|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,486
Loc: .
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6153754 - 10/10/06 10:58 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: So you think its a bad idea for Korea to have nukes?
If so......why?
I don't want any country to have them. The fewer the better. Nukes for peace is bullshit, they're gonna pull N. Korea into a war quicker.
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Disco Cat]
#6153768 - 10/10/06 11:03 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Disco Cat said: What really happened is that US played things stubbornly and the result just what Kim Jong said it would be, should the US continue to behave as they were - and the US did so, and N Korea likewise.
No, what really happened is that North Korea continued to starve and oppress their people in support of an idea that cannot be justified.
North Korea repeatedly made the choice to build up its military instead of feed its people. If you value guns more than your own citizens you deserve the stubbornness and condemnation of the international community.
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6153783 - 10/10/06 11:08 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: Korea's rush to get nukes was directly linked to GW Bush referring to them as an "Axis of Evil"
They saw us invading countries on their "Evil Nations List" and wanted a nuke to have some form of deterrent.
You know what else would have been an effective deterrent?
Holding elections and distributing food aid equitably.
I don't understand why people are willing to excuse North Korea's irresponsible and basely-evil behavior in favor of US bashing. Could the US have done things better? Maybe. But the fact remains that the US, South Korea, China, and Japan all gave TONS of food and monetary aid to North Korea, and North Korea couldn't be bothered to actually use said aid to better their people, they instead squandered it on maintaining a bloated and unnecessarily large military.
This is even ignoring their more run-of-the-mill crimes, you know, casual imprisonment of dissenters, forced separation of families that were divided by the Korean war, the elimination of any freedom of press. The North Koreans could not be bothered to feed their own people, and there are extremely few actions more evil that a regime can take than that.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Economist]
#6154032 - 10/10/06 12:30 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I don't give two shits about how Korea runs its country. Not my problem, seeing as I don't live there. Them having nukes has no bearing on how we live our lives in America, therefore it makes no difference if they have them or not.
If the cold war taught us anything it's that a balance of power will keep the peace much longer than an imbalance will.
Sell nukes to any country that wants them. If a country wants them bad enuf they will get one anyway. Korea being a perfect example. The U.S. may as well make a profit from it and improve their international relations at the same time.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,230
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6154314 - 10/10/06 01:35 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sell nukes to any country that wants them. If a country wants them bad enuf they will get one anyway. Korea being a perfect example. The U.S. may as well make a profit from it and improve their international relations at the same time.
The problem with this is evil men. A lot of people in power have gotten there by abusing power, and not a few are eager to sacrifice thousands of lives for their personal gain. Such people should be kept from ever acquiring nukes, because they are not far from using them.
I think NK can be trusted with nukes. Al Quaida however would immediately set out to wipe Manhattan off the face of the earth. Some people, independent of situation, simply want to kill people and think up motivation why that is, and what justifies it
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
ZippoZ
Knomadic
Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 13,227
Loc: Pongyang, North Korea
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Asante]
#6154504 - 10/10/06 02:30 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
okay, one north korea is years and years away from actually fitting a nuke on a missile and having it work, even getting it small enough to fit would take years...
there is also strong speculation that their nuke did not properly detonate, and there is siesmologic evidence to support this as well.
either way, their military strength is about 20% stronger than what we have on the southern end of the peninsula.
god i want to go play a game of risk now
Attacking Siam from China with 3!
-------------------- PEACE zippoz "in times of widespread chaos and confusion, it has been the duty of more advanced human beings - artists, scientists, clowns, and philosophers - to create order. In such times as ours however, when there is too much order, too much m management, too much programming and control, it becomes the duty of superior men and women and women to fling their favorite monkey wrenches into the machinery. To relieve the repression of the human spirit, they must sow doubt and disruption" "People do it every day, they talk to themselves ... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it."
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6154554 - 10/10/06 02:41 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: If the cold war taught us anything it's that a balance of power will keep the peace much longer than an imbalance will.
Can you back this up at all?
Or does your definition of "peace" include the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, the Soviet "intervention" in Hungary during the 1956 riots, pan-Arab military involvement in the Yemeni civil war. Or, how about Soviet support which made both the Suez War and the 6-day war possible?
There was also the Sino-Indian war, the Sino-Vietnamese war, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and the Iraq-Iran war.
Then there's the American side, the Vietnam War, the invasions of Panama and Grenada. Plus the funding of insurgencies and counter-insurgencies by all sides in South America, Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, etc. et al.
If you're somehow able to prove that the 16 years after the fall of the Soviet Union were "less peaceful" than any 16 years during the Cold War, I'd love to hear about it...
|
ZippoZ
Knomadic
Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 13,227
Loc: Pongyang, North Korea
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Economist]
#6154617 - 10/10/06 02:52 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
what the cold war showed us was that somehow, 2 giant nations with idiots for leaders were able to fully understand the concept of MAD mutually assured destruction, and noone was stupid enough to get a first strike doctorine.
-------------------- PEACE zippoz "in times of widespread chaos and confusion, it has been the duty of more advanced human beings - artists, scientists, clowns, and philosophers - to create order. In such times as ours however, when there is too much order, too much m management, too much programming and control, it becomes the duty of superior men and women and women to fling their favorite monkey wrenches into the machinery. To relieve the repression of the human spirit, they must sow doubt and disruption" "People do it every day, they talk to themselves ... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it."
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Economist]
#6155055 - 10/10/06 04:52 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: Or does your definition of "peace" include the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, the Soviet "intervention" in Hungary during the 1956 riots, pan-Arab military involvement in the Yemeni civil war. Or, how about Soviet support which made both the Suez War and the 6-day war possible?
There was also the Sino-Indian war, the Sino-Vietnamese war, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and the Iraq-Iran war.
Then there's the American side, the Vietnam War, the invasions of Panama and Grenada. Plus the funding of insurgencies and counter-insurgencies by all sides in South America, Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, etc. et al.
If you're somehow able to prove that the 16 years after the fall of the Soviet Union were "less peaceful" than any 16 years during the Cold War, I'd love to hear about it...
Their was no attempt at war with nations that had nukes.
If any of these countries that were warring had a nuke then there would have been a much greater chance for peace.
The idea of mutual destruction is a great deterrent for war.
If every country on the planet had a nuke and knew that their enemy had one too, then there would be a much greater chance for peace than their is now.
Do you honestly think that we would have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq if we knew that they had a nuke and might us it on us if we invaded them? I seriously doubt that we would be involved in a war now, if everyone had a nuke.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
POTtismGOD
Stranger
Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 249
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6155229 - 10/10/06 05:42 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
im glad they tested it, they should have the right to have the same weapons as we do. How do we expect to live and negotiate with them if we wont let them even be equals?
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6155291 - 10/10/06 05:56 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: Their was no attempt at war with nations that had nukes.
If any of these countries that were warring had a nuke then there would have been a much greater chance for peace.
Yeah, I'm sorry but you're wrong:
India first tested a nuclear device in 1974. You can check it out if you don't believe me. (one source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/first-pix.htm )
Despite their demonstration of nuclear capabilities, this didn't stop Pakistan from attacking Indian military basess in the Siachen glacier in 1984 and again in 1987, nor did it stop the Pakistan from coming out in open support of the Kashmir militants in 1990.
Pakistan wouldn't develop its own capabilities until 1998.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Economist]
#6155575 - 10/10/06 07:00 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
What you are talking about are the regular racial/religious skirmishes that occur every day in the middle-east. These people have been fighting amongst themselves for centuries. Nothing will stop that. Not even having a nuke, as your example clearly demonstrates. Neither India nor Pakistan, has actually used a nuke on the other. So where is the harm in them having a nuke?
Where is the harm in any nation owning nukes? If everyone has them then people are much less likely to use them.
If you really believe that having nukes is a bad thing........where is your evidence? Instead of just parroting "it's a bad thing" explain why it is bad. So far I have seen more evidence in support of nations having nukes than I have for nations not having them.
No nation has used a nuke to instigate war........ever. They are used more now as a form of political chest-thumping, nothing more.
So please tell me why it is bad for a nation to have a nuke.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: POTtismGOD]
#6155591 - 10/10/06 07:02 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
POTtismGOD said: im glad they tested it, they should have the right to have the same weapons as we do. How do we expect to live and negotiate with them if we wont let them even be equals?
Exactly!
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Scarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Dfekt]
#6155647 - 10/10/06 07:14 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If for one applaud the North Korean nuclear initiative. I love that India and Pakistan are complaining now that they have their nukes.
-------------------- -------------------- We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6155761 - 10/10/06 07:38 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: What you are talking about are the regular racial/religious skirmishes that occur every day in the middle-east. These people have been fighting amongst themselves for centuries. Nothing will stop that. Not even having a nuke, as your example clearly demonstrates.
But that is precisely why some nations should not be allowed to construct nuclear weapons: because they are determined to fight other nations and nothing will stop them.
Quote:
niteowl said: If you really believe that having nukes is a bad thing........where is your evidence? Instead of just parroting "it's a bad thing" explain why it is bad. So far I have seen more evidence in support of nations having nukes than I have for nations not having them.
It's hard to prove using nuclear weapons, because they are very expensive to develop, require specialized technology, etc. However, if nuclear weapons proliferate, the technology will inevitably develop further, and they will become cheaper and easier to build.
At which point they will become just another method of killing a lot of people very quickly. Just like chemical weapons.
We know that there are people in this world who are not afraid to use chemical weapons to kill a lot of people. Saddam Hussein, for example, wasn't afraid to deploy chemical weapons against both the Iranian army and his own people when he felt that a lot of them needed to be killed quickly. Prior to that we also know that chemical weapons were used during the holocaust, though that was more likely for secrecy rather than speed.
What's worse, the "major powers" of the world didn't come to an agreement *not* to use chemical weapons until after a devastating war in which they were deployed by all sides. The world cannot affor a devastating war where several new nuclear powers deploy weapons before later deciding that they're too dangerous to be used.
Similarly, a tyrant who wouldn't think twice about gassing his own people probably wouldn't think twice about deploying a tactical nuclear weapon against them, especially if global proliferation made the weapons cheap and readily available. Tyrants might come to believe that nothing would shock the populace into line faster than the knowledge that dissident villages will be vaporized.
Right now the lack of proliferation means that individual weapons are precious commodities, and should be treated as such, hence the non-history of their deployment. If proliferation continues, that can and will change.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Economist]
#6157008 - 10/11/06 02:34 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If three houses on your block suddenly bought a tank and placed it in their front yard. Then a week later claimed that no one else on the block could have a tank in their front yard.....wouldn't you want to have a tank also.......if for no other reason than to deter the other neighbors from attacking you?
This is no different than having a nuke..........no different at all.
Any nation with the ability to own a nuke (either from making it or buying it) should rightfully do so, with out any fear of retribution from other nations that already have them.
The hypocrisy of the American government is sometimes unbearable. "We have a whole arsenal of nukes, but all you other nations cant have one cause we don't like the idea of being on equal ground."
It is a nations right to have nukes if other nations have them also.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
nightkrawler
explorer
Registered: 06/18/04
Posts: 2,980
Loc: new england
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6157021 - 10/11/06 02:49 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
a tank, or a tank war can't destroy the whole planet. a nucleur war can.
i don't think any countries should have them, but there's really no choice anymore. if one country has them and no other country does, that country can pretty much take over the world.
if all countries have nukes, it only takes one psycho leader to start a nucleur war.
humans aren't responsible enough to have something of such immense power. it very well could be the death of us.
-------------------- Not all who wander are lost - J.R.R. Tolkien
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: nightkrawler]
#6157062 - 10/11/06 03:49 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Guess what Nightkrawler....there is NOTHING you or any other person can do, to keep a nation from getting a nuke if they want one.....nothing what so ever.
I know if I was the leader of a nation, living near another nation that had nukes, then I would be doing everything in my power to get my hands on one too....regardless of what the U.S. thinks about it
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If every nation had a nuke of their own, then no one nation could have absolute power.
Many nations have nukes now, but no one is using them. Why is that? I will tell you, M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction will keep the psycho leaders from using a nuke on their neighbors.
Nations don't want the nuke as a means of attack. They want them as a deterrent from being attacked
Why can't most people see this.
Oh yea I remember now......fear and ignorance.
I will ask this again. If Afghanistan or Iraq had nukes, would America have been so quick to attack them? I think not. Another plan would have been implemented. Invading them would have been the LAST option........not the first.
Nukes are the best deterrent for war the planet has and we don't want any one to have them....... hmmmmm what does that tell you?
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Hanky
wiffle bat.
Registered: 08/30/03
Posts: 56,993
Loc: Great Southern Land.
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: niteowl]
#6157099 - 10/11/06 04:50 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Coaster is an idiot... [quote]Coaster said: but i thnk everything thats pure is white? [/quote]
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: North Korea tests nuclear weapon [Re: Hanky]
#6157170 - 10/11/06 06:18 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It is easy to scare people into believing far fetched ideas thru the media isn't it.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
|