North Korea, will there be a resolve?

dlofnep

We've basically got two sides here (USA/North Korea), the other sides have no pull or leway (China/Russia/Etc..). North Korea have asked that if the US removes it's nuclear threat, North Korea will remove it's nuclear weapons program but that it wants a nuclear station for energy. The US have rejected this stating that they cannot trust North Korea with Nuclear weapons.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black syndrome to me. The US pose more of a nuclear threat to any country in the world more than anyone else IMO, including North Korea. I think North Korea may follow on it's nuclear weapon's program for defense but I don't believe they would ever attack foreign soil unless provoked by an initial attack.

The United States know this but don't like the fact that they don't have a monopoly over a country like North Korea and controlling them through fear. I do think North Korea is a danger to global security but I think the US is just as much, if not more apart of that also.

This is a failed process even before it begins. What sort of resolution do you see would be feasible to resolve this?

murphaph

I'm no fan of the current US 'regime' but I don't agree that nuclear weapons are safer in the hands of the North Korean regime, who have happily sat back and let their own people starve (showing just what they think of the value of human life). The same can't be said of the US, even if the recovery attempt following Katrina was p!ss poor.

I understand that what you see with the US isn't really what you get, but on the whole I think I'm happier with their fingers on the buttons than the north Korean's. They are the only country to use nuclear weapons in anger, but they've refrained from deploying them for 60 years now, so they could hardly be accused of being trigger happy when it comes to nuclear weapons, whatever else may be wrong with their foreign/military policy.

bonkey

murphaph wrote:

but they've refrained from deploying them for 60 years now,

They've also withdrawn from a non-proliferation treaty, tabled a motion to legalise first-strike in a "preventative" (not just pre-emptive) role which apparently would include legalising a strike against a superior conventional force (not that one exists), and have been making noises for some years now about the development of battlefield nukes.

I'm not saying their the worst people in teh world to be holding nukes....but they are actually the nation making the biggest moves (that I can see) to clear their way for using them.

Most nations who want nukes want them to protect themselves against their neighbours / the US / whatever. The US, on the other hand, wants its once-defensive-only arsenal to be converted into a useable offensive platform.

jc
jc

AARRRGH

IMO the US is much more dangerous than North Korea. Yes, North Korea is one messed up country, but at least they don't interfere with everyone else - they pretty much mind their own business. The US on the other hand...

I find it so mind boggling that the US is always going on about the horrors of weapons of mass destruction when they tons of them themselves, have used them, and seem to think invading other countries is their God given right.

murphaph

So can I take it that you two would prefer North Korea to control the arsenal of weaponry currently held by the United States, all their ICBMs, both land and sea launched? Yes or no?

dlofnep

Stupid question. I wouldn't like to see either of them with such power. You are trying to justify your reasoning for backing the United States, but in reality, they are the only ones to ever use weapons of mass destruction and hold a monopoly of power over the world through fear. Don't do what they tell you and they'll either kill you economically or through war. Their politics always include ultimatums.

Sure North Korea aren't the most stable country in the world but they aren't the ones making ultimatums, the US is.

murphaph

dlofnep wrote:

Stupid question. I wouldn't like to see either of them with such power. You are trying to justify your reasoning for backing the United States, but in reality, they are the only ones to ever use weapons of mass destruction and hold a monopoly of power over the world through fear. Don't do what they tell you and they'll either kill you economically or through war. Their politics always include ultimatums.

Sure North Korea aren't the most stable country in the world but they aren't the ones making ultimatums, the US is.

Get off the fence before calling it a stupid question! The US has such power, the question is, would it be better in the hands of N. Korea? I don't believe it would. This does not mean I am a huge fan of GW, quite the opposite, but being purely pragmatic, the US are the more reliable shower to have their finger on the button IMO. Anyway-the US aren't the only country to deploy WMDs. They are the only country to deploy nuclear weapons in anger, perhaps that's what you meant to say?

AARRRGH

murphaph wrote:

So can I take it that you two would prefer North Korea to control the arsenal of weaponry currently held by the United States, all their ICBMs, both land and sea launched? Yes or no?

Indeed a stupid question. Why would you assume something so ridiculous?

I'd rather there were no nukes.

I do not blindly follow the US's propaganda - North Korea and Iran have no intentions to attacking the world. I do not fear them. I DO fear the US.

murphaph

dublindude wrote:

Indeed a stupid question. Why would you assume something so ridiculous?

I'd rather there were no nukes.

I do not blindly follow the US's propaganda - North Korea and Iran have no intentions to attacking the world. I do not fear them. I DO fear the US.

Another one who won't answer a simple enough question. Would you prefer the arsenal currently held by the US to be held by N. Korea, yes or no? You take the standard cop-out option, "I'd rather there were no nukes", eh-we'd all rather there were no nukes but there are, that's the real politik of it. Now would you prefer 'em in US or N. Korean hands?

(Give me a break on the US propoganda sh!t-if you think I sit in front of a TV watching Fox and nodding in agreement you're way off the mark-but I am a realist).

AARRRGH

murphaph wrote:

Another one who won't answer a simple enough question. Would you prefer the arsenal currently held by the US to be held by N. Korea, yes or no? You take the standard cop-out option, "I'd rather there were no nukes", eh-we'd all rather there were no nukes but there are, that's the real politik of it. Now would you prefer 'em in US or N. Korean hands?

(Give me a break on the US propoganda sh!t-if you think I sit in front of a TV watching Fox and nodding in agreement you're way off the mark-but I am a realist).

Do you really think asking stupid questions is the way to win an argument? I would rather there were NO nukes. I don't want either countries to have them. I can't say I would prefer one or the other to have the bombs simply because I don't want either to have any.

It's a stupid question.

Don't think it is? OK, who would you rather a rapist attacks: your mother or sister?

...

See what I mean?

rsynnott

Would we all rather that there were no nukes? Really? Nuclear weaponry prevented the Cold War from getting hot rather quickly.

I don't think that North Korea posessing a limited nuclear capacity really poses much risk.

dlofnep

murphaph wrote:

Get off the fence before calling it a stupid question! The US has such power, the question is, would it be better in the hands of N. Korea? I don't believe it would. This does not mean I am a huge fan of GW, quite the opposite, but being purely pragmatic, the US are the more reliable shower to have their finger on the button IMO. Anyway-the US aren't the only country to deploy WMDs. They are the only country to deploy nuclear weapons in anger, perhaps that's what you meant to say?

If we're talking biological/chemical, then no they haven't - But as far as atomic/nuclear bombs, yes which is what WMD was first used to describe. Your question is very closed and fits into your little algorithm perfectly. I would rather NO countries had WMD's. No country deserves that much power over another. Is our opinion that hard to comprehend?

As far as going to say the US are more reliable - Show me some research that the US are more reliable. The US have led an attack on two countries in the past 4 years (one war illegally for that matter). I can't say the same for North Korea.

Pighead

In fairness lads the eastern world it is exploding.Violence is flaring and bullets are loading all over the shop.’Over there you're old enough to kill, but not for voting
They don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun that they are toting.Double standards surely
Jesus even the Jordan River has bodies floating

And you lot try and tell me over and over and over again my friends that you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction. :rolleyes:

dlofnep

Good song.

Pretor

Those nukes arent good in anybodies hands, i mean ppl say its better in Americas but there one of the biggest warmongerers for the past 50 yrs, if they were in N.Koreas hands thens whos there to stop then for being aggresive if they have that much power?

Everytime they say there for self-defense that scene from bowling from columbine where they show Americas aggresion reminds me that we've been lucky that they haven't used those weapons... yet, unless this "preventive" thing goes through coz noone has the power to stop them anymore... would they really have done this if Russia was still a superpower?