Well Done North Korea. Nuclear weapon test fire.
Discussion
MX7 said:
I really don't understand their focus on the US.
Probably because they're still technically at war with them. The country was left in a state of ceasefire that has remained ever since. The Korean war was conducted by the allies under the shiny new United Nations banner but it was essentially a US led campaign.The idea that military force is the solution is crazy. Even on this thread people are saying that the US should go in and sort them out, send them back to the stone age etc.
Recent history shows that this approach has been tried in various places (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and... err... Korea) around the world and every single one was a total disaster.
I think there are two solutions to the NK problem. One is that China props them up in a similar way that the US did with Japan after WW2, and the other is that pressure of technology - the internet, mobile phones - simply makes it impossible for the NK Government to continue the current policy.
speedy_thrills said:
Puggit said:
...well within range of modern conventional weapons.
You might think with the oppositions firepower that close and on a land border they would have invested in an Iron Dome type interception defense system.Fundamentally I agree that nothing will happen with North Korea, it's too difficult to grasp the nettle still. Best bet is to get the Chinese on side granting asylum to refugees and possibly arming/training some sort of covert operation. You'd never even get the Chinese agree to starve them out.
.
I wouldn't put money on it.
China is just as pissed off with North Korea as every one.
China could slap NK down very quick, if it ever got serious.
vette
im said:
I'm baffled that we can't just leave these independent countries alone to get on with things and help when it becomes obvious that the vast majority of their citizens want change which, at this point, they clearly don't.
North Korea is something of a special case. If their population knew what the rest of the world actually was like, instead of the version fed to them by their leadership, I think they'd want change pretty rapidly.
Mattygooner said:
History is there to be learned from, the idea that a country such as NK have WMD (Nukes, Chemical, Nerve) and are clearly not afraid to use them is scary indeed.
Only ONE COUNTRY has ever dropped a bomb on a civilian population - and they did it TWICE.The country that was devasted by that event, Japan, sits next door to North Korea - a lesson not lost on the North Koreans I suspect as they stood and watched the mushroom cloud(s)...
Rushing to build a bomb of their own is, when looked at dispassionately, a natural response. After all thats what an arms race is all about.
MX7 said:
durbster said:
Probably because they're still technically at war with them.
They are at war with the South, not America.NK was at war with a United Nations force that was overwhelmingly American, and without US involvement Korea would have been unified under Pyongyang rule and the whole thing probably would have been over in a few months and forgotten about by the west.
It was the US who led the UN force that escalated the war and it was also the US who signed the Armistice that brought an end to hostilities.
im said:
Mattygooner said:
History is there to be learned from, the idea that a country such as NK have WMD (Nukes, Chemical, Nerve) and are clearly not afraid to use them is scary indeed.
Only ONE COUNTRY has ever dropped a bomb on a civilian population - and they did it TWICE.The country that was devasted by that event, Japan, sits next door to North Korea - a lesson not lost on the North Koreans I suspect as they stood and watched the mushroom cloud(s)...
Rushing to build a bomb of their own is, when looked at dispassionately, a natural response. After all thats what an arms race is all about.
jmorgan said:
And if you re run history it would be the same result. It is different circumstances between the two by a country mile here.
Indeed, The USA droping the bombs on Japan is another thread, but to compare the two is stupid and your not taking in to account the 4 yeasr of bitter war prior to that, or the fact that the pride of the Japanese was such that they would not have given in causing more deaths as a result of an invasion.If a country or leader is willing to test out their chemical weapons on their own population, then i am pretty sure they would be willing to do it on someone they dislike!
When people mention the Iraq war, they tend to forget that Saddam gased his own people.
im said:
Only ONE COUNTRY has ever dropped a bomb on a civilian population - and they did it TWICE.
The country that was devasted by that event, Japan, sits next door to North Korea - a lesson not lost on the North Koreans I suspect as they stood and watched the mushroom cloud(s)...
Rushing to build a bomb of their own is, when looked at dispassionately, a natural response. After all thats what an arms race is all about.
Lots of (formerly neighbourly) countries have dropped bombs on one another...but I think you meant atomic bomb.The country that was devasted by that event, Japan, sits next door to North Korea - a lesson not lost on the North Koreans I suspect as they stood and watched the mushroom cloud(s)...
Rushing to build a bomb of their own is, when looked at dispassionately, a natural response. After all thats what an arms race is all about.
For the NK to have seen the mushroom cloud from their own shoreline would have been an astonishing feat of ocular dexterity.
Rushing to build a bomb - a monstrously expensive and energy reliant undertaking - when large parts of your country are not properly fed is hardly a 'natural response', unless there is a hot war under way. Nor can you view such a development 'dispassionately'.
Mattygooner said:
Indeed, The USA droping the bombs on Japan is another thread, but to compare the two is stupid and your not taking in to account the 4 yeasr of bitter war prior to that, or the fact that the pride of the Japanese was such that they would not have given in causing more deaths as a result of an invasion.
If a country or leader is willing to test out their chemical weapons on their own population, then i am pretty sure they would be willing to do it on someone they dislike!
When people mention the Iraq war, they tend to forget that Saddam gased his own people.
OK, thats twice you've said 'stupid' now Matty and it's getting tiresome. If a country or leader is willing to test out their chemical weapons on their own population, then i am pretty sure they would be willing to do it on someone they dislike!
When people mention the Iraq war, they tend to forget that Saddam gased his own people.
What's 'stupid' in extremis is saying or infering that there are circumstances which allow for or justify the use of nukes. That decision, once taken for your own ends (ie It'll save US lives in the long run), is then able to be used against you by other countries in the future. The hard-line Muslims, having seen their people being killed throughout the middle east by drone attack etc could justify a nuclear bomb detonation in New York as "it'll save lives (theirs) in the long run".
Nukes are nukes and we can't claim the moral high ground on this issue. Why do you think the Chinese are 'left alone' by the US/West? It's because they have Nukes and the means to deliver them. The N.Koreans/Iraqis etc know this and want the same.
The comparison is "Insert another word for stupid" because the situations are completely different (and the lives saved were not just those of the USA either). The USA bombing was supposed to be a means to an end not to start a war. I am not trying to justify their use, just pointing out that SHOUTING about the USA only having used them in a play ground "you did it first" way and not actually taking in to account the global situation 60 years ago was "stupid"
Your comparing a fairly open, politically modern and democratic government who are part of the UN (and bound by their rules and treaties) to a dictatorship run by a 12 year old with a point to prove? Your saying you trust NK to have WMD but not the US because they have used them before, 60 years ago at the end of a war responsible for 60million(est) lives.
Look at my post, i simply stated that i would be concerned that such a government has growing control of WMD. I also stated that military action was not needed but the situation should be watched.
But you are so fast to shout down the USA, without them effectively policing the world with their power and the threat they pose, it would probably be a very different place (and not a better one)
Your comparing a fairly open, politically modern and democratic government who are part of the UN (and bound by their rules and treaties) to a dictatorship run by a 12 year old with a point to prove? Your saying you trust NK to have WMD but not the US because they have used them before, 60 years ago at the end of a war responsible for 60million(est) lives.
Look at my post, i simply stated that i would be concerned that such a government has growing control of WMD. I also stated that military action was not needed but the situation should be watched.
But you are so fast to shout down the USA, without them effectively policing the world with their power and the threat they pose, it would probably be a very different place (and not a better one)
im said:
What's 'stupid' in extremis is saying or infering that there are circumstances which allow for or justify the use of nukes. That decision, once taken for your own ends (ie It'll save US lives in the long run), is then able to be used against you by other countries in the future.
The end result was a saving in lives beyond that of the US. Japan had shown what would happen if the allies, not just the US (they were massing for this) the allies would have taken a big hit. The civilian population were being wound up to defend, and they would have, and they would have died. The Allies would have bombed the place into oblivion, a blockade would have starved to death an already starving nation and disease would have run rampant. The civilians were being primed for basically suicide missions. Kamikazi missions would have seen to a lot of troop ships and other vessels, or at least attempted to.The predicated toll was massive and that was from people who fought through it, that is saw what happened in the island campaign. This was not a decision just to save lives, it was to end an already bitter war. At that time they were just a couple of big bombs and they had a use and have to be looked at at that moment in time.
That is why this is a different situation and the WWII needs to be left out. The situations are miles apart.
Given the context of the thread it's probably worth pointing out the US military seriously considered using nukes in Korea too but decided against it.
So it's unfair to suggest the Japan bombs means the US are recklessly nuke-happy. They had an opportunity to use them post-WW2 and chose not to. The situation didn't warrant it.
So it's unfair to suggest the Japan bombs means the US are recklessly nuke-happy. They had an opportunity to use them post-WW2 and chose not to. The situation didn't warrant it.
uk_vette said:
speedy_thrills said:
Puggit said:
...well within range of modern conventional weapons.
You might think with the oppositions firepower that close and on a land border they would have invested in an Iron Dome type interception defense system.Fundamentally I agree that nothing will happen with North Korea, it's too difficult to grasp the nettle still. Best bet is to get the Chinese on side granting asylum to refugees and possibly arming/training some sort of covert operation. You'd never even get the Chinese agree to starve them out.
.
I wouldn't put money on it.
China is just as pissed off with North Korea as every one.
China could slap NK down very quick, if it ever got serious.
vette
durbster said:
Given the context of the thread it's probably worth pointing out the US military seriously considered using nukes in Korea too but decided against it.
So it's unfair to suggest the Japan bombs means the US are recklessly nuke-happy. They had an opportunity to use them post-WW2 and chose not to. The situation didn't warrant it.
Once China got involved McArthur also wanted to nuke the Chinese - I suppose he felt it was some magical war ending weapon. Quite tellingly at this point he was relieved of command by the US government who didn't think that dropping any more nukes was an option. So it's unfair to suggest the Japan bombs means the US are recklessly nuke-happy. They had an opportunity to use them post-WW2 and chose not to. The situation didn't warrant it.
Whilst I'm to quick to shout down the US apparently, you're to quick to back a global rampaging bully.
My view is they should be left alone. With the demise of the Soviet Union the world has become an unbalanced place again as all of the power has shifted to just one country and the result of that is that they are doing just exactly as they please and on a global scale. Sadly we're tagging along behind them in our capacity as lackeys and our young men are coming home weekly in body bags from some god-forsaken place or another that the US has deemed worth dying for.
I don't want NK to be the next country they are mown down in.
We're gonna go round in circles here. Lets agree to differ.
My view is they should be left alone. With the demise of the Soviet Union the world has become an unbalanced place again as all of the power has shifted to just one country and the result of that is that they are doing just exactly as they please and on a global scale. Sadly we're tagging along behind them in our capacity as lackeys and our young men are coming home weekly in body bags from some god-forsaken place or another that the US has deemed worth dying for.
I don't want NK to be the next country they are mown down in.
We're gonna go round in circles here. Lets agree to differ.
moustachebandit said:
Once China got involved McArthur also wanted to nuke the Chinese - I suppose he felt it was some magical war ending weapon. Quite tellingly at this point he was relieved of command by the US government who didn't think that dropping any more nukes was an option.
Yeah I got the impression MacArthur regarded the A-Bomb as nothing more than a bomb that made a bigger bang than the others, and didn't really give much thought to the moral implications. The fact the US administration saw otherwise is to their credit. im said:
Whilst I'm to quick to shout down the US apparently, you're to quick to back a global rampaging bully.
My view is they should be left alone. With the demise of the Soviet Union the world has become an unbalanced place again as all of the power has shifted to just one country and the result of that is that they are doing just exactly as they please and on a global scale. Sadly we're tagging along behind them in our capacity as lackeys and our young men are coming home weekly in body bags from some god-forsaken place or another that the US has deemed worth dying for.
I don't want NK to be the next country they are mown down in.
We're gonna go round in circles here. Lets agree to differ.
You are a couple of super powers short of a party, China and the USA are the balencing act and Russia has not lost its clout (or nuclear Arsenal). My view is they should be left alone. With the demise of the Soviet Union the world has become an unbalanced place again as all of the power has shifted to just one country and the result of that is that they are doing just exactly as they please and on a global scale. Sadly we're tagging along behind them in our capacity as lackeys and our young men are coming home weekly in body bags from some god-forsaken place or another that the US has deemed worth dying for.
I don't want NK to be the next country they are mown down in.
We're gonna go round in circles here. Lets agree to differ.
Well, it's your opinion, i see it (i am guessing you are talking about Afghanistan) as us trying to help a country who have been opressed break free of this and make a choice about their direction. As i said earlier, we have a responsability to help those who cannot help themselves and at the same time stop a country being overun by a terrorist organisation to run it as they see fit and earn lots of money from the vast quantities of opium (which ends up on our street).
Why should you turn a blind eye? no one even knows the real extent of the conditions and genocide within NK, but at which point do you step in?
Its another thread, so yes, agree to differ
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff