|
North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Thus the worldwide body did not impose sanctions. When India and Pakistan began detonating nucelar weapons, and the world perceived a growing threat, the US and the world DID impose sanctions:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6202.pdf
These sanctions are imposed and lifted depending upon the common sense threat assessement that these nations have on the world. India and Pakistan having nukes appear to be much less of a threat (if they deomonstrate responsibility) than say N. Korea or Iran potentially. |
Sorry you’re not getting off the hook that easily. There unequivocal evidence that Pakistan has been proliferating nuclear weapons and technology (both to Iraq and more importantly NK). Sanctions have been imposed but have recently been dropped from Pakistan. Are you trying to argue that Pakistan has acted more responsibly than NK? NK wouldn't have nukes if it weren’t for Pakistan. Why aren't we going after them? Sorry your argument is Swiss cheese. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Sorry you’re not getting off the hook that easily. There unequivocal evidence that Pakistan has been proliferating nuclear weapons and technology (both to Iraq and more importantly NK). Sanctions have been imposed but have recently been dropped from Pakistan. Are you trying to argue that Pakistan has acted more responsibly than NK? NK wouldn't have nukes if it weren’t for Pakistan. Why aren't we going after them? Sorry your argument is Swiss cheese. |
Again, you're arguing an overly simplistic "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Because Pakistan has been guilty of trading nuclear technology, that doesn't suddenly justify N. Korea's nuclear ambitions. Nothing can be done about Pakistan because so long as India possesses nukes, Pakistan will possess nukes. Much of the nuclear trade occured in the 90's in order to gain missile technology to match India's technological ability. However, does Pakistan currentely have a program of proliferation with nuclear technology? No. It can most certainly be argued that considering the current geopolitical climate, Pakistan poses as significantly less of a threat with respect to nuclear weapons than N. Korea does. Particularly since N. Korea has a much less stable government ... once again, common sense. |
|
|
| Belgian Bonzai |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
You probably think I’m crazy but I believe every country has the right to have nuclear weapons. |
You probably think I'm a genious but I believe no one country has the right to have nuclear weapons. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Belgian Bonzai
You probably think I'm a genious but I believe no one country has the right to have nuclear weapons. |
If you could spell 'genius' I'd think you were one!! :D ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Sorry you’re not getting off the hook that easily. There unequivocal evidence that Pakistan has been proliferating nuclear weapons and technology (both to Iraq and more importantly NK). Sanctions have been imposed but have recently been dropped from Pakistan. Are you trying to argue that Pakistan has acted more responsibly than NK? NK wouldn't have nukes if it weren’t for Pakistan. Why aren't we going after them? Sorry your argument is Swiss cheese. |
The sanctions against Pakistan were dropped for a reason and that had nothing to do with how responsible Pakistan is and nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The sanctions were dropped cos it was in America's interests to do so as they needed Pakistan's help in the war in Afghanistan and TWAT |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Belgian Bonzai
You probably think I'm a genious but I believe no one country has the right to have nuclear weapons. |
You probably think I'm rational, but I believe that while any country can pursue nuclear ambitions and the like, there are clearly consequences to every action and they must therefore be prepared to deal with the consequences of their "rights" when they choose to act on them.
Perhaps N. Korea will have a terrible nuclear meltdown which will cause Kimmy J. to rethink his reckless strategery. The guy is a friggin' mad man. Let's hope his bark is worse than his bite. |
|
|
| LiquidXTZ |
Hmmm doesnt Amerika sort of run out of money ?
I mean how many wars can you fight until your deficit is just to high?
Anyways i have to say: If the USA is "old enough" to posses nukes... then so is NK.
May the horse be with you
Peace |
|
|
| smokeape |
nK is a loose cannon with a mentally unstable dictator in charge. About like his dad. They are bringing instability in the region with their introduction of nuclear weapons forcing neighbors to arm in kind for defense just like we did with the USSR in the cold war. Allies in the region would certainly like to determine their own fates, if at all possible with their own nuclear response, instead of relying on one from the US - hopefully. They would never get retaliation in kind from the UN in a hundred years if nK arbitrarily attacked.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
I just told a navy recruiter I would sign up if we go to nK.
Tho I most likely would just get a civilian plane ticket to Seoul and watch.
GOD I WANT THIS WAR!!!!
:D |
Well if I were you, I'd get a plane ticket somewhere else because if this war does break out, I am going to estimate everyone in Seoul will die. Every little bit of artillery and missiles are all within reach of Seoul and in the first 24hrs of this conflict 1m people will die (mainly in Seoul) |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Again, you're arguing an overly simplistic "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Because Pakistan has been guilty of trading nuclear technology, that doesn't suddenly justify N. Korea's nuclear ambitions. Nothing can be done about Pakistan because so long as India possesses nukes, Pakistan will possess nukes. Much of the nuclear trade occured in the 90's in order to gain missile technology to match India's technological ability. However, does Pakistan currentely have a program of proliferation with nuclear technology? No. It can most certainly be argued that considering the current geopolitical climate, Pakistan poses as significantly less of a threat with respect to nuclear weapons than N. Korea does. Particularly since N. Korea has a much less stable government ... once again, common sense. |
Where do come up with this stuff?
"Particularly since N. Korea has a much less stable government ...(than Pakistan)"
A few years ago Pakistan democratic elected leader was overthrown in a military coup. Musharraf than promised turn over power and hold elections in 2004. He broke his promise and has no intention of relinquishing control of the country. Meanwhile there are increased rumblings of Islamic fundamentalists who want to over throw him and install a theocracy. Public support for him is on the wane because of his relationship with the US.
On the other side we have NK, which has been ruled by Kim's father since 1953 and was succeeded by Kim in 1996. Both he and his father have enjoyed cult like devotion, loyalty and support.
You mean to tell me that Pakistan is more stable more stable than NK? You really have been brain washed by White House propaganda. Who knows maybe we stabilize NK like we did to Iraq :nervous:
"However, does Pakistan currently have a program of proliferation with nuclear technology? No."
I have proof that they have engaged in proliferation. What proof do you have to back up your statement?
"Nothing can be done about Pakistan because so long as India possesses nukes, Pakistan will possess nukes."
I'm sorry I missed that clause in the NP treaty.
Look you just keep throwing more Swiss cheese at me. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Where do come up with this stuff?
"Particularly since N. Korea has a much less stable government ...(than Pakistan)"
A few years ago Pakistan democratic elected leader was overthrown in a military coup. Musharraf than promised turn over power and hold elections in 2004. He broke his promise and has no intention of relinquishing control of the country. Meanwhile there are increased rumblings of Islamic fundamentalists who want to over throw him and install a theocracy. Public support for him is on the wane because of his relationship with the US.
On the other side we have NK, which has been ruled by Kim's father since 1953 and was succeeded by Kim in 1996. Both he and his father have enjoyed cult like devotion, loyalty and support.
You mean to tell me that Pakistan is more stable more stable than NK? You really have been brain washed by White House propaganda. Who knows maybe we stabilize NK like we did to Iraq :nervous:
"However, does Pakistan currently have a program of proliferation with nuclear technology? No."
I have proof that they have engaged in proliferation. What proof do you have to back up your statement?
"Nothing can be done about Pakistan because so long as India possesses nukes, Pakistan will possess nukes."
I'm sorry I missed that clause in the NP treaty.
Look you just keep throwing more Swiss cheese at me. |
So your saying that because Pakistan has nukes NK should be allowed to have nukes? To make it "fair" like? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So your saying that because Pakistan has nukes NK should be allowed to have nukes? To make it "fair" like? |
No. My point is what I said before that there is a deeper motivation to US administration's rhetoric against NK than simply nukes. The Bush administration wants regime change in NK and they are paving the way with the same type of rhetoric they used against Iraq as they are doing against NK. I'm not pro NK or like their regime but, feel strongly about equality for all and I'm against fear mongering as a means to gain public support for wars. It's also an unhealthy and simplistic approach to divide the world into good guys and bad guys.
In you previous post you acknowledged the political bias behind such actions. Occrider doesn't feel the same way. So, I pressed him on what logical metrics that should be applied to nuclear ownership. As soon as you try explaining 'common sense' guidelines one discovers a host of contradictions.
The world has been divided into the haves and the have-nots. The major powers like to promote the notion that only they (the haves) are responsible enough to possess nuclear weapons. In reality they want to maintain their nuclear monopoly and keep their military advantage over the have-nots.
If you want to understand the NK you have to be willing to put yourself in their shoes. If all you want to do is demonize NK and call Kim Ill Jong crazy then everything the US government is feeding you will make sense. However, if you want to avoid war and live in a more harmonious world then you'll want to think about treating others with fairness and respect.
How would you feel during the American Civil war France leading a coalition of allies sent troops to support the South then setup a demilitarize zone at the mason Dixon line splitting the country in half? To add insult to injury they stationed a large occupying force permanently in the South. Then the French turned around and accused the North of being an aggressive dangerous regime that has no right to nuclear weapons and unfounded paranoid fear of France and her allies.
I present this scenario to remind you of the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated). As soon as you embark down the road of that country is so bad we can do anything we like or we don't need to treat all countries as equals because of x, y, and z, then rules don't mean anything. You'll find yourself in the might makes right camp. I know I would never want to be on the receiving end of that. Who knows one day someone will be more powerful than the US and we will get a taste of our own medicine. |
|
|
|
|
