|
N. Korea threatens Australia with Nuclear Strike (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dupz |
Who cares if this is an empty threat or not.. this is the lives of me, my family and my frinds.. our "leader" is an incosiderate , and has turned our once peacful nation into a war-mongering american ..
I dont care about his bull politics.. this is just going too far, and it has to stop now before Sydney or Melbourne cop it sweet.
Who really knows if North Korea has the capability to hit our cities, or those of any other country. I mean, i'm not going to believe a word that comes out of our "intelligence" agencies anymore, or the words that come out of any of our leaders, as they have already proven themselves liars.
It's all bull.. I'm sick of all this politics. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dupz
It's all bull.. I'm sick of all this politics. |
Me too.
But you're not in the least bit scared of what can happen? I know I'd be.:nervous: |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
If a war breaks out, it's gonna be devastating. I once read a report on North Korean military capability, and it's so extensive that the US will only hardly be able to defeat it. Lots of South Korea would be wiped out even with North Korean conventional weapons. |
It is 2003 ffs,when is mankind ever gonna learn that war will not solve anything,it just bring more hate into this world.
I honestly think that Bush doesnt give a about anything,I just hope someone from his administration stops him from making the biggest mistake of going to war with NK.:nervous:
Is anyone ever going to put some sense into Bush's head??
:whip: :whip: |
|
|
| occrider |
Wtf? Is the bush administration everybody's fall guy now? This issue has nothing to do with the current administration or its demands when dealing with N. Korea. In case you didn't know, N. Korea restarted it's nuclear weapons program DURING the clinton administration. Yes forget the concessions we made to provide N. Korea with 2 light water nuclear reactors, forget the fuel and food shipments we were sending them, IT DIDN'T MATTER. They only came forward once we confronted them with incontrovertible evidence of their weapons program. The policy of appeasement must stop somewhere and I think it's been proven that you cannot "chamberlain" our way through this conflict. N. Korea is not even listening to its closest ally, China with respects to this issue. Currentely the US's stance on the issue of negotiations is to include multi-lateral talks between China, Japan, S. Korea, and N. Korea whereas N. Korea only wants to negotiate with the US.
I'll post later about N. Korea's nuclear brinkmanship, but this has nothing to do with australia's position on anything. This has everything to do with N. Korea's attempts to blackmail the world into getting what it wants.
| quote: |
When North Korea announced it would develop a "nuclear deterrent force" if the United States didn't alter its hostile stance towards the country, the world wondered whether it was bluster or blackmail. According to Dr Andrew Newman from Monash University's Global Terrorism Unit, a little of both is likely.
On June 9, 2003, North Korea announced its intention to develop a nuclear deterrent force - a decision seemingly motivated by Pyongyang's belief in the "sinister design" of the United States to further isolate Kim Jong Il's regime.
North Korea's announcement was a message intended for a very specific audience - the Bush Administration. China is an important intermediary with a large stake in a negotiated settlement, (it would face a massive refugee influx if North Korea imploded or military conflict erupted on the peninsula) and smaller regional actors like South Korea, Japan and possibly even Australia may be considered useful to Kim Jong Il, insofar as they can moderate Washington's perceived hostility. But only the US can provide the security guarantees the regime evidently craves.
A calulated strategy
Viewed in light of North Korea's behaviour since October 2002: withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); unceremoniously ejecting International Atomic Energy Agency Inspectors and proclaiming its intention to re-start plutonium reprocessing, the declaration suggests a calculated strategy of intimidation designed to deter the United States from removing the North Korean leadership by force. In this author's opinion, it amounts to very thinly veiled nuclear blackmail.
Pyongyang's announcement stressed that the intention to build up a nuclear deterrent was not designed to threaten or blackmail others, rather, it was a decision based on economies of scale and the need to 'neutralise' sophisticated US nuclear weapons. However given the timing of the announcement, some observers feel it may be a direct response to Washington's recent military plans in South Korea. The US has pledged to spend $US11 billion in the next three years on weapons modernisation and has indicated it will relocate most of its ground forces to bases beyond the reach of North Korean artillery. North Korea's declaration therefore may also be an attempt re-engage the US - a move consistent with Pyongyang's "negotiating style". Rather than compromise, North Korea tends to coerce and the June 9 message is: negotiate or this 'program' becomes a dangerous reality.
Pressure tactics
North Korea's hardline approach achieved results. Since admitting to the existence of a highly enriched uranium nuclear program in October 2002, it had succeeded in bringing the United States to the negotiating table for what were effectively bilateral talks, rather than the multilateral forum preferred by Washington. But once there, Pyongyang overreached itself. The first round of Chinese-brokered talks in April 2003 failed to make progress after North Korea thwarted prospects for any meaningful dialogue by announcing it possessed nuclear weapons and sending a relatively junior official (the deputy director general of the American Affairs Bureau, Li Gun) as its chief negotiator.
It seemed Pyongyang chose to bet big at the outset in the hope that the US would yield to pressure tactics. This particular gambit was unsuccessful but that doesn't invalidate the strategy. For North Korea, the logic is that nuclear weapons guarantee US engagement while simultaneously ensuring the integrity of the regime. Put another way, the Kim regime is betting that its nuclear brinkmanship will compel the Bush Administration to "deal" but the threat, however remote, that Pyongyang might use its nuclear weapons, will deter a military solution and force a negotiated settlement.
|
|
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
It is 2003 ffs,when is mankind ever gonna learn that war will not solve anything,it just bring more hate into this world.
I honestly think that Bush doesnt give a about anything,I just hope someone from his administration stops him from making the biggest mistake of going to war with NK.:nervous:
Is anyone ever going to put some sense into Bush's head??
:whip: :whip: |
uhh...why is this Bush's fault? You might want to reword this post, as it makes no sense. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
uhh...why is this Bush's fault? You might want to reword this post, as it makes no sense. |
ok maybe I said it the wrong way,but all Iam trying to say is that war is not the answer,and I hope Bush doesnt solve the NK problem with nuclear bombs thats all.I understand that Nk is a threat,but there has to be another solution besides war. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
ok maybe I said it the wrong way,but all Iam trying to say is that war is not the answer,and I hope Bush doesnt solve the NK problem with nuclear bombs thats all.I understand that Nk is a threat,but there has to be another solution besides war. |
you're doing it again!!!:whip: :whip:
Who ever said Bush was going to launch nuclear arms? Who ever said anything about a war. |
|
|
| fuct4less |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
you're doing it again!!!:whip: :whip:
Who ever said Bush was going to launch nuclear arms? Who ever said anything about a war. |
bush never said that he was gonna use nuclear weaponry, not yet. and most of the american news media is talking quite a bit about war right now. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by fuct4less
bush never said that he was gonna use nuclear weaponry, not yet. and most of the american news media is talking quite a bit about war right now. |
I know Bush is stupid, but sending his troops thru the DMZ and into North Korea would be just plain retarded (like my avatar). I don't think that bush is that gusty. Similarly, a nuclear launch against NK would just be the start of WW3. Not to mention Bush would be seriously threatening the lives of his own people in South Korea. Also, I think that if Bush were to make an amphibious assault, or an arial assault, Kim Jong Il would respond in ways we'd rather not think of. Let's not underestimate the North Korean arsenal! |
|
|
| fuct4less |
yesterday, cnn said nk had enough fuel rods to make 1 nuclear bomb a month for the next 6 months... maybe i should move to a rural area
and i think that during negotiations bush is going to do something quite stupid that will either provoke nk to attack us, or bush will start another one of his damned crusades. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by fuct4less
yesterday, cnn said nk had enough fuel rods to make 1 nuclear bomb a month for the next 6 months... maybe i should move to a rural area
and i think that during negotiations bush is going to do something quite stupid that will either provoke nk to attack us, or bush will start another one of his damned crusades. |
Yeah, dangerous . But, hopefully Bush will have SOME wit and he won't cause WW3. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Yeah, dangerous . But, hopefully Bush will have SOME wit and he won't cause WW3. |
Bush has maintained a stance of dealing with Korea diplomatically only over the past year. At any rate, Bush isn't conducting negotiations with N. Korea, Richard Armitage is. I'm against granting N. Korea any more concessions however. |
|
|
|
|
