quote:

ya, to bad it an't true though

I was refering to the most recent installment of the treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Tell me why it still hasn't "entered into force"? The US may have signed it but it STILL ISN'T RATIFIED.

"One fundamental reason for the delay on CTBT entry into force is that the world’s foremost nuclear testing state and recognized global leader, the United States, has not ratified."
(source: http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv3n12.htm)


This is the geopolitical picture as it stands: (CLICK HERE) and (CLICK HERE)


And guess what Yeopus:

A U.S. nuclear review published in January indicated that following Sept. 11 the United States is keeping all its options open, including the possible development and testing of new nuclear weapons.

Classified sections of the review leaked in mid-March showed "more clearly" that the United States was considering resuming testing and might decide in the future to design more deadly nuclear weapons, said Rebecca Johnson, executive director of the London-based Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy.

(source: http://www.oakridger.com/stories/04...0410020034.html)


So whenever you want to discredit my point, make sure YOU know what you are talking about.

___________________
sig edited: no political imagery allowed. please reref to the sig guidelines

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior I was refering to the most recent installment of the treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Tell me why it still hasn't "entered into force"? The US may have signed it but it STILL ISN'T RATIFIED. "One fundamental reason for the delay on CTBT entry into force is that the world’s foremost nuclear testing state and recognized global leader, the United States, has not ratified." (source: http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv3n12.htm) This is the geopolitical picture as it stands: (CLICK HERE) and (CLICK HERE) And guess what Yeopus: A U.S. nuclear review published in January indicated that following Sept. 11 the United States is keeping all its options open, including the possible development and testing of new nuclear weapons. Classified sections of the review leaked in mid-March showed "more clearly" that the United States was considering resuming testing and might decide in the future to design more deadly nuclear weapons, said Rebecca Johnson, executive director of the London-based Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. (source: http://www.oakridger.com/stories/04...0410020034.html) So whenever you want to discredit my point, make sure YOU know what you are talking about.

YOEPUS YOU JUST GOT SHOT DOWN!!!!! BOOYAKA BOOYAKA!!!

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

The issue is this ... Does anybody expect the United States to spontaneously use nuclear weapons? Ummmmm no. Now does anybody suspect that North Korea would use nukes for military purposes? Possibly... now does anybody suspect that the US would sell nuclear weapons technology to countries that wouldn't have any inhibitions towards using nukes? ... I'm guessing no. How about North Korea? considering the fact that they are a major arms dealer to 3rd world nations then yes. Over the past 50 years the United States has weilded the responsibility of having nuclear weapons. How will North Korea act? Will they use them to counteract their impoverishment to achieve terriotorial gains? Will they sell them to rogue states paying top dollar to get such a terror tool? The fact is, we don't know. NORTH KOREA HAS NO DEFENSE FOR ITS ACTIONS. It signed a treay in 1994 and it broke that treaty. How can you defend it? It admitted it continued a wmd program despite treaty obligations!!! If this was the US you would be pissing your pants in outrage I'm sure.

quote:

Does anybody expect the United States to spontaneously use nuclear weapons? Ummmmm no.

George Bush did say that he plans to develop small tactical nuclear weapons for use in combat. He also said that he plans on using them if there is need for that.

quote:

It signed a treay in 1994 and it broke that treaty.

No, the US broke the treaty. The treaty said that NK will not develop WOMD if US will build nuclear reactors for them. US has done nothing for two years about that promise, and then NK reactivated its nuclear program.

___________________
1+1=10

whoever here thinks that NK can reach the US with its missiles is a true ignorant and naive... if (big if) NK attacks somebody, it will certainly be Japan or South Korea...


get this thru your heads people, NK cannot reach the US

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

The more advanced three-stage Taepo Dong-2 exists largely on paper. The missile was designed to have a solid fuel engine in its third stage, in order to dramatically extend its range to nearly 2,200 miles. Because of a variety of challenges - likely a lack of funding - not even the CIA expects the missile to be ready for prime time until 2020 without considerable outside assistance. More recent research indicates the agency probably is correct and success soon is unlikely.

http://www.atimes.com/koreas/CC07Dg02.html

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Perhaps this article may interest some people, as it discusses the national sentiment in both North and South Korea leading up to the announcement of the resumption of North Korea's nuclear program:

http://www.movingideas.org/article/full_cite/96.html

Another article from the same site that some may find it worthwhile to read:

http://www.movingideas.org/article/full_cite/91.html

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior I was refering to the most recent installment of the treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Tell me why it still hasn't "entered into force"? The US may have signed it but it STILL ISN'T RATIFIED.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT_, you are refering to is not part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it is not an installment, it is not an extension, it is a seperate treaty all together! proof: http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/

Therefore you said :

quote:

United States refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

And I said this is wrong, it still it. It is not my fault to believe that you based your premise on an incorrect or mistakenly stated treaty. Further, according to your own sources, they have SIGNED the treaty you state, CTBT, therefore leaving me again to believe you are just trying to bring up "facts" to cover up your inital error, instead of admiting to it.

then you continue to go on saying that:

quote:

And now the U.S. government has a problem with countries who also refuse the premises of this treaty. Hipocrates!

Well, according to your own logic they are not hypocrates. They still hold true to the basic premise of the treaty. http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/1995dec2.htm

It does have a problem, with a nation that has violated, not only apparently the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but apparently also the CTBT (by default, if you withdraw from the first, you are going to violate the other).

quote:

"One fundamental reason for the delay on CTBT entry into force is that the world’s foremost nuclear testing state and recognized global leader, the United States, has not ratified." (source: http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv3n12.htm)

Yes, and I'm sure this is inpart due to the fact that the global leader's rivlas, Russia, and China have not put this treaty into effect either. Doing such, without them doing likewise, is political suicide, even if you don't agree with it.

quote:

And guess what Yeopus:

Whats that Hippiewarrior?

[quopte]A U.S. nuclear review published in January indicated that following Sept. 11 the United States is keeping all its options open, including the possible development and testing of new nuclear weapons.[/quote]

Wow! That's cool, and is important to this debate why?

quote:

Classified sections of the review leaked in mid-March showed "more clearly" that the United States was considering resuming testing and might decide in the future to design more deadly nuclear weapons, said Rebecca Johnson, executive director of the London-based Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy.

And this has what to do with North Korea?

quote:

So whenever you want to discredit my point, make sure YOU know what you are talking about.

Ok, but please, I'll only do such if you take upon the words of your own advice, ya?

as for cyrus:

quote:

YOEPUS YOU JUST GOT SHOT DOWN!!!!! BOOYAKA BOOYAKA!!!

Your out of your leauge here, go back to your flaming threads scattered throughout this forum where you belong.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 George Bush did say that he plans to develop small tactical nuclear weapons for use in combat. He also said that he plans on using them if there is need for that. No, the US broke the treaty. The treaty said that NK will not develop WOMD if US will build nuclear reactors for them. US has done nothing for two years about that promise, and then NK reactivated its nuclear program.

NEWSFLASH: The US is developing small tactical nuclear weapons????

We've had tactical nukes launched from artillery shells or from short ranged missiles for decades. There's nothing new there. And the US broke the treaty? If I recall, Japan, South Korea, and the US agreed to begin development of the light water nuclear reactors in order to stop the WOMD program. In the MEANTIME the US has been shipping fuel supplies to North Korea until the reactors were developed. THEN the CIA discovers N korea hasn't abandoned their WOMD program. THEN the US halts shipment of fuels supplies in protest. THEN the N Koreans reactiviate their weapons grade plutonium producing plant. Funny how the N koreans just now proclaim innocense AFTER it's discovered that they have an active WOMD program. EVEN the UN is condemning N. Korea. That's the equivalent of a criminal killing someone and getting caught on camera from 50 independant sources from 50 different countries until the general consensus believes he's guilty.

quote:

We've had tactical nukes launched from artillery shells or from short ranged missiles for decades.

I've never heard about that. Are you sure you are not talking about depleted uranium shells? If not, I would like to know more about those weapons, a link perhaps?

quote:

Wow! That's cool, and is important to this debate why?

quote:

And this has what to do with North Korea?

It shows that the NK is not the only country developing new WOMDs but that the US is also doing the same thing.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying here that what NK is doing is right, Kim Jong Il is a bit crazy imho, but only that it's not alone in what it's doing.

___________________
1+1=10

Last edited by DrUg_Tit0 on Jan-12-2003 at 14:27

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I've never heard about that. Are you sure you are not talking about depleted uranium shells? If not, I would like to know more about those weapons, a link perhaps? It shows that the NK is not the only country developing new WOMDs but that the US is also doing the same thing. Keep in mind that I'm not saying here that what NK is doing is right, Kim Jong Il is a bit crazy imho, but only that it's not alone in what it's doing.

Nope talking about tactical low yield nuclear weapons. The Soviet and Americans have been developing them for years. Here's one article I found on the fly:

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv5n19.htm

Although it states that a danger of these weapons is that the US may use them to attack terrorist bases, but that idea is ridiculous. There would be no tactical purpose to use such weapons. They were designed to to eliminate huge soviet tank divisions if they ever invaded Europe. We could just as easily destroy terrorist bases a million times over with conventional weapons and avoid the political fallout we would get from using such a weapon. In such an instance where sadam huessein started launching nukes at us though ... I can't really say what our response would be. Let's just say it would behoof him not to.