It's official

North Korea has nukes http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&e=4&u=/ap/nkorea_nuclear

Didn't they say that had nukes like 3 years ago? Funny how we don't invade the country that for sure has the nuclear weapons.

They don't believe in the terrorist God, what possible threat can they be?

It's official...only one country has ever used nukes.

Didn't they say that had nukes like 3 years ago? Funny how we don't invade the country that for sure has the nuclear weapons.

So are you saying we should invade them?

Didn't they say that had nukes like 3 years ago? Funny how we don't invade the country that for sure has the nuclear weapons.

So are you saying we should invade them?


I don't think we should of invaded them but I think instead of playing the Iraq game we should of been 100% focused on North Korea.

It's official...only one country has ever used nukes.

What is the point to that statement and it's relation to North Korea's nuclear weapons?

If North Korea isnt firing them on us then why the hell should we care? They have just as much right to have nukes as we do, as does Iraq. The next country we should invade is the USA. We have more nukes and our leaders are more war hungry than other nations.

I don't think we should of invaded them but I think instead of playing the Iraq game we should of been 100% focused on North Korea.

Agreed. Hopefully this one will go a little more peacefully than the other. North Korea is just digging themselves into a hole with everyone. It may be better for them in the long run to go back to the table and begin talking again.



What is the point to that statement and it's relation to North Korea's nuclear weapons?

It was a shot at the US. Not a suprising one but a shot never the less.

If North Korea isnt firing them on us then why the hell should we care? They have just as much right to have nukes as we do, as does Iraq. The next country we should invade is the USA. We have more nukes and our leaders are more war hungry than other nations.

They weren't firing them at us but they threatened to launch if certain demands were not met. They also broke a deal that their nuclear research center would never become operational again. The deal was off though when they brought it back online and started their nuclear program again.

Personally i think the N. Koreans need these. They are under constant threats by the US, and have even been threatened with a nukes before by the US. Now America just doesnt have any influence over them, and now their all worried.

What is the point to that statement and it's relation to North Korea's nuclear weapons?

Fairly obvious really....those who possess and have used WMD have no moral authority to demand that other countries do not develop similar weapons in response to the threat.If I were the leader of a country deemed to be a risk by the flakiest President in the last 20 years, I'd be making sure that any threat of invasion was met with a show of intent to make such an invasion as risky and unattractive as possible.

Whart North Korea does in terms of self-defence is none of anyone else's business.America has already bullshitted its way into the Middle East on the strength of fanciful claims about Iraq's weapons capability, and does not have,and will never have, a UN mandate to inerfere in any other country's affairs.

Fairly obvious really....

It was a shot at the US. Can't let those opportunities go by now can we?

those who possess and have used WMD have no moral authority to demand that other countries do not develop similar weapons in response to the threat

Does this also include the other countries that are opposed to them possesing nukes or are we just referring to the US?



.If I were the leader of a country deemed to be a risk by the flakiest President in the last 20 years, I'd be making sure that any threat of invasion was met with a show of intent to make such an invasion as risky and unattractive as possible.

Did I miss something? Did we threaten to invade them while I was sleeping? I hate it when news happens while I am sleeping.

....those who possess and have used WMD have no moral authority to demand that other countries do not develop similar weapons in response to the threat.

Does this also include the other countries that are opposed to them possesing nukes or are we just referring to the US?

Please read carefully before asking questions, saves you asking questions that have already been answered.those who possess and have used WMD......... If you can name one other country opposed to them possesing nukes that has used nukes in the past,there may be two answers to your question, but otherwise I think I made it reasonably clear.


Did I miss something? Did we threaten to invade them while I was sleeping? I hate it when news happens while I am sleeping.

Depends how long you were sleeping for,I guess.Members of the Bush administration have been demanding action against NK for years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F31%2Fwcons31. xml

Add to that the specific naming of NK by Bush as part of an 'axis of evil', followed by a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, one of only two other countries named in that accusation, and Ithink it's fairly clear that the US was sabre-rattling with a view to interfering in North Korea once it had sold the idea to the voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Evil


If the North Koreans believe that they are under threat from the US [and they do], they'd be foolish not to act in self defence. Possession of weapons for defensive purposes is nothing new,and as Iraq found to her cost,not having weapons is an open invitation for foreign powers to waltz intake control,and kill anyone who objects.

Please read carefully before asking questions, saves you asking questions that have already been answered.those who possess and have used WMD......... If you can name one other country opposed to them possesing nukes that has used nukes in the past,there may be two answers to your question, but otherwise I think I made it reasonably clear.

Ohh so only those who have used them should not have a say in others possessing them huh? That's convienent isn't it?



Depends how long you were sleeping for,I guess.Members of the Bush administration have been demanding action against NK for years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F31%2Fwcons31. xml

Add to that the specific naming of NK by Bush as part of an 'axis of evil', followed by a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, one of only two other countries named in that accusation, and Ithink it's fairly clear that the US was sabre-rattling with a view to interfering in North Korea once it had sold the idea to the voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Evil


If the North Koreans believe that they are under threat from the US [and they do], they'd be foolish not to act in self defence. Possession of weapons for defensive purposes is nothing new,and as Iraq found to her cost,not having weapons is an open invitation for foreign powers to waltz intake control,and kill anyone who objects.

So in other words..there is no specific threat to invade. So I guess I haven't been sleeping for very long at all.

Its not the US that has the biggest scare with NK having nukes. Its South Korea and Japan. Everyone knows that little arms race between the US and the Soviet Union and the one thats tappered off a bit between Packistan and India. If Japan decides it needs to defend itself with nukes, expect China to step up their production and the newest arms race will be between China and Japan. North Korea can't compete with either.

As to the comment that the US is the only one to use nukes. I assume you mean at a time of war. India, Packistan, China, Russia (Soviet Union), Britian and France have detonated nukes.

They don't count. They aren't the US.

If Japan decides it needs to defend itself with nukes, expect China to step up their production and the newest arms race will be between China and Japan.

China has already increased it's nuclear arsenal quite a bit.

This is a little OT, but it's an excerpt from a post I made on another forum:
I'm starting to think fighting terrorism in the middle east is just a means to an end. That end being having a base in the Middle East, for dealing with China and their friends(Iran, Syria, etc).

But anyway, we have the US building a National Missile Defense, China with an ever increasing quantity of nukes and now a new means of deployment, Russia creating some new magical nuke, Iran getting closer to having nukes every day... does anyone think maybe the Cold War never really ended?

And where does Europe stand in all of this?

China first-
Ok, military budget:
2001- Increased 17.7%
2002- Increased 17.6%
2003- Increased 9.6%
2004- Increased 11.6%
That's over 150% increase over four years.

Navy:
Starting in 1994, they have started buying used aircraft carriers from other countries for the purpose of studying and reverse engineering. They have purchased at least four, and are now building their own. It won't be quite a full-size aircraft carrier, but more like a heavy aircraft cruiser. They are also updating their navy bases and ports to accomodate ships like this.

They are now building second generation nuclear submarines, as well as affecting further modernization of their non-nuclear submarine fleet. They are designing and building frigates and destroyers. In addition, they are creating amphibious landing ships which can carry about 15 tanks and 200 soldiers.

Of course, in combination with all of this is modernization of air power and command and control technology. This is more than defensive, this is China attempting to achieve a strong maritime power status with offensive capabilities. It certainly won't be an overnight transformation, likely taking 50 years before they are even remotely "up to date" or even present with a useful operational Navy.

Space based and missile defense:
China has increased it's ICBM and nuclear capablities greatly over the last 10-20 years. A couple years ago they sent a manned craft to space. Seeing where this is going, the US now wants to accelerate our National Missile Defense program, and start a space-based military program.

The EU is feeling extremely irrelevant and wants to decrease the United States' standing as the lone world super power, as stated openly by Chirac. So the EU tries to encourage us NOT to build a National Missile Defense or space-based program by threatening to remove arms embargos with China. So now we have the EU wanting to sell arms and technology to China(who are known for sharing with North Korea, Iran, and Syria).

The Europeans figure this can go one of two ways:
1.) The US complies, and does not continue with NMD or star wars programs. Thus limiting us from extending our super-power status.
2.) The US does not comply, so the EU then begins arms trade with China. Thus increasing the relevance of China and their friends. Again, limiting our stance as the only standing super power.

Clearly the Europeans are trying to gain relevance in any way they can, even if it means selling arms and technology to China with their <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> human rights record. Any ideas that China is distancing itself from communism just don't add up to me. They open up, just enough to keep that economy growing, and that's it. The economy funds military and gives them a little more bargaining power.

Note, this the same Europe whose constituant nations were cheating the Oil for Food program and helping Saddam to violate sanctions, and were providing Iraq with weapons(some prohibited, some not).

Surely China is not an imminent threat today, and neither is the EU. But to look at China's military build-up(combined with a history much like that of Germany before WWI) and ignore it would be like sitting on a rail-road track and hoping that freight train is going to change lanes. This would seem to agree with the assessment of our military needs from the original post.



Hmm, quell terrorism roots in the Middle East. US now has a friend or two and standing military presence in the Middle East(on top of or in exchange for what has been standing in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since Gulf War 1). Closer to China, and closer to countries who are friends with China. Maybe the whole terrorism and freedom in the Middle East thing is just a means to a greater end.

Ok, tell me I'm crazy.



As for North Korea and nukes, I think they just use them for bargaining power for the most part. We put up sanctions, they threaten with nukes to get us to loosen up a bit. It would take a lot to get them to actually use them, and when that happened, it would be on Japan or something like that, not the US. But I'd say Japan is a friend of ours, so that's a reason we don't want NK having nukes, not to mention we're tired of bargaining with them. I think NK knows that there would be nothing left but a crater if they were ever to use them, and I don't think they are willing to take one for the team just to make us look bad.

Didn't they say that had nukes like 3 years ago? Funny how we don't invade the country that for sure has the nuclear weapons.

NK doesn't have oil so are on the back burner. I'm sure the US decided that attacking Iraq was "safer" since they didn't actually have any WMD.

N Korea stated in the article that their nuke force is a deterrent to US invasion. Frankly, I don't blame them.

I agree however that their neighbors are reasonably upset by the development. The key word here though is deterrent so if NK is being honest about their intent then there's nothing to worry about -- unless they're attacked.

Looks like the U.S. isnt going to be going to NK anytime soon.

- Kevin

I look and I look but for some reason I can't find anywhere where we said we were going to NK.

I look and I look but for some reason I can't find anywhere where we said we were going to NK.

Probably because it wasn't said.

What was said was that NK is one of the "axis of evil".

What is known is that there are US forces in SK.

What is also known is that another member named in the so called "axis of evil" is currently occupied by the forces of the people that named them.

... but I can't for the life of me work out why they feel they need a deterrent... :rolleyes:

I think this quote fits well....

"It is not known with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
-Albert Einstein

Probably because it wasn't said.

I'm shocked. Actually no I'm not.

What was said was that NK is one of the "axis of evil".

:22yikes: No way!! Axil of Evil? Really? Well that's it! Threatening to invade is one thing but when you call someone "one of the axis of evil"....well then you have gone too far.

What is known is that there are US forces in SK.

What is also known is that another member named in the so called "axis of evil" is currently occupied by the forces of the people that named them.

... but I can't for the life of me work out why they feel they need a deterrent... :rolleyes:

Don't get me started on sarcasm:smile:


Anyway, If they want nukes then so be it. Let's just wait and see how their neighbors handle the situation. Sounds like they aren't too happy about it.

As to the comment that the US is the only one to use nukes. I assume you mean at a time of war. India, Packistan, China, Russia (Soviet Union), Britian and France have detonated nukes.

Perhaps I should be more specific.How does "Only the US has used nukes against unarmed women and children in their homes." sound?

Perhaps I should be more specific.How does "Only the US has used nukes against unarmed women and children in their homes." sound?

Twice!

But hey it was only about 180,000 unarmed women and children that were slaughtered at the hands of our noble US soldiers during that.

Perhaps I should be more specific.How does "Only the US has used nukes against unarmed women and children in their homes." sound?

Please, this debate has been done to death, but since it might start up again might as well put the cards on the table to silence it quickly.

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force."

"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

As for what you said about "unarmed" women and children well this is wrong. When the Japanease issued 6 foot sharpened pipes to kill American invaders I think that could be considered armed.

Then to add to the fact that it was either to drop the bombs which didn't have one American casualty or invade Japan with an estimated casualty of one million. Even if there weren't one million casualties it still would of been very high making Normandy look like nothing.

Finally America wanted Japan's unconditional surrender and wasn't going to get it unless they showed a use of force like the atomic bombs or the invasion of Japan. The bombs were perfectly ok to us because they had no American casualties like an invasion would. Also the fact that American bombers dropped fliers over the major Japanease cities warning the citizens to leave because they were going to do heavy bomb runs on them.

If your country was at war and had a choice to end it by the dropping of a bomb on a mainly civilian target or sending thousands of troops to their deaths to invade, wouldn't you want to end it in a way with the least number of your countrymen killed? America didn't want any more of their troops killed and saw that dropping the bombs would end the war so they took it. Case Closed.

The case is never closed for them. They live to hate the U.S. and anything it does good or bad. It's OK. I think we can take their critisizm. It's just done to try and rile us anyway. Just give them sarcasm and they don't know how to act.
No worries though... it doesn't amount to much in the end. We have been called worse and critisized by better and we still come out of it OK.
:smokin:

When dealing with ignorance, certain distinctions should be made.

Firstly, there are people who are just plain ignorant. They do not know certain things and this is normal because everyone goes through this stage in life. Once informed of certain things, they become enlightened. Hallelujah!

Then there are willfully ignorant people. They have been presented with knowledge and choose to ignore it. There is little hope for their enlightenment for just as long as they continue to make that choice.

Case Closed.

More like,truth ignored.

You live in a country that sanctions the deaths of civilians.Deal with it.
Not just in in WW2 , but in every war the US has fought since then.Deal with it.
There will always be those who see such actions as an abomination, regardless of which nation or organisation is responsible.Deal with it.

And deal with it a bit better than saying'you hate America, it wasn't our fault.'

No I don't.Yes it was.NOW FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

More like,truth ignored.

Much like, truth ignored about all the facts I showed that proved my point?

You live in a country that sanctions the deaths of civilians.Deal with it.

Yep that's our slogan! "Killing the innocent people of the world one day at a time."

Not just in in WW2 , but in every war the US has fought since then.Deal with it.

I have dealt with it because I know it's war. In war, innocent people will die along with the guilty. It's something that can't be avoided and will happen as long as there is war.

There will always be those who see such actions as an abomination, regardless of which nation or organisation is responsible.Deal with it.

Like the people who sat on their couches at home who will never see a war, fight a war, be in a hot zone, be in a battle, know nothing about honor or sacrific, but feel they had the right to criticize soldiers from what they saw on CNN during Vietnam? I'd like to add that I'm not talking about if that war was right or wrong but about the soldiers who didn't have a choice.

And deal with it a bit better than saying'you hate America, it wasn't our fault.'

I don't remember saying that in my last post and I haven't ever said you hate America.

No I don't.Yes it was.NOW FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

It appears I've struck a nerve so I'll leave for a while and give everybody a chance to cool down.

I don't remember saying that in my last post and I haven't ever said you hate America.

My apologies if you assumed ownership of this comment.It was intended for the wider audience participating in this thread.



It appears I've struck a nerve so I'll leave for a while and give everybody a chance to cool down.

Again, as above. I am getting heartily sick of the bullshit that some people spout when they can't handle the fact that not everone agrees with American foreign policy.It is perfectly possible to like most other aspects of America and its people without having to accept the crimes of the worthless piece of shit terrorist currently in the White House.

Again, as above. I am getting heartily sick of the bullshit that some people spout when they can't handle the fact that not everone agrees with American foreign policy.It is perfectly possible to like most other aspects of America and its people without having to accept the crimes of the worthless piece of shit terrorist currently in the White House.

The thing is I don't see wars as foreign policy. To me, a war is a war and that's it. Foreign policy is getting involved politically and such with countries and what they do. I agree that America's foreign policy isn't looking real good right now like in Iraq. To me, America had bad foreign policy with Iraq and that caused a war. The war isn't a part of the bad foreign policy but a result of it. This is how I see it and how it relates to my previous post.

Who gives a damn? NK's nukes are sissy little girly nukes.
In the United States, we have enough nukes to end all existence on this planet like 40 times over - nukes are so f'n common here in the U.S. that the government just throws them away in our backyards.
We've got nukes coming out the wazoo. If NK wanted to start some shit - we could blow up the whole damn globe and kill every living thing just to show everybody how serious we are about keeping nukes out of the hands of those who might do something really foolish with them (like killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civillians).

:iagree:

They live to hate the U.S. and anything it does good or bad.

Hit the nail on the head there bud. Anyone who criticizes our country or president, hates America. Very strong argument, and I am so glad you feel that way about your fellow Americans.

The thing is I don't see wars as foreign policy. To me, a war is a war and that's it. Foreign policy is getting involved politically and such with countries and what they do. I agree that America's foreign policy isn't looking real good right now like in Iraq. To me, America had bad foreign policy with Iraq and that caused a war. The war isn't a part of the bad foreign policy but a result of it. This is how I see it and how it relates to my previous post.

The above post smacks of confusion and contradiction. So I will simply say this in reply: If you don't think the potential results and benefits of this so called war factored in to the government's long-term strategy regarding the Middle East and it's resources, then you are severly, severely deluded. A war is never and will never be an entity unto itself that somehow exists outside the sphere of the realm of politics. That's absolutely absurd.

When dealing with ignorance, certain distinctions should be made.

Firstly, there are people who are just plain ignorant. They do not know certain things and this is normal because everyone goes through this stage in life. Once informed of certain things, they become enlightened. Hallelujah!

Then there are willfully ignorant people. They have been presented with knowledge and choose to ignore it. There is little hope for their enlightenment for just as long as they continue to make that choice.

Good for you. At least you are beginning to recognize this. That's the first step.

Hit the nail on the head there bud. Anyone who criticizes our country or president, hates America. Very strong argument, and I am so glad you feel that way about your fellow Americans.

I don't care if someone critizes the president. And I am so gald you feel the way you do about your fellow Americans there bud.

Did anyone ever consider that invading Iraq was a way to get to Iran? Now we have troops and planes at the Iran border. The US has had spy planes flying over Iran for some time now.

The above post smacks of confusion and contradiction. So I will simply say this in reply: If you don't think the potential results and benefits of this so called war factored in to the government's long-term strategy regarding the Middle East and it's resources, then you are severly, severely deluded. A war is never and will never be an entity unto itself that somehow exists outside the sphere of the realm of politics. That's absolutely absurd.

First off I was just using Iraq as an example and I think you misunderstood me. Since we were talking about America being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons other than testing reasons I pointed it was for war. Taranaki said there will be people who don't agree with America's foreign policy and I agree. To me the dropping of the nuclear bombs was done in the name of war and didn't deal with America's foreign policy at the time.

I still cannot fathom the people who try to separate war and foreign policy.They are one and the same thing, unless you are at war defending your own citizens in their own towns and cities.

I still cannot fathom the people who try to separate war and foreign policy.They are one and the same thing, unless you are at war defending your own citizens in their own towns and cities.

Well here it is, the definition of foreign policy.

diplomatic policy of a nation in its "interactions" (keyword there, war can be interactions) with other nations

Well there it is so it can be layed to rest. What I was saying though is I thought foreign policy was more of the relation between two countries. I thought the relationship between the two countries was the foreign policy and war was a totally different thing.