
and then tells everyone, "We wouldn't use them." But they did. Twice.
And threaten to use them, as they have done to Iran.

Or the veiled threats to Pakistan just after Sept 11, 2001.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

By your logic, anyone should be allowed to possess anything. If it was Australia building these weapons...we wouldn't have to worry so much, they are a democratic nation and would be responsible in their use.

India is a democratic nation, the biggest in the world. Do you trust
they will never use them? How about Isreal?

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I can't believe how any person can think...."if the US has them....everyone else should be able to have them"

Hell...the military has assualt rifles....by your logic.....criminals should be aloud to have them aswell.

Unbelievable...just unbelievable.

Not sure where the military has rifles, so criminals should too comes
from? How'd that jump happen?

However, it should be ok for the US to have them, they would
never use them. No, wait. It's ok because they would never invade
a sovereign country with virtually no pre-text. Uh, let me try again.
They would never support regimes that run roughshod over human
rights, especially to form a basis for dictatorship. Aw crap.
Ummm, they would never mine a sovereign country's ports and supply
the country's insurgents with armaments. Geeez. They would never
sell and support regimes by supplying them with various chemical
and other ergerious weapons. Hang on. They would never assist
in the overthrow of democratically elected governments, replacing
them with dictatorships which have no value for human rights.

Aw, forget it! It's perfectly fine for the US to have WMD's galore,
after all, I'm sure they say they sorta maybe kinda would never use them!

ers

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Jake

I didn't mean it in that way. I was thinking they should chose different a different phrase other than 'great leap forward' because of the last time they were used millions died.

The last time nuclear weapons were used? I don't think it was millions. I think nuclear weapons are a great leap forward for any state when considering military/technological standards, whether we like them or not. It was a great leap forward when India and Pakistan got them, as well as the United States.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ericschand

However, the US continually builds more, makes them more sophisticated,
and then tells everyone, "We wouldn't use them." But they did. Twice.
And threaten to use them, as they have done to Iran.

Not true. The US has not made any NEW nuclear weapons. Infact they have reduced the amount they have had since the end of the cold war. They do maintain the 10,000 or so they have...but they are not making new ones.

Please show me where the US threatened to nuke Iran?

Or the veiled threats to Pakistan just after Sept 11, 2001.

I don't think we have completely verified what exactly was said. Mushareef can say anything he wants to make himself look good for hos people. Also I don't recall him claiming that the US was going to drop Nuclear bombs on his country.

India is a democratic nation, the biggest in the world. Do you trust
they will never use them? How about Isreal?

I trust India a lot more than Pakistan and I trust Isreal a lot more than both of those countries.

Not sure where the military has rifles, so criminals should too comes
from? How'd that jump happen?

It happened because Lanny's logic is that all nation have the right to develop their tech as they see fit. Regardless of their interaction with not only other world nations but also their own people. World nations work much like people. You have good people and bad people. You have good nations and bad nations. You have nations that are trusted to uphold world order and protect others that cannot protect themselves (like police) and you have bad nations that will do what ever they want. Do you want bad nations to have massive destruction power? NO. Do you want criminals do have massive destruction power? No. But if any nation has the right to anything they choose....why then are people not allowed to have anything they choose? The only thing holding them back is their ability to fight more powerful nations. This is the same with criminals. If not for police then there would be anarchy.

Not sure if you have read any history...but WWII started because no one would show Germany that they ment business. Germany was appeased and appeased. If France, GB, Russia, USA all stopped Germany from the get go...it would never have happened. What do you think would have happened if Germany was the first to develop the bomb?? They were not that far off and they had the most advanced rocketry of their time.

If you think Nazi germany shouldn't have had nuclear weapons then your answer should be the same for NK.

However, it should be ok for the US to have them, they would
never use them. No, wait. It's ok because they would never invade
a sovereign country with virtually no pre-text. Uh, let me try again.
They would never support regimes that run roughshod over human
rights, especially to form a basis for dictatorship. Aw crap.
Ummm, they would never mine a sovereign country's ports and supply
the country's insurgents with armaments. Geeez. They would never
sell and support regimes by supplying them with various chemical
and other ergerious weapons. Hang on. They would never assist
in the overthrow of democratically elected governments, replacing
them with dictatorships which have no value for human rights.

If you think USA is the only country to do this...then you need to pick up a book. Almost every European country is or has done this. Canada continues to do it now with Zimbabwe.

I agree a lot that what the US has done in the past has come back to bit them in the butt and I don't agree with a lot of it. But...governments change and so do alliances. One decade you have a country that is fighting your enemy. Do you sit by and let your enemy become stronger by defeating another country (which has no association with you other than fighting your enemy) or do you help that country fight your enemy and hope things turn out the best?

Aw, forget it! It's perfectly fine for the US to have WMD's galore,
after all, I'm sure they say they sorta maybe kinda would never use them!

What are you blabbing about??? The US has used them twice...yes...yes...yes... it was a war situation and many reports have suggested that more people would have died fighting a conventional war with Japan than dropping the H-bomb. But I guess it is ok with you for that to happen as long as they didn't use the nuclear bomb.

Come on...get of that arguement already.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yeah, you're one to talk about logic.

"The military has assault the military has assualt rifles criminals should be aloud to have them aswell."

WTF, the criminals already have them! How lame.

How lame??? How lame is your arguement that "they have them now so don't worry about it." Does that make it OK??? NO.. Should we just say hey, since you can get them lets not worry about it, they are legal for everyone.

Get real. Some have them yes...it is still against the law. So is obtaining and developing nuclear weapons. But according to you...since the USA has them...the US is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO evil everyone else should have them to protect themselves from the US. Even the most vile of nations.

Hell I atleast thought that you didn't want NK to have them and it would be a bad idea if they did. Now your spoutin out crap about "yaaaa...good for them...they deserve it......give them a scoobie snack......give them a hero cookie."

You hate the US SOOOO much...leave it. Get out.... I am tired of your anti-USA everything. Hell they could make the cure for cancer, AIDS, Hepatitis and you would still say **** like they are only doing it to down trod other countries...to have the power to keep other countries under their thumb.

[Igottago]

[quote=jolinar of malkshor;585459]

Not sure if you have read any history...but WWII started because no one would show Germany that they ment business. Germany was appeased and appeased. If France, GB, Russia, USA all stopped Germany from the get go...it would never have happened. What do you think would have happened if Germany was the first to develop the bomb?? They were not that far off and they had the most advanced rocketry of their time.

So how do we stop them (N. Korea)? Are you suggesting military intervention? Or should the world have gone to war with N. Korea before this nuclear development? Its easier said than done..most people are only willing to go to war as a last result. I'm not sure what could've really been done to N. Korea to prevent this, other than diplomatic pressure, which obviously they didn't listen to.

[Calgaryborn]

[quote=Igottago;585478]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So how do we stop them (N. Korea)? Are you suggesting military intervention? Or should the world have gone to war with N. Korea before this nuclear development? Its easier said than done..most people are only willing to go to war as a last result. I'm not sure what could've really been done to N. Korea to prevent this, other than diplomatic pressure, which obviously they didn't listen to.

We can't stop them or more to the point stopping them would be at too great a cost. Clinton needed to stop it and didn't. The best we can do now is somehow stop them from selling the technology or hardware to other nations. That and build better missile defense systems.

The issue isn't which countries have governments that are too unstable to have nukes. The problem is the odds of some crazy using them goes up with the number of governments which have this weapon. We are at far greater risk today then when we were in the cold war.

That being said Iran has to be stopped. Although North Korea seems to be using this technology as a show of power and a deterrent against perceived threats, Iran seems at least in its rhetoric seems to be more likely to use a weapon.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Igottago

So how do we stop them (N. Korea)? Are you suggesting military intervention? Or should the world have gone to war with N. Korea before this nuclear development? Its easier said than done..most people are only willing to go to war as a last result. I'm not sure what could've really been done to N. Korea to prevent this, other than diplomatic pressure, which obviously they didn't listen to.

You make valid points. NK has been beating their chest for years now, telling the entire world what they were going to do. But know one would listen...history just keeps repeating.

Intervention should have taken place well before this happened...and....if the world had stood side by side it could have happened. Military intervention is almost out of the question now. They would have to act fast and they would have to expect attempts to shoot nuclear weapons at SK or Japan. Now that they have working nuclear weapons....thats all they care about making now. They will build as many as they can to prevent some sort of pre-emptive attack.

It's a sad day in the world...unless you are Lanny...then...yaaaa go NK go.

[RougeUnderoos]

[quote=Calgaryborn;585502]

Originally Posted by Igottago

We can't stop them or more to the point stopping them would be at too great a cost. Clinton needed to stop it and didn't. The best we can do now is somehow stop them from selling the technology or hardware to other nations. That and build better missile defense systems.

The issue isn't which countries have governments that are too unstable to have nukes. The problem is the odds of some crazy using them goes up with the number of governments which have this weapon. We are at far greater risk today then when we were in the cold war.

That being said Iran has to be stopped. Although North Korea seems to be using this technology as a show of power and a deterrent against perceived threats, Iran seems at least in its rhetoric seems to be more likely to use a weapon.

The real question about all this is what isn't Clinton's fault.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=Calgaryborn;585502]

Originally Posted by Igottago

We can't stop them or more to the point stopping them would be at too great a cost. Clinton needed to stop it and didn't. The best we can do now is somehow stop them from selling the technology or hardware to other nations. That and build better missile defense systems.

The issue isn't which countries have governments that are too unstable to have nukes. The problem is the odds of some crazy using them goes up with the number of governments which have this weapon. We are at far greater risk today then when we were in the cold war.

That being said Iran has to be stopped. Although North Korea seems to be using this technology as a show of power and a deterrent against perceived threats, Iran seems at least in its rhetoric seems to be more likely to use a weapon.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say....but I am not ready to jump on the "Iran is more dangerous than NK" wagon yet. I think NK is far more dangerous than Iran at the moment. Until quite recently there was a large liberal movement in Iran. If we go in there guns a blazing all of that will be for not. I think Iran has much more to lose than NK as far as world sanctions go and there is atleast a chance to get Iran onboard...very little tho.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The last time nuclear weapons were used? I don't think it was millions. I think nuclear weapons are a great leap forward for any state when considering military/technological standards, whether we like them or not. It was a great leap forward when India and Pakistan got them, as well as the United States.

Do I have to spell it out for you? This is high school history. Ever heard of Mao's "Great Leap Forward"? I just found it a bit ironic that North Korea would use the same phrase since when Mao used it somewhere between 20-40 million people died.

[Calgaryborn]

[quote=jolinar of malkshor;585514]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I agree with a lot of what you have to say....but I am not ready to jump on the "Iran is more dangerous than NK" wagon yet. I think NK is far more dangerous than Iran at the moment. Until quite recently there was a large liberal movement in Iran. If we go in there guns a blazing all of that will be for not. I think Iran has much more to lose than NK as far as world sanctions go and there is atleast a chance to get Iran onboard...very little tho.

I hope your right. I'm not suggesting that the time for diplomacy is over but, I hope if that day comes someone will have the balls to act.

I do think Iran would be a greater threat if they already had the bomb because of the Islamic element. Unless the leader of North Korea has lost the will for self preservation I can't see him launching an attack. I see his acquiring of these weapons as a defensive deterrent and also to stoke his ego.

[Winsor_Pilates]

There goes the quote function again

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Jake

Do I have to spell it out for you? This is high school history. Ever heard of Mao's "Great Leap Forward"? I just found it a bit ironic that North Korea would use the same phrase since when Mao used it somewhere between 20-40 million people died.

You don't think there's an obvious connection between the two? You think they used the phrase just by chance? Please keep updating me on highschool history!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

There goes the quote function again

And it seems so easy to use....

[Lanny_MacDonald]

[quote=jolinar of malkshor;585459]

Not true. The US has not made any NEW nuclear weapons. Infact they have reduced the amount they have had since the end of the cold war. They do maintain the 10,000 or so they have...but they are not making new ones.

The United States restarted its pit production in 2003.

http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/...tsnukeprod.htm
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/icbm-03a.html

You don't start pit production without building new weapons. If you think they aren't then what do you have to worry about other nations having pit production environments too? Just more to your hypocritical position?

Please show me where the US threatened to nuke Iran?

http://rwor.org/a/044/us-threatens-war-on-iran.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

The sabre rattling is well documented. Musharraf said that Pakistan was threatened with nuclear obliteration, and that was just to agree to support the US in their hunt for bin Laden. Imagine what was said privately between US and Iranian officials! Wow.

I don't think we have completely verified what exactly was said. Mushareef [sic] can say anything he wants to make himself look good for hos people. Also I don't recall him claiming that the US was going to drop Nuclear bombs on his country.

Sorry, you'll have to buy the book for the whole story, but here's the story that was in the news which Musharraf has commented on in the talk show circuit.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html

I trust India a lot more than Pakistan and I trust Isreal a lot more than both of those countries.

And why is that? Is this the same India that only recently accepted any dealings with America? This same India that was/is one of Russia's best allies and customers from weapons and military guidance? You are very trusting in some regards and not in others. It's funny how you are so trusting of nations when they fit your argument. Seemes your trust is based on opportunity more than on actions.

It happened because Lanny's logic is that all nation have the right to develop their tech as they see fit. Regardless of their interaction with not only other world nations but also their own people. World nations work much like people. You have good people and bad people. You have good nations and bad nations. You have nations that are trusted to uphold world order and protect others that cannot protect themselves (like police) and you have bad nations that will do what ever they want. Do you want bad nations to have massive destruction power? NO. Do you want criminals do have massive destruction power? No. But if any nation has the right to anything they choose....why then are people not allowed to have anything they choose? The only thing holding them back is their ability to fight more powerful nations. This is the same with criminals. If not for police then there would be anarchy.

And who is to choose who is good and who is bad? The nation that incarcerates more people per capita than any other? The one who has turned their back on treaties they have signed and refuses to abide by international laws and agreements? The one that had taken aggressive steps against countries in the past five years?

Not sure if you have read any history...but WWII started because no one would show Germany that they ment business. Germany was appeased and appeased. If France, GB, Russia, USA all stopped Germany from the get go...it would never have happened. What do you think would have happened if Germany was the first to develop the bomb?? They were not that far off and they had the most advanced rocketry of their time.

What is your point? Do you have one? Or is every leader that does not make President Bush's Christmas card list become "the next Hitler"? When do actions speak louder than the rhetoric that comes from the bully pulpit???

If you think Nazi germany shouldn't have had nuclear weapons then your answer should be the same for NK.

How can you honestly sit there and try and use that argument? It doesn't make any sense! NO ONE had nuclear weapons at the time. It would have been an incredible advantage over any other military in the world. North Korea is so far behind the curve that the they will never catch up.

I agree a lot that what the US has done in the past has come back to bit them in the butt and I don't agree with a lot of it. But...governments change and so do alliances. One decade you have a country that is fighting your enemy. Do you sit by and let your enemy become stronger by defeating another country (which has no association with you other than fighting your enemy) or do you help that country fight your enemy and hope things turn out the best?

Well, if you follow the United States' lead you arm the country, make them fight a war for you, and then when they are done doing your dirty work, you **** them as hard as you can. That's the way you make sure you always have "friends" on your side.

What are you blabbing about??? The US has used them twice...yes...yes...yes... it was a war situation and many reports have suggested that more people would have died fighting a conventional war with Japan than dropping the H-bomb. But I guess it is ok with you for that to happen as long as they didn't use the nuclear bomb.

Come on...get of that arguement already.

Yes, and there are many reports that the Japanese had been trying to surrender through June and July prior to the bombings, but the Americans refused to negotiate. What is your point? Oh wait, you don't have one, as usual.

How lame??? How lame is your arguement that "they have them now so don't worry about it." Does that make it OK??? NO.. Should we just say hey, since you can get them lets not worry about it, they are legal for everyone.

No more lame than your argument of saying its okay for one regime to have them over another. Why is it okay for one country to possess such weapons, but not another? If they have the ability to develop them on their own, oh well. What right do we have to say what another country can have or can't have? Does North Korea have the right to say that we can't have a missle defense umbrella if we so desire to blow a trillion dollars to try and build one? Oh, did the light bulb just go on for you?

Get real. Some have them yes...it is still against the law. So is obtaining and developing nuclear weapons. But according to you...since the USA has them...the US is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO evil everyone else should have them to protect themselves from the US. Even the most vile of nations.

And what law is this? You're going to have find this magical law and point it out to me. Wouldn't this law be the same one the United States has turned their back on?

Hell I atleast thought that you didn't want NK to have them and it would be a bad idea if they did. Now your spoutin out crap about "yaaaa...good for them...they deserve it......give them a scoobie snack......give them a hero cookie."

Actually, I think NO country should have them. If they aren't good enough for one country, they aren't good enough for any of them. I know, what a backward approach to trying to maintain peace and control!

You hate the US SOOOO much...leave it. Get out.... I am tired of your anti-USA everything. Hell they could make the cure for cancer, AIDS, Hepatitis and you would still say **** like they are only doing it to down trod other countries...to have the power to keep other countries under their thumb.

Go **** yourself. That's another one of those lame ass arguments for no mind idiots that don't bother to think for themselves. I happen to love the country, just hate the politics. I like America and the people, until they open their yaps and start talking politics and making decisions that impact other countries and hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Last time I checked, it was not only my constitutional right, but my civic duty to cll out my government on actions that I think are wrong and immoral. So STFU and try to focus on the topic at hand.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

What would you do? What would Jesus do?

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=Lanny_MacDonald;585589]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The United States restarted its pit production in 2003.

http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/...tsnukeprod.htm
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/icbm-03a.html

You don't start pit production without building new weapons. If you think they aren't then what do you have to worry about other nations having pit production environments too? Just more to your hypocritical position?



http://rwor.org/a/044/us-threatens-war-on-iran.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

The sabre rattling is well documented. Musharraf said that Pakistan was threatened with nuclear obliteration, and that was just to agree to support the US in their hunt for bin Laden. Imagine what was said privately between US and Iranian officials! Wow.



Sorry, you'll have to buy the book for the whole story, but here's the story that was in the news which Musharraf has commented on in the talk show circuit.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html



And why is that? Is this the same India that only recently accepted any dealings with America? This same India that was/is one of Russia's best allies and customers from weapons and military guidance? You are very trusting in some regards and not in others. It's funny how you are so trusting of nations when they fit your argument. Seemes your trust is based on opportunity more than on actions.



And who is to choose who is good and who is bad? The nation that incarcerates more people per capita than any other? The one who has turned their back on treaties they have signed and refuses to abide by international laws and agreements? The one that had taken aggressive steps against countries in the past five years?



What is your point? Do you have one? Or is every leader that does not make President Bush's Christmas card list become "the next Hitler"? When do actions speak louder than the rhetoric that comes from the bully pulpit???



How can you honestly sit there and try and use that argument? It doesn't make any sense! NO ONE had nuclear weapons at the time. It would have been an incredible advantage over any other military in the world. North Korea is so far behind the curve that the they will never catch up.



Well, if you follow the United States' lead you arm the country, make them fight a war for you, and then when they are done doing your dirty work, you **** them as hard as you can. That's the way you make sure you always have "friends" on your side.



Yes, and there are many reports that the Japanese had been trying to surrender through June and July prior to the bombings, but the Americans refused to negotiate. What is your point? Oh wait, you don't have one, as usual.



No more lame than your argument of saying its okay for one regime to have them over another. Why is it okay for one country to possess such weapons, but not another? If they have the ability to develop them on their own, oh well. What right do we have to say what another country can have or can't have? Does North Korea have the right to say that we can't have a missle defense umbrella if we so desire to blow a trillion dollars to try and build one? Oh, did the light bulb just go on for you?



And what law is this? You're going to have find this magical law and point it out to me. Wouldn't this law be the same one the United States has turned their back on?



Actually, I think NO country should have them. If they aren't good enough for one country, they aren't good enough for any of them. I know, what a backward approach to trying to maintain peace and control!



Go **** yourself. That's another one of those lame ass arguments for no mind idiots that don't bother to think for themselves. I happen to love the country, just hate the politics. I like America and the people, until they open their yaps and start talking politics and making decisions that impact other countries and hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Last time I checked, it was not only my constitutional right, but my civic duty to cll out my government on actions that I think are wrong and immoral. So STFU and try to focus on the topic at hand.

I had just spent the last 30 mins replying to this garbage but of course my fricken crappy ass computer decided to have an error and shut down. I am to ****ed off to do it again.

The one thing I do want to say is the only reason the US has such a high incarceration rate is because they put bad people in jail and keep them there....not like Canada who only jails murders and even then...you only serve 1/3 your sentence.

Isn't it interesting that USA's incarceration rate has increased while it's overall crime rate has decrease...even to a lower point than Canada.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/...29/b29_e.shtml

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Why? Hmmmm, what country is trapsing around the globe right now acting as the "world cop" when no one has asked them too? The United States. Who has been rattling the sabre about taking out NK's nuclear capability? The United States. Who has been threatening Iran in a similar fashion? The United States.
.....
.....

If I were running the show I'd do nothing directly. This is a regional matter. I would allow China, South Korea, Japan and Russia to carry the mail. This matter is more pressing for them than it is for my country.

While I agree with the essence of your post, the pact signed between the US and Japan signed some 60 years ago makes it difficult for the US to simply let Japan fight this on their own. With American military bases all over the country, I think the US will have to play a role in helping fix this -until Abe can develop a military (in which case we'll see the military industrial complex spring to Japan's help). That said, China even seems ready to cut their former "communist brother" if sanctions are imposed.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...009_452475.htm