Why doesn't the US invade North Korea

Overheal · 27-02-2012 8:22pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

But it's almost certain they have nukes.

And?

al28283 · 27-02-2012 8:24pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

But it's almost certain they have nukes.

1. No it's not

2. So what?

RiseToTheTop · 27-02-2012 9:09pm

Overheal wrote: »

And?

What if they were to launch a nuke at Seoul? The people in charge are lunatics.

[Jackass] · 27-02-2012 9:26pm

I'm not sure I understand the OPs question of why don't the U.S. invade North Korea, why would they invade anywhere?

For decades there has been mass genocide in vast amounts of Africa, yet the only region of interest has been in the North, where the "west" has been meddling in the affairs of places like Libya, with sponsored assasination attempts etc., where of course there is an invested interest in controling the output of about 4% of the worlds oil reserves (I know it's been done to death - oil - but it's only because it's a very lightly veiled motivation for almost the entirety of U.S foreign policy for so long), and looking at the toppling of Gaddafi is a good example of how manipulated we are by "the bogey man axis of EVIL that we always hear about...

Not only did Libya thrive under Gaddafi, but he was a highly respected member of the African Union, where he actually oversaw a thriving Economy with high standards of living, and was a non-acting head of state who does not have a record of human rights violations, and was actually quite a liberating figure in Libya. The country was (is) debt free, and he used oil money to completely modernise the housing and infrastructure of the country, moving people from slums into modern housing, developing the best education system in all of Africa, GDP was growing at massive rates (always around 10%) and many other great things.

He was enemy number 1 though as he resisted foreign influence (i.e US and UK bullying) and had great nationalist ideals, and "sponsored terrorism" as foreign states attempted to murder a sovereign state figure head and imposed embargo's on a country, and he retaliated by sponsoring what he saw as other struggling nations who were under the tirany of these states (such as sympathising with IRA republican independence ideals).

Yet a "no fly zone" was announced as mass bombing occured to destroy the Government of a nation and kill one of it's stately figure heads, as he wasn't playing ball with the others and ruffled feathers by retaliating to threats and helping those as he saw sharing his values, and he eventually fell victim to a rebelling group looking to sieze power, as there are massively volatile fluctuating political opinions in North (/all) of Africa.

He was no saint, he was no hero, but just an example of U.S. and western foreign policy in general.

Countries like North Korea, another AXIS OF EVIL merely developed nuclear weapons so that the U.S. could not impose their will on another sovereign state, who are massively withdrawn and show little or no interest in the outside world, basically minding their own business, but buying a gun because they know there's a bully in town.

U.S. foreign policy intentionally prevokes extremist groups in order to give them the political amunition to more or less do whatever they like.

They take little or no interest in regions where they can not pillage and steal.

I'm not a radical, I'm not supporting anybody or have any strong opinion on foreign states, just calling it as I see it.

Benny_Cake · 27-02-2012 9:36pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

And?

What if they were to launch a nuke at Seoul? The people in charge are lunatics.

How would attacking North Korea reduce the chance of them using a nuclear weapon? They may well look and sound like lunatics, but the actions of the North Koreans up to now have been perversely rational - they want external aid, and to get that they do a lot of sabre rattling. And it works.

Eggy Baby! · 28-02-2012 12:18am

Said on here a few times, but the DPRK might have cold war era weapons and armaments but these things are still just as lethal.

Well you have to remember America's army is mostly cold war material as well...

A10s are 40 years old, most of its fighter jets are decades old, its tanks were around in the 70s, it uses bombers from 1940, some of its pistols and machine-guns were around for the Great War, it still uses APCs from Vietnam. The soldiers use retrofitted guns that were ineffective half a century ago, snipers use rifles from the Korean War.... whenever you see the troops in fancy ballistic vests or with EOTechs or sights on their guns they are usually only the marines...however its navy, admittedly, is fantastic. Most of their choppers are retrofitted..transport planes are ancient..

Most of its fancy jets, drones and armour are in too small numbers to be deployed en masse. Usually the Yanks rely on surprise, size, organisation and overwhelming force ("shock and awe" tactics) to win. The US Army is a large blunt object, like the vast majority of armies.

and was a non-acting head of state who does not have a record of human rights violations,

Gotta lol at that.

28-02-2012 2:00pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

What if they were to launch a nuke at Seoul? The people in charge are lunatics.

That's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. Even if they do have nukes, (which they may or may not TBH) do you really believe it's a rationale for an invasion? All of the people who are promoting it are firmly in camps that are in favour of attacking, so it can hardly be described as an impartial assessment of the situation.

Remember when saddam hussein was a lunatic with an arsenal of WMD's at his disposal that could be deployed within 45 minutes? The UK and US, along with their allies used that rationale successfully, went in and killed him and installed a western sympathising government to shore up control of the oil.

Fast forward a few years, and a few public enquiries later. There were no WMD's ever found and it turns out Saddam had never had the capability to launch anything at anyone within 45 minutes. Guess what though, he's still dead (which is a good thing for humanitarian reasons) and there's still a US sympathetic puppet government in charge. The supply of oil out of Iraq and Kuwait is still secure, and the good friends of the west in the area are still nice and safe.

Do you see a pattern emerging here?

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

But it's almost certain they have nukes.

Says who? The same people who provided the military intelligence on those pesky Iraqi WMD's? The same people who couldn't effectively track the whereabouts of a guy on a camel for over ten years?

Sounds too convenient to me. A ready made excuse to go in and wipe out an unfriendly government who's been rattling it's sabre at their friends in the south for years, without actually ever doing anything.

Overheal · 28-02-2012 2:20pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

What if they were to launch a nuke at Seoul? The people in charge are lunatics.

They could do that if they didn't want to themselves be destroyed. Even if they have nukes they have too few to accomplish anything of significance. By launching one they are just inviting themselves to being bombed into the stone age, conventionally at that.

Sunnyisland · 01-03-2012 6:23pm

Well it looks if you cant Invade them , Feed them,

North Korea's pledge to suspend uranium enrichment, as well as nuclear and long-range missile tests, The US has announced 240,000 tonnes of new food aid for Pyongyang in return for the freeze.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-17215805

[Jackass] · 01-03-2012 8:20pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Gotta lol at that.

Alright, well put on your dancing shoes then, and let's do a jig.

Gadaffi's achievements during his REIGN OF TERROR!!:

Introduced Democracy
Brought Literacy from from 10% to almost full literacy (in the 90% region)
Introduced Welfare Payment scheme that did not previously exist
Introudced free education that did not exist before
Introduced free health care that did not exist before
Half of the country (50%) lived in shanties and tents prior to his reign of terror, he introduced housing assistance and finance.
Put refinements in to give every citizen free clean water that did not exist previous to his administration
Made the nation debt-free
Brought the country to the best human-rights rating in all of Africa and was ranked higher than the U.S. close allies of Saudi Arabia
Accused a US funded research by Amnesty International produced a report claiming human rights violations and non-evidence backed disapearences, this was then refuted by the United Nations Human Rights Council who priased the high level of progress in human rights in the country.
Allowed the formation and free election of opposing parties, mostly based on ethnicity and were allowed entire freedom of expression
Was again accused of human rights violations when it was claimed thousands of prisoners were killed in a riot, yet Human rights watch later confirmed there was no evidence of this
Allegations of torture were made by oppisition parties, but no human rights association presented any case confirming this

All of this occuring during multiple assassination attempts on Gaddafi, spondored by the US and UK, and decades of claims of violations, none of which have ever been verified and many of which have been disproven over the decades.

He got the oil. He not co-operating. Kill him. And they did.

Now, what was so loloriffic about my original post if you please?

Eggy Baby! · 07-03-2012 5:23pm

Introduced Democracy

Brought Literacy from from 10% to almost full literacy (in the 90% region)

Introduced Welfare Payment scheme that did not previously exist

Introudced free education that did not exist before

Introduced free health care that did not exist before

Half of the country (50%) lived in shanties and tents prior to his reign of terror, he introduced housing assistance and finance.

Put refinements in to give every citizen free clean water that did not exist previous to his administration

Made the nation debt-free

Brought the country to the best human-rights rating in all of Africa and was ranked higher than the U.S. close allies of Saudi Arabia

Accused a US funded research by Amnesty International produced a report claiming human rights violations and non-evidence backed disapearences, this was then refuted by the United Nations Human Rights Council who priased the high level of progress in human rights in the country.

Allowed the formation and free election of opposing parties, mostly based on ethnicity and were allowed entire freedom of expression

Was again accused of human rights violations when it was claimed thousands of prisoners were killed in a riot, yet Human rights watch later confirmed there was no evidence of this

Allegations of torture were made by oppisition parties, but no human rights association presented any case confirming this

-No
-Yes
-Yes
-Yes
-Yes
-Yes
-Yes
-Yes
-No
-Source?
-Source?
-Source?
-Source?

And I lol'd at your statement that he was a non-acting head of state mainly. He always claimed he had a purely ceremonial role, like the Queen of England, which is hogwash. It was clear he had all the power.

(Gaddafi)...does not have a record of human rights violations,

Again, hogwash. Freedom of speech, demonstration, to vote, to learn other languages, travel etc. etc. were non-existent. I do not support the western intervention, and I despise the rebels (I was rooting for Gaddafi all along and his brutal murder really shocked and disgusted me) but to say he was a stellar leader in terms of human rights, is absurd. The Americans are bad guys, and I believe them and follow them as little as I would a crazy blind man from an asylum, but Gaddafi is no saint.

Plus making education free etc. has nothing to do with human rights.

timesnap · 07-03-2012 5:52pm

Eggy Baby!

The Americans are bad guys

Yup every single last one of them.
i swear so many sweeping statements about Americans on boards if directed at any other country would have the member banned for racism.!

Eggy Baby! · 07-03-2012 7:52pm

timesnap wrote: »

Yup every single last one of them.
i swear so many sweeping statements about Americans on boards if directed at any other country would have the member banned for racism.!

American government*

In fairness, it's just you being pedantic, not me being racist.

And it wasn't a "sweeping statement" it's pretty damn obvious what I'm referring to here, unless of course the citizens of the USA make foreign policy decisions now?

timesnap · 09-03-2012 3:04am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

American government*

Thank you for clarifying that Eggy Baby.

In fairness, it's just you being pedantic, not me being racist.

Not being pedantic at all,possibly i have just read too many anti-American posts across many forums that are just irrational and unfair.
it was wrong of me to single out your post in particular.

unless of course the citizens of the USA make foreign policy decisions now?

No they do not but they elect the people who decide foreign policy just as we do.
there was an effort by pacifist groups who wanted to be fully tax compliant to
not allow their tax go towards weapons of war,needless to say they were given no such assurance.

wingsof daun · 10-03-2012 2:13am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

. He always claimed he had a purely ceremonial role, like the Queen of England, which is hogwash. It was clear he had all the power.

Again, hogwash. Freedom of speech, demonstration, to vote, to learn other languages, travel etc. etc. were non-existent. I do not support the western intervention, and I despise the rebels (I was rooting for Gaddafi all along and his brutal murder really shocked and disgusted me) but to say he was a stellar leader in terms of human rights, is absurd. The Americans are bad guys, and I believe them and follow them as little as I would a crazy blind man from an asylum, but Gaddafi is no saint.

Plus making education free etc. has nothing to do with human rights.

He was voted "human rights hero 2011" on Amnesty International website. They soon removed the result because it was rather embarrassing to the organization that accused Gaddafi of human rights abuses.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629712?rss

He never had a bank account, although he was accused of having billions in overseas bank accounts. He asked Cameron to produce one single dinar (Libyan currency) that he had anywhere overseas, in a BBC interview: "I will stick my fingers in his two eyes." The Libyan PEOPLE may have had shares in coca-cola for example, or assets overseas but that is a different matter.

To add to Jackass's list, Gaddafi made the Great Man-Made River which provided water to vast desert areas from one source deep underground. This cost billions and was described as the (7th?) 8th wonder of the world.
He made it a human right to be housed, or not to be homeless. Newly wed couples received good money. Farmers or people who wanted to become a farmer were given money for crops, irrigation and seeds, especially if they wanted to improve arid land to make it produce food.

Manic Moran · 12-03-2012 4:21am

Back onto the topic of DPRK, I just caught this video from last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sknmWiih_4E

Have I missed something? What did the RoK do to diss Kim Jong Un that seems to have these people all worked up?

Or, perhaps more to the point, what did the DPRK say that the RoK did to get those guys to act all worked up?

NTM

guitarzero · 12-03-2012 4:35am

Why any war for the U$? I can only think of one rea$on.

Jonny7 · 13-03-2012 12:12am

wingsof daun wrote: »

He was voted "human rights hero 2011" on Amnesty International website. They soon removed the result because it was rather embarrassing to the organization that accused Gaddafi of human rights abuses.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629712?rss

It was an online poll?

From the article in question -

"Many people in the world are happy to see Muammar Gaddafi on the top of voting for the "Human Rights Hero of 2011" award, after he had been due to receive a United Nations award for his contribution to human rights, but instead one month before it was due, the United Nations allowed bankrupted western countries to wage a massive war on Libya, killing over 100,000 and razing entire cities to the ground, while the media focused on the spreading of rumors and disinformation. "

Razed entire cities to the ground? which cities.

although he was accused of having billions in overseas bank accounts.

True

To add to Jackass's list, Gaddafi made the Great Man-Made River which provided water to vast desert areas from one source deep underground. This cost billions and was described as the (7th?) 8th wonder of the world.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had similar styled projects.

He made it a human right to be housed, or not to be homeless. Newly wed couples received good money. Farmers or people who wanted to become a farmer were given money for crops, irrigation and seeds, especially if they wanted to improve arid land to make it produce food.

Bit of a rosy picture unfortunately, the reality was quite different.

Jaafa · 13-03-2012 1:24am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Back onto the topic of DPRK, I just caught this video from last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sknmWiih_4E

Have I missed something? What did the RoK do to diss Kim Jong Un that seems to have these people all worked up?

Or, perhaps more to the point, what did the DPRK say that the RoK did to get those guys to act all worked up?

NTM

They sure do know a thing or two about choreography.

Overheal · 13-03-2012 6:09am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Back onto the topic of DPRK, I just caught this video from last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sknmWiih_4E

Have I missed something? What did the RoK do to diss Kim Jong Un that seems to have these people all worked up?

Or, perhaps more to the point, what did the DPRK say that the RoK did to get those guys to act all worked up?

NTM

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2012/03/12/nk-newspaper-dancing-over-death-buzz/

Some analysts speculate it’s an effort by the North to create some anxiety in South Korea and assert some influence in South Korea’s parliamentary election next month. (If Mr. Lee’s conservative allies lose power, the ruling liberal parties may open up the aid and money spigots to the North.)

Another potential reason is that South Korea and the U.S. are engaged in one of their twice-yearly joint military exercises, a period when North Korea routinely steps up its verbal barrage.

Another theory holds that the new government of Kim Jong Eun is responding to graffiti criticism that’s been reported in several cities in North Korea since last September. In those instances, according to reports on North Korea defector-related Web sites, citizens painted or spray-painted phrases that variously praised Mr. Lee or disparaged the passage of power to another generation of the Kim family.

maybe? March 4 they held the rally pictured in the article

The_source · 19-04-2012 11:30pm

hey im in highschool currently writing a report on nuclear weapons and why we should invade countires like north korea and iran. North Korea has tons of Uranium mines and enough supplies to make tons of giant bombs, but there problem for a while is they didnt know how to make them. On October 16, 2006 an underground nuclear bomb test of 1 kiloton was tested successfully so they now knew how to create one, but know one knows what they are currently capable of. Have they created larger bombs? what do they plan on doing? and things of the sort. I am all for invading North Korea, possibly changing them to a democracy, not having them ruled be a tyrant,( even though Kim Jong Il is dead, who's to say his son isn't like him?) This is part of the reason the U.S. is currently holding off is because now that his son is in charge nobody really knows what he is like and if he is like his father, but reporters have said that the son claimed that he was going on with the nuclear programs, but he was going to be much more efficeint and faster than his father created them. This has really worried some Americans seeing that they have threatend America already saying they'd ship weapons to other countries, possibly terrorists, if they basically didn't get what they wanted. There has also been speculation about North Korea hiring the top Russian, Chinese, and other scientists to create a Super-EMP that could possibly, if exploded in the right place in the atmosphere and in about the center of the U.S. take out the whole power-grid and we will be living like the 19th century again, with all electronics gone. It really is something to think about and I hope i didn't bore you too much with my long reply

Solair · 20-04-2012 12:29am

Be careful of that report! The British parliament has a tendency to use high school reports to justify invasion of countries...

At the very least, make sure that they give you credit for it!

Overheal · 20-04-2012 12:31am

The_source wrote: »

hey im in highschool currently writing a report on nuclear weapons and why we should invade countires like north korea and iran. North Korea has tons of Uranium mines and enough supplies to make tons of giant bombs, but there problem for a while is they didnt know how to make them. On October 16, 2006 an underground nuclear bomb test of 1 kiloton was tested successfully so they now knew how to create one, but know one knows what they are currently capable of. Have they created larger bombs? what do they plan on doing? and things of the sort. I am all for invading North Korea, possibly changing them to a democracy, not having them ruled be a tyrant,( even though Kim Jong Il is dead, who's to say his son isn't like him?) This is part of the reason the U.S. is currently holding off is because now that his son is in charge nobody really knows what he is like and if he is like his father, but reporters have said that the son claimed that he was going on with the nuclear programs, but he was going to be much more efficeint and faster than his father created them. This has really worried some Americans seeing that they have threatend America already saying they'd ship weapons to other countries, possibly terrorists, if they basically didn't get what they wanted. There has also been speculation about North Korea hiring the top Russian, Chinese, and other scientists to create a Super-EMP that could possibly, if exploded in the right place in the atmosphere and in about the center of the U.S. take out the whole power-grid and we will be living like the 19th century again, with all electronics gone. It really is something to think about and I hope i didn't bore you too much with my long reply

Welcome to boards.

You ought to check back in the rest of this thread, there was a pretty good discussion in here about the Practicality behind an invasion. NK might have Uranium but the geography of the country also lends itself to being highly treacherous to cross: it's full of hills and valleys and such. A land based invasion (a real necessary component, to be fair) would suffer huge losses.

I don't know that I've seen any sources that say anything about an EMP scenario but I think that's way beyond the curve to pull off, and more importantly there would have to be some kind of follow on: knocking out power would hurt but be recoverable, they would have to follow in with some type of invasion, and the US still has a very strong navy. In the event of a strike all of our flexible assets would probably be redeployed to the Pacific ASAP. Yes, NK has been researching ways to sink Aircraft Carriers but I believe ultimately they would lose the sea battle, and never make it to the US.

It has a little to do with the passing of Kim Jong Il, but a lot more to do with the fact that North Korea isn't a severe threat (evidenced in part by their missile test results) and the fact that invasion isn't really a healthy option. NK does have one of the largest standing armies in the world after all, and while I don't think they have the mobilization potential to go very far, if you tried to fight them in their back yard, they would stand a good chance to win, in spite of the technology gap.

The_source · 20-04-2012 3:29am

Overheal wrote: »

Welcome to boards.

You ought to check back in the rest of this thread, there was a pretty good discussion in here about the Practicality behind an invasion. NK might have Uranium but the geography of the country also lends itself to being highly treacherous to cross: it's full of hills and valleys and such. A land based invasion (a real necessary component, to be fair) would suffer huge losses.

I don't know that I've seen any sources that say anything about an EMP scenario but I think that's way beyond the curve to pull off, and more importantly there would have to be some kind of follow on: knocking out power would hurt but be recoverable, they would have to follow in with some type of invasion, and the US still has a very strong navy. In the event of a strike all of our flexible assets would probably be redeployed to the Pacific ASAP. Yes, NK has been researching ways to sink Aircraft Carriers but I believe ultimately they would lose the sea battle, and never make it to the US.

It has a little to do with the passing of Kim Jong Il, but a lot more to do with the fact that North Korea isn't a severe threat (evidenced in part by their missile test results) and the fact that invasion isn't really a healthy option. NK does have one of the largest standing armies in the world after all, and while I don't think they have the mobilization potential to go very far, if you tried to fight them in their back yard, they would stand a good chance to win, in spite of the technology gap.

Hey, thanks for the feedback and that EMP stuff i found was on a few different sites, one is http://www.futurescience.com/emp.html, http://images.military.com/DT/images/Graham.pdf, http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/life-after-an-emp-attack-no-power-no-food-no-transportation-no-banking-and-no-internet, and here. Also, thanks for the forwarning on the British never knew that

.

Just researched: Chinese also has a big influence over NK because they needed some money for nuclear tests and what not, Chinese actually funded that Oct. 16 test, and since China has this influence they don't want NK actually attacking first. The debt between the U.S. and China is far greater than the one with NK and China, so china doesn't want NK in war with us because that means no more money from us for while.

The_source · 20-04-2012 3:31am

That EMP stuff is still not going to be for a while, but if what is happening is truly going on possible within the next 5-10 yrs. this is what i researched.

troposphere · 20-04-2012 4:00am

You should probably research how many people would die on both sides before advocating invading a country that already has a nuclear weapon and poses minimal threat to America.

RichieC · 20-04-2012 4:49am

High altitude nuclear detonations cause an EMP effect, I've read.

Mr. Loverman · 20-04-2012 8:09am

I'm just back from NK. The citizens of the country are really sweet, almost childlike. It would be absolutely terrible if the country was invaded as many of them would be killed or injured.

The solution (reunification) needs to be political and something both sides can agree upon. Maybe some sort of power sharing government like Northern Ireland.

Sunnyisland · 20-04-2012 8:36am

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I'm just back from NK. The citizens of the country are really sweet, almost childlike. It would be absolutely terrible if the country was invaded as many of them would be killed or injured.

The solution (reunification) needs to be political and something both sides can agree upon. Maybe some sort of power sharing government like Northern Ireland.

Yes Gerry A should head over there and sort it out

Overheal · 20-04-2012 4:18pm

RichieC wrote: »

High altitude nuclear detonations cause an EMP effect, I've read.

and theyd have to get it there first...

Boulevardier · 20-04-2012 4:31pm

Can anyone explain to me why there was all this hoo-ha about the North Korean missile, while India launched theirs 2 days ago with not a whimper of protest from the EU, US or as far as I know anyone else?

RichieC · 20-04-2012 4:41pm

Overheal wrote: »

and theyd have to get it there first...

We can put rockets into high earth orbit, I don't think this tech is that far out of our reach

Jonny7 · 20-04-2012 8:32pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why there was all this hoo-ha about the North Korean missile, while India launched theirs 2 days ago with not a whimper of protest from the EU, US or as far as I know anyone else?

North Korea is a rogue state run like a cult, threatening all its neighbours, starving people were digging up graves in the 90's while the leadership was testing missiles and eating caviar. Not much has changed, nor looks like it will change - except fr getting longer and longer range rockets bargaining chips.

India, as the world's largest democracy, is not quite in the same category. Although I am sure the Pakistani's raised their voices about it.

Mr. Loverman · 20-04-2012 10:58pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

North Korea is a rogue state run like a cult, threatening all its neighbours, starving people were digging up graves in the 90's while the leadership was testing missiles and eating caviar. Not much has changed, nor looks like it will change - except fr getting longer and longer range rockets bargaining chips.

India, as the world's largest democracy, is not quite in the same category. Although I am sure the Pakistani's raised their voices about it.

So nuclear weapons and long range missiles are ok if you are considered a democracy? I know you don't agree (i.e. nuclear weapons and long range missiles are not ok) but it is funny how a countries internal politics make weapons of mass destruction "acceptable".

Jonny7 · 21-04-2012 11:59am

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

So nuclear weapons and long range missiles are ok if you are considered a democracy? I know you don't agree (i.e. nuclear weapons and long range missiles are not ok) but it is funny how a countries internal politics make weapons of mass destruction "acceptable".

In a simplistic basic "fairness" point of view, no.

However this isn't a school playground, its nuclear geopolitics, and whilst I don't agree with nuclear weapons, they are a fact of life and the less unstable dictatorships that have them the better.

Overheal · 21-04-2012 1:57pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

So nuclear weapons and long range missiles are ok if you are considered a democracy? I know you don't agree (i.e. nuclear weapons and long range missiles are not ok) but it is funny how a countries internal politics make weapons of mass destruction "acceptable".

It's probably more the thought of some countries that might decide to use nuclear weapons based on some kind of religious or fanatical agenda. In (most) democracies you have a clear separation of powers and religious segregation.

Mr. Loverman · 21-04-2012 2:29pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

In a simplistic basic "fairness" point of view, no.

However this isn't a school playground, its nuclear geopolitics, and whilst I don't agree with nuclear weapons, they are a fact of life and the less unstable dictatorships that have them the better.

I agree we don't want NK to have nuclear weapons, but in reality India are just as likely to use them as NK. The US are even more likely.

In NK they were clear they have nukes as a deterrent because there are thousands of US soldiers across the border in SK and because (and this is a fact) the US wanted to use them in the past against NK but the UK stopped them. So no wonder NK are desperate to get a deterrent.

Overheal wrote: »

It's probably more the thought of some countries that might decide to use nuclear weapons based on some kind of religious or fanatical agenda. In (most) democracies you have a clear separation of powers and religious segregation.

Not sure I agree with that. The UK and US were recently led by extremely religious guys.

NK will not use nuclear weapons against SK. They believe they are the same people and want to be reunified.

Jonny7 · 21-04-2012 5:56pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I agree we don't want NK to have nuclear weapons, but in reality India are just as likely to use them as NK. The US are even more likely.

They aren't "just as likely".. there is very little likeliness of the use of nuclear weapons.. this isn't 1945. It's the situation behind them which is most concerning.

In NK they were clear they have nukes as a deterrent because there are thousands of US soldiers across the border in SK and because (and this is a fact) the US wanted to use them in the past against NK but the UK stopped them. So no wonder NK are desperate to get a deterrent.

You can discern what you want from history. North Korea as it stands is a hellhole of a country, in which the leadership is the aggressor - towards its own people and towards its neighbours. Most of the population live in frightful conditions of state control, intrusion and massive human rights violations.

Not sure I agree with that. The UK and US were recently led by extremely religious guys.

NK will not use nuclear weapons against SK. They believe they are the same people and want to be reunified.

Were you brainwashed when you were over there or something?

Mr.Micro · 21-04-2012 6:04pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why there was all this hoo-ha about the North Korean missile, while India launched theirs 2 days ago with not a whimper of protest from the EU, US or as far as I know anyone else?

Absolutely true, not a whimper of protest. India is one of the 4 nations not signed up to the non Proliferation Treaty. Then again its not Iran, and some way from the middle east. I would be concerned that India has a nuclear programme and has the potential for huge instability.

Sunnyisland · 21-04-2012 7:01pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Absolutely true, not a whimper of protest. India is one of the 4 nations not signed up to the non Proliferation Treaty. Then again its not Iran, and some way from the middle east. I would be concerned that India has a nuclear programme and has the potential for huge instability.

True Mr Micro But I would think this is more aimed at china who announced double-digit increases in military spending last month than any other nation.Perhaps no Asian nation has been more unnerved by rising Chinese power than India.Many Indian strategic planners now regard China, rather than Pakistan, as the country’s gravest military threat,This missile would enable the Indian military, for the first time, to reach China’s most important cities, Beijing and Shanghai, with a nuclear attack.
Interesting times ahead out that way

again.

Jonny7 · 21-04-2012 7:46pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Absolutely true, not a whimper of protest. India is one of the 4 nations not signed up to the non Proliferation Treaty. Then again its not Iran, and some way from the middle east. I would be concerned that India has a nuclear programme and has the potential for huge instability.

Hmmm, so about 15 years ago Indian and Pakistan went nuclear and you "would be concerned".

Mr.Micro · 21-04-2012 7:54pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hmmm, so about 15 years ago Indian and Pakistan went nuclear and you "would be concerned".

No need for the sarcasm mister. If you take my post in context, when I stated that India was not part of the NPT( effectively no monitoring or rules).....then the bit about having a nuclear programme. The 2 together is concerning, would you not agree?

Jonny7 · 21-04-2012 8:49pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

No need for the sarcasm mister. If you take my post in context, when I stated that India was not part of the NPT( effectively no monitoring or rules).....then the bit about having a nuclear programme. The 2 together is concerning, would you not agree?

India and Pakistan are both not signatories, so it's equally concerning, esp. since one of those countries has shown signs of instability, as well as the potential for a military coup.

If India were to become as unstable as North Korea then I have no doubt the world would be extremely concerned - but for now there is little that can be done. Again, it's not "fair" that some countries have nuclear weapons and others don't. It's not "fair" that some nuclear armed countries raise more concern than others. It's just logic and cold reality.

Mr. Loverman · 22-04-2012 5:59am

Jonny7 wrote: »

You can discern what you want from history. North Korea as it stands is a hellhole of a country, in which the leadership is the aggressor - towards its own people and towards its neighbours.

While this is true, they are no where near as bad as the US who:

1) Have nuclear weapons
2) Have previously used them
3) Have previously said they want to use them against NK
4) Have a record of starting wars and interfering in other countries internal politics

Looking at the evidence the US is a far more aggressive country than NK. Hence why I can understand why NK want nuclear weapons.

As stated previously, I don't want any country to have nuclear weapons.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Were you brainwashed when you were over there or something?

Grow up.

Mr. Loverman · 22-04-2012 6:17am

Unrelated but interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_39

Manic Moran · 22-04-2012 7:41am

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

While this is true, they are no where near as bad as the US who:

1) Have nuclear weapons

Well, they did invent them. Got to have some perks for it.

2) Have previously used them

Not as if they started that war, but it was a pretty handy tool.

3) Have previously said they want to use them against NK

"Want", or "would?" I strongly doubt any official policy (or even unofficial statement by an official) has "want" in it with regards to anyone, be it DPRK or not.

4) Have a record of starting wars and interfering in other countries internal politics

DPRK has a history of fairly blatant and aggressive relations with its neighbour to the South. Even the US and USSR didn't send military hit squads to off the opposing Presidents, for example.

It also has something of a history of being a state sponsor of terrorism. See, for example, KAL 858 or the Rangoon bombing. At least when the US tries something, it tends to use the front door.

NTM

Mr. Loverman · 22-04-2012 7:55am

I agree NK has a very bad history. Though you could argue SK has a history of fairly blatant and aggressive relations with its neighbour too.

Manic Moran wrote:

"Want", or "would?" I strongly doubt any official policy (or even unofficial statement by an official) has "want" in it with regards to anyone, be it DPRK or not.

Let's not argue semantics but the facts are the US strongly considered dropping the bomb on NK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#U.S._threat_of_atomic_warfare

I've read elsewhere that the only reason they didn't drop the bomb was because the UK said they would pull out of the war if it happened.

Jonny7 · 22-04-2012 12:25pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

While this is true, they are no where near as bad as the US who:

1) Have nuclear weapons
2) Have previously used them
3) Have previously said they want to use them against NK
4) Have a record of starting wars and interfering in other countries internal politics

Looking at the evidence the US is a far more aggressive country than NK. Hence why I can understand why NK want nuclear weapons.

You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons. The size of the current standing army and ratio of civilians to enlisted men should give you a clue.

They leadership and top brass of the country want nuclear weapons to furtherpreserve power. They will try to retain this power at all and any cost to the people of North Korea.

Doing a very simplistic historical evaluation on "who is worse" is logically very flawed. Nothing to do with the actual reality of the situation.

Apply your logic to Germany or Japan or Italy.. how far back to do you want to go?

Again, NK is an unstable tightly controlled dictatorship roundly condemned by almost every nation.

Mr. Loverman · 22-04-2012 2:07pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons.

You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons.

But it's OK, I'm not going to argue with a stranger on the Internet. The last time I did that I later discovered the other person was 14.

I suggest you go back and read WakeUp's posts.

Mr.Micro · 22-04-2012 3:00pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons. The size of the current standing army and ratio of civilians to enlisted men should give you a clue.

The same question could be asked of any, or all, of those nations that possess nuclear weapons. Why do they need them? The weapons are for total destruction and nothing else, there is no upside. If they are purely for protection against attack, then NK is no different from any of the other hypocrites that currently have them.

Why doesn't the US invade North Korea

Comments