Thread: North Korea

Originally Posted by Bruno

And why not?
Cuba has done far less to the US than the US did to cuba and other countries.
Yet somehow 'cuba' of all places is an evil empire?

No Cuba is not an evil empire,I have been to Cuba twice in the past 30 yrs,Is a land of wonderfull sights and gentle people.
But they would never be allowed to have Nukes or ballistic missles of any type.plain and simple,which will never happen as they are isolated from the world and can barely keep there 49 chevys running.

Originally Posted by Bruno

If a missile would be launched 'at' the US, I agree with you.

So what, we duck ????

Yeah you just lost me there, it was a good discussion right up until that comment... Maybe if they were aiming at Belgium and your family you might see it different...

"I wish NK would tone down the rethoric, but they are correct in 1 thing: if they hadn't at least developed a nuke and if they hadn't had seoul at gunpoint, they would have been 'liberated' already.

Afghanistan: no nuke -> invaded
Iraq: no nuke -> invaded
NK: nuke -> not invaded."

I am not so sure that the US would invade NK without an imminent threat to SK. The US did invade NK from SK at one time with dire consequences from China.

I think that you are right about the desire for nuclear weapons for deterrence. I think that this thought is happening in Iran and other places, and is in effect in India, Israel, and Pakistan. The concept of a defensive nuke must seem attractive to nations exploited by colonialism, or who have repeatedly been the battle ground for warring powers. However what is the chance that MAD will ultimately fail to keep peace if many nations acquire nukes?

Originally Posted by sheajohnw

I think that you are right about the desire for nuclear weapons for deterrence. I think that this thought is happening in Iran and other places, and is in effect in India, Israel, and Pakistan. The concept of a defensive nuke must seem attractive to nations exploited by colonialism, or who have repeatedly been the battle ground for warring powers. However what is the chance that MAD will ultimately fail to keep peace if many nations acquire nukes?

When I was in the Navy, we called our nukes our "nuclear deterrent". We had them and continued their development, praying that we never had to use them. That's where the responsibility comes in. Those who have them really don't want to use them as they are so dang powerful. I have mixed emotions on countries developing nuclear weapons. Part of me says "who are we to govern any country", the other part goes along with not wanting those other countries to have that power.

The fact is that every country around the world will continue to improve and develop their arsenal, no matter if it's nuclear, high explosive, tactics, or mechanical like a rifle.

Again I will say, I pray that no nuclear devices are ever used in anger again...ever. The practical side realizes though that if one is used, it will most likely be in a terroristic manner & that spooks me.

MAD was probably only workable while only two super powers had the ability to incinerate the world several times over. Nuclear Non Proliferation only works if all countries voluntarily sign on an abide by it. Fat chance of that happening. Non Proliferation is the nuclear old boys club vainly trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle. The situation with NK today and other similar countries in the future has never really been dealt with before effectively both politically and militarily. It is a whole new ball game and they are writing the play book as they go. Everyone better hope nobody calls the wrong play while groping in the dark.

Bob

Originally Posted by Bruno

Why?

Ignoring the specific conflict here: why should countries like NK and Iran not be allowed to develop and test weapons?
They can legitimately claim to develop them for self defense. Meanwhile, the country that throws its weight around most and actually invades countries and fires missiles is the US? Mutual assured destruction only works if it is mutual. And so far, that has been the only working strategy to keep the world from descending into global war again.

I wish NK would tone down the rethoric, but they are correct in 1 thing: if they hadn't at least developed a nuke and if they hadn't had seoul at gunpoint, they would have been 'liberated' already.

Afghanistan: no nuke -> invaded
Iraq: no nuke -> invaded
NK: nuke -> not invaded.

Why not? How about, because we may choose to have a say in the matter. I’m not sure if that is exactly the answer here, but to simply say that every country has some sort of right to choose whatever it wishes is a fallacy. Where does this international right come from? And does this same authority have the common sense NOT to put all nations on equal footing? Because you can’t even begin to suggest that all nations belong on equal footing. You might want to consider what each nation does with the power it has. Once you put things into that context, the argument falls apart. Places like NK and Cuba ARE evil empires. I’m sure their people are just like ours in many ways. But take a look at a night time photo of NK and SK. NK is all dark, SK lit up. One has prosperity, the other starvation. In my eyes, evil. Maybe not its people but its government and political leadership is. So why should we play fair with these nations? Why would we not use OUR power against them much like they hold “Seoul at gunpoint”? To do so is to ignore what they do and encourage it. You might argue that US policies have had debatable results and question whether or not it’s use of force has been the best course of action. Discuss that at length all you like. But would we all be better off if the former Iraqi dictator were left alone? Think about what he was doing with the power he had prior to his “liberation”. He was killing his own people, waging war with Iran, invading Kuwait, and threatening Saudi Arabia. And in doing all of this, he was threatening the stability of the rest of the world. To put him on equal standing with the rest of the world is to ignore all of that. Should we simply say that this nation has a right to develop and test nuclear weapons? Should we sit by and act as if it doesn’t concern us? Why? If there was a lesson to be learned from WWII it was that to ignore saber rattling dictators is a mistake. They don’t necessarily leave the rest of us alone. And when and if the temperature rises, who will the world look to for resolution? Will they go to Paraguay and ask them to help resolve it? Will they ask the Cambodian gov’t to resolve it?

And I disagree with the conclusion you are trying to make regarding nukes and whether they have been “liberated” (a not so subtle way of suggesting that the US use of power has been overly extensive). While nukes do serve as a deterrent, the lack of them does not mean that a country will be invaded. There are many nations that can be viewed as a thorn in our collective sides but are not invaded. Syria, not invaded. Cuba, not invaded. Venezuela, not invaded. Iran, not invaded. And how many of them currently have nukes? If you’re searching for the common thread, it can more easily be seen replacing NK with Libya.

The only reason to object is that the current nuclear powers have it, they are the top dogs and would like to keep it that way.

As for the evil empire: you are right to a point. Currently it is. But so was the US at one point in its history. And what the US did in Iran in the 60s is also very quastionable. The US has a track record of invading / disrupting countries for perceived gain. Mind you, I am not slagging on the US. My own Belgium has a pitch black page in its history, not too long ago. So does Russia. And Ireland, and Germany of course, and italy. And pretty much every other country. And it should be noted that not too long ago, the soviet union was the archetypical evil empire. And now Russia is no longer one.

Anyway, regardless of internal politics, every country should have the right to defend themselves against aggression.
That is the whole concept of being a sovereign nation.

Originally Posted by Bruno

They would take that as a declaration of war. And rightly so. They have the same right to build and test missiles as the rest of the world.
I am also not that worried about NK, because like the old soviet union: all they did so far is talking and shouting.
If the US sends a cruise missile into NK to blow up their test launch, they'll just fire everything they have into south korea. And tens of thousands will snuff it, while the global economy takes a severe hit. Because south korea produces a lot of electronics, whereas e.g. Irag only has sand and oil.

Bruno, absolutely no disrespect intended,but your answer dosnt surprise me at all as I said once before, Belgium isn't going to be asked to clean this mess up,it will be us.

Calm down all,wait and see what happends,maybe something.maybe nothing.

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

Bruno, absolutely no disrespect intended,but your answer dosnt surprise me at all as I said once before, Belgium isn't going to be asked to clean this mess up,it will be us,so with all due respect,grow a pair.

The US is pretty good at bombing areas back to the stone age and dropping in with superior firepower. But you gotta admit: in terms of exit strategy and making long term plans, the US just can't look past any length of time longer than the term of the sitting president. I wouldn't be so concerned if the US had shown that it can make long term plans and contingency plans.

As Ed O Neill said: Americans understand only Tom and Jerry cartoon like violence.
Sadly, the world is a little more complex than that, as evidenced by the fact that you still have 2 wars going on which were 'won' many years ago.