Lyric Talk ForumsGeneral Talk → North Korea

North Korea

Title: North Korea    By: Anth
On: Tue., Oct. 10, 2006, 05:49 PM    (Rating: Average)
So, North Korea has (supposedly) launched a nuclear test. What do you all think about this? What actions do you think should be taken?
Title: reply to nrth k.    By: Mad Max
On: Thu., Oct. 19, 2006, 02:17 AM    (Rating: Average)
Well as much as i think that guy is off his rocker, i have to say he has the right to make nukes if he wants to.
Who are the people telling him he cant..............thats right the other nuclear countries.
at best he may have enough enriched uranium to produce what, like 100 missles. more like 20 -40.

The us has thousands. russiea has thousands.
Plus you have to realise the odds of a nuke actually making land fall are slim. Current tecnology alows for detection and destruction of a weapon of that nature before it ever becomes a serious threat.
Buy forcing all these sactions and threatning him, your simply feeding his ego and making him do more stupid acts.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Jaize
On: Tue., Oct. 10, 2006, 07:05 PM    (Rating: Average)
Was it aimed at france?

Well, to be honest I'm glad they're testing their nuclear arsenal. if they manage to get a taepodong that works this time I'd feel a lot safer having a madman in control of a missile that works as aposed to a mad man in control of a missile that may fail and hit a target not intended to be hit.

Excuse me if I sound mean, but I don't live in america;) *waves at you all over there*

I don't like, nor believe in the idea of nuclear proliferation. But I live in a country that does have high tech high end biological, chemical and (probably even) nuclear capabilities should it choose, so I can barely talk.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Anth
On: Tue., Oct. 10, 2006, 08:23 PM    (Rating: Average)
A country as, for lack of a better way of expressing it, fucked up as North Korea having nuclear capabilities is a tremendous danger to everybody in the world, not just the US. The fact that they have the capability isn't even the biggest concern - the biggest concern is that they have proven themselves more than willing to deal on the black market. That's the scariest part.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: jen
On: Wed., Oct. 11, 2006, 02:25 AM    (Rating: Average)

Quote:
...the biggest concern is that they have proven themselves more than willing to deal on the black market.


I'm sorry, can you direct me to where it says NK would deal with the black market? Not that I don't believe it, I just want to read it for myself :)
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Anth
On: Wed., Oct. 11, 2006, 03:22 AM    (Rating: Average)
Info galore, but here is a start - http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/rm/21044.htm
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Jaize
On: Wed., Oct. 11, 2006, 01:04 PM    (Rating: Average)
Ehhhhh I posted last night, thin I forgot to press submit *giggles*

NK pulled out of the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act) in '93 at the behest of YOUR government. The fact they have nuclear weapons is a concern, but I don;'t think the US has a legal right to act against north korea, except on the basis that they did break a UN treaty that they signed and ratified in 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)Now it strikes me as a strange notion that NOW NK are testing nuclear weapons the US knows all about their arms, drugs and other indiscretions, where as they knew *nothing* because of kim's tight control on information in and out of his country, and they knew not a single thing when the UN and south korea and japan called for action against north korea when they were supposedly genociding half the country.


My personal opinion is that during the gulf war kim became increasingly paranoid, the US attacking rogue nation states sorta does that to a communist dictator. It was in 91 when he started his uranium enrichment programme. 93 when he left the NNPT. I think that this evidence points to, and the nuclear testing points to, kim defending himself against the only super power he thinks would have the balls to attack him.

I believe he doesn't understand the idea that the US *can't* and *won't* attack him for at least 10 years yet. and his biggest threat comes from the UN, against whom he can't protect himself.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Anth
On: Wed., Oct. 11, 2006, 02:59 PM    (Rating: Average)
We damn well do have a right to act against North Korea - for a few reasons.

First, we are obligated to under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Second, NK agreed to stop its nuclear weapons programs in return for humanitarian aid and light water reactors (which are difficult to use for enriching weapons-grade uranium). North Korea received all this aid, and *still* continued to pursue nuclear weapons. Once the US found out about this, they pulled the light water reactors, but is still providing humanitarian aid to the country (which is desperately poor). We definitely want our end of the bargain fulfilled.

Third, we are obligated to protect Japan due to treaties with them not being allowed to use any pre-emptive military action against any other country - and Japan is quite afraid of a nuclear capable NK. North Korea having nuclear weapons severely threatens the stability of the region.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Jaize
On: Sat., Oct. 14, 2006, 03:48 PM    (Rating: Average)
um the NNPT only holds powers over the signatories, since NK pulled out in 2003 AND YOU GUYS STILL GAVE THEM LIGHT WATER REACTORS after the 6 nations talks welll, who's stupid? bush or kim jong iil?

That's besides the point, you guys were stupid to ratify talkks with a nation twice who has alaywas ignored treatys in the past. That doesn't give you a righht unless said treaties stipulate that pulling out of the treaties is a concionable act to war.

You may be able to protect japan, but please tell me... if a kid is scared of a dog do you go and stab the dog in the head repeatedly with a screwdriver? Japan ebing scared of NK? don't see why the missiles are all aimed at the US. but here's the thing, NK has not aggressed japan or china or south korea.

The only way in is via a UN security council resolution.

Legally, the US doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Morally the US should have acted years ago when the administration found out that jong ill was comitting genocide, but they held that information back from the UN.


so tell me please whatr makes you think the rest of the world will look at you and think you're the heros when you and the UN failed time after time after time knowing the repression and genocide the north korean people were facing. THere are estimates of upto 3 million people dying and what? the US gives the man light water reacters to power his electric nipple clamps, bravo.

PLEASE anth for the love of god admit that military action on the basis of nuclear weapons is for the US' own interests and ego and has nothing to do with legality or "the right thing to do" because I know where I can find 3 million people to tell you what the right thing to do was and when you should have done it.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Anth
On: Sat., Oct. 14, 2006, 09:27 PM    (Rating: Average)
I never advocated military action, and the US has most definitely taken a stance for joint resolutions on dealing with NK, in case you haven't been paying attention to the news. Furthermore, you're talking about diplomacy, but then go on to say that it is our fault that NK is where they are today because of the diplomatic stance that we took when *Clinton*, not Bush, was in power. Bush is the one that pulled the light water reactors out of NK (which, to be clear, were given to them because of the fact that they are extremely difficult to make produce weapons-grade material out of), and pulled out when we found out that NK was pursuing nuclear ambitions despite the treaty.

As of right now, the only ones holding back appropriate actions to be taken care Russia and China - the only two countries that have been remotely sympathetic to NK over the last decade. And now even China is in a rock in a hard place - they don't want to piss off NK by taking too agressive of a position with them, but they sure as hell don't want a nuclear armed NK, either.

So, a treaties aren't the answer, but military action isn't the answer, either. I guess we just starve the country out of existence, yeah? -_-

Now I'd like to know what you would recommend, rather than Bush bashing.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Jaize
On: Sun., Oct. 15, 2006, 04:25 AM    (Rating: Average)
well, since I don't have a television or a radio and have spent the past week with my head burried in a book on plato I got to tell you, I've no idea what bush has said about te NK nuclear test, just that it happened and my opionion on why all these people wanting action against them are selfrighteous hipcroties without a leg to stand on.

My opinion? Well, assasination has worked in the past. The truth is that there really is very little that can be done.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: jen
On: Tue., Oct. 17, 2006, 03:21 PM    (Rating: Average)
I was watching the news about this last night. They are now saying that NK is planning a second test...
Title: PS    By: Anth
On: Sat., Oct. 14, 2006, 09:30 PM    (Rating: Average)
(PS - I am actually against the idea of military action. Why? Well, because I still have a year and a half left on my inactive period in the military, and I don't really want to get called into combat against the 6th largest military in the world.)
Title: RE: North Korea    By: jen
On: Wed., Oct. 11, 2006, 12:59 PM    (Rating: Average)
Nice reference- although it mostly discusses drug trafficking and counterfeiting. Even though "arms trade" is in the title of the article. I feel like this is only implied with connections to organized crime...
Title: RE: North Korea    By: Anth
On: Wed., Oct. 11, 2006, 02:53 PM    (Rating: Average)
It is highly suspected that North Korea was dealing on the black market (I believe the speculation is with either Pakastan or India) in order to even obtain nuclear capability to begin with. North Korea is also a country known for its prolific counterfeiting, and have had its assets frozen by the US in the past, which their *government* is using as negotiating tools in these nuclear talks. From Wikipedia:


Quote:
In April 2006, North Korea offered to resume talks if the US releases recently frozen North Korean financial assets held in a bank in Macau. [38] The funds were aquired through the sale of drugs and counterfeit U.S. currency. [39]


There's lots out there, you just have to google for it. Heck, that Wikipedia page is pretty informative, too.
Title: RE: North Korea    By: jen
On: Tue., Oct. 10, 2006, 05:51 PM    (Rating: Average)
This is a bold question to pose... Possibly an even bolder question to answer...
Navigation
Search
Term:

Search For:


Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Valid CSS!