NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I did a search on the NS forum and this didn't show up so I'll bring it up.

I'm finding it hard for the U.S to justify there reasons for N.Korea to disarm and not test nuclear weapons when the U.S have already had the chance to do this themselves (on people [Japan]), yet they condemn a test that affects no one?

But it does affect people. People in Asia are quite worried that N Korea would just nuke people.

I mean would you give Saddam a nuke? would you give a communist dictator one?

Ok, I did a search on the NS forum and this didn't show up so I'll bring it up.

I'm finding it hard for the U.S to justify there reasons for N.Korea to disarm and not test nuclear weapons when the U.S have already had the chance to do this themselves (on people [Japan]), yet they condemn a test that affects no one?

Good god, please do not flame me its already been discussed.
Korea are Communists, and the US is still trying to affirm its victory in the Cold War.

Okay, that's a little harsh, but the Cold War is certainly a strong reason for tensions between the two.

Ok, I did a search on the NS forum and this didn't show up so I'll bring it up.

I'm finding it hard for the U.S to justify there reasons for N.Korea to disarm and not test nuclear weapons when the U.S have already had the chance to do this themselves (on people [Japan]), yet they condemn a test that affects no one?

Good god, please do not flame me its already been discussed.

It's been discussed, though I guess not recently. Better than praying not to be flamed, you might try phrasing the OP a little differently. "when the U.S have already had the chance to do this themselves (on people [Japan]), yet they condemn a test that affects no one?" will tend to inflame people just a little.

And anyway, the US development and use of the Bomb was a long time ago. We've seen what it can do, in Japan. Everyone says it's the most horrible weapon we have. And yet everyone wants one. Wouldn't it have made people's heads spin if Kim had said, "Look, we could develop a bomb and in a way we feel we need one for defense, but these are terrible weapons, so the peace-loving people of North Korea [or whatever the official title is] call hereby renounce nuclear development and call upon all peace-loving nations to do so."

But it does affect people. People in Asia are quite worried that N Korea would just nuke people.

I mean would you give Saddam a nuke? would you give a communist dictator one?

Dictator or not, surely mutually assured destruction counts for something.

Yes its messed up but its America we are talking about here the one place that is probably more paranoid then North Korea!

Also North Korea is apparently evil and wants to destroy your freedom despite not going to war in over 50 something years now :eek:

Yes its messed up but its America we are talking about here the one place that is probably more paranoid then North Korea!

Also North Korea is apparently evil and wants to destroy your freedom despite not going to war in over 50 something years now :eek:

Actually North and South Korea are still at war, a peace treaty has yet to be signed. The two koreas are just having a "ceasefire"

Dictator or not, surely mutually assured destruction counts for something.

You don't achieve MAD until you have 40 or more nukes. I doubt Kim is going to be hitting that number for a long, long time.

Yes its messed up but its America we are talking about here the one place that is probably more paranoid then North Korea!

Also North Korea is apparently evil and wants to destroy your freedom despite not going to war in over 50 something years now :eek:

Actually North and South Korea are still at war, a peace treaty has yet to be signed. The two koreas are just having a "ceasefire"
And really, who would North Korea be going to war with? Their options, geographically are a little limited.

You don't achieve MAD until you have 40 or more nukes. I doubt Kim is going to be hitting that number for a long, long time.
This is also true. Using the one, maybe two bombs they have would only get them retaliation on a scale that would make ... well, given the level of paranoia in my poor country nowadays, I can't imagine what the US would do if we were hit with a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure the government would even wait to see where it came from before starting to take out potential origins. The fact that I could even say that saddens me, but there it is.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fiJRcLtsuq4

And really, who would North Korea be going to war with? Their options, geographically are a little limited.

You make no sense, im saying that The two Koreas have not signed a peace treaty yet so they are still technically at war. If you cant understand then please, let me call you a dumbass first

This is also true. Using the one, maybe two bombs they have would only get them retaliation on a scale that would make ... well, given the level of paranoia in my poor country nowadays, I can't imagine what the US would do if we were hit with a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure the government would even wait to see where it came from before starting to take out potential origins. The fact that I could even say that saddens me, but there it is.

In general, the northern half of the Korean Peninsula would become a sheet of greenish plate glass.

And really, who would North Korea be going to war with? Their options, geographically are a little limited.

This is also true. Using the one, maybe two bombs they have would only get them retaliation on a scale that would make ... well, given the level of paranoia in my poor country nowadays, I can't imagine what the US would do if we were hit with a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure the government would even wait to see where it came from before starting to take out potential origins. The fact that I could even say that saddens me, but there it is.

Hmmm, which brings me to another point. The only reason the U.S has its tag of invincibility from invasion is that no one would be stupid enough to invade a country that has zounds of nukes. In this regard, all nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, then America would be less likely to 'liberate' a county from 'oppression' thus protecting a nations right of sovereignty.

Hmmm, which brings me to another point. The only reason the U.S has its tag of invincibility from invasion is that no one would be stupid enough to invade a country that has zounds of nukes. In this regard, all nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, then America would be less likely to 'liberate' a county from 'oppression' thus protecting a nations right of sovereignty.

Actually the United States has had this "tag of invincibility" since the days before the American Civil War, because of the United States conventional military and industrial might, as well as the logistical problems that most any nation would face in bringing a sufficiently large force into the western hemisphere, without a prior base of operations in the region, something which is not exactly available.

Your analysis is flawed.

Hmmm, which brings me to another point. The only reason the U.S has its tag of invincibility from invasion is that no one would be stupid enough to invade a country that has zounds of nukes. In this regard, all nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, then America would be less likely to 'liberate' a county from 'oppression' thus protecting a nations right of sovereignty.

I don't know why you would want a return to the bad old days where states were free to commit atrocity upon atrocity against their own people.

The threat of invasion must always hang over the heads of tyrants, or else there is nothing stopping them slaying their populations.

They are as close to peace as we are going to get.

They are oppressed and that is why there are walls up to keep their population in. Otherwise there would only be a handful of people left in N Korea.

The problem is North Korea has a rather obnoxious habit of selling weapons tech to anyone and everyone. Thus if they have nukes it's only a matter of time before they start selling them.

Ok, I did a search on the NS forum and this didn't show up so I'll bring it up.

I'm finding it hard for the U.S to justify there reasons for N.Korea to disarm and not test nuclear weapons when the U.S have already had the chance to do this themselves (on people [Japan]), yet they condemn a test that affects no one?

:confused: What are the DPRK's "there reasons", and why should the US justify the DPRK's reasons, regardless of where those reasons are? (Or are you simple nonconversant of the difference between the possessive pronoun and demonstrative adjective? If the former, please explain. If the latter, please consult an elementary English grammar text.)

Your analysis is flawed.

And that's not the only thing that's flawed...

I for one wish we could take that "test" back and stop any future tests. Nobody needs nuclear weapons and it doesn't prevent you from attack or for those weapons to fall into the "wrong" hands. The "wrong" hands are the people who would use them.

:confused: What are the DPRK's "there reasons", and why should the US justify the DPRK's reasons, regardless of where those reasons are? (Or are you simple nonconversant of the difference between the possessive pronoun and demonstrative adjective? If the former, please explane. If the latter, please consult an elementary English grammar text.)


At first I was incredibility confused by your word use as it appeared far more complex for me... then I realized that 'nonconversant' is a word you pulled out of your anus. The use of "there" in my statement is meant to read "their". Enouth said.

You make no sense, im saying that The two Koreas have not signed a peace treaty yet so they are still technically at war. If you cant understand then please, let me call you a dumbass first

I really didn't think my statement was that difficult to understand. Fine, let's modify it to read "Who else would North Korea be going to war with?" And if calling me a dumbass makes you feel better, knock yourself out. :rolleyes:

I really didn't think my statement was that difficult to understand. Fine, let's modify it to read "Who else would North Korea be going to war with?" And if calling me a dumbass makes you feel better, knock yourself out. :rolleyes:

Im sorry, sarcasm is easy to spot on the net when you phrase it like that......

Ok, I did a search on the NS forum and this didn't show up so I'll bring it up.

I'm finding it hard for the U.S to justify there reasons for N.Korea to disarm and not test nuclear weapons when the U.S have already had the chance to do this themselves (on people [Japan]), yet they condemn a test that affects no one?

When it comes to weapons technology, I want the US to have all of it and other nations to have none of it.

What do you think, that war is some sort of game of fair-play? It ain't.

Other nations will develop weapons technology on their own, but I would not have the US aiding them, unless they are allies and, even then, they wouldn't get the latest and greatest.

It is the same in reverse. Britain only grudgingly released their radar technology advancements to the US in World War II. If they hadn't needed our help, they'd've not given any.

I for one wish we could take that "test" back and stop any future tests. Nobody needs nuclear weapons and it doesn't prevent you from attack or for those weapons to fall into the "wrong" hands. The "wrong" hands are the people who would use them.

Please do not argue that the world would have been better without nuclear weapons, because that is simply not true in any way.

Do you think that it is a coincidence that the world's last major war was the one that ended in a nuclear attack? I do not. Hiroshima fundamentally rebalanced the risk assessment that any nation would have to make before entering a war, instead of thinking of the risks of war including lost battalions, besieged forts and sunken frigates the equation now included whole cities being vapourised and left uninhabitable for generations. In this light the previously warring nations rationally decided that the possible benefits of war were far outweighed by the dangers.

And as such we have experienced a 60-year period of unprecedented peace. The A-bomb was the sole reason why there was no World War Three.

I support nuclear proliferation, it stops power being concentrated in any single world power (at least hypothetically), and it protects nations from the threat of invasion without said nations having to over-militarise.

Nuclear weapons will never be fired by anyone who has had any sort of political education in the real world, because the threat of MAD is so obvious (and yet simultaneously impossible), and so Iran, with its democratic structure would never allow into leadership someone who does not understand that in the real world nuclear aggression will (and won't) lead to nuclear destruction.

However, North Koreans do not know what the real world is like. Kim Jong-il might, he is apparently quite Macchiavellian, and very aware of the outside world. But his successor? There is no guarantee that the next North Korean dictator would have even left Korea, and no guarantee that they have not been fed purely on the North Korean lies.

North Korea is a dangerous wild-card and mustn't be allowed to survive.