North Korea likely to carry out nuclear test

You've made two legible points which I'll address directly since this is just becoming a quote-fest that'll just run discussion into the ground.



Right, so we're reaching the understanding that sovereign nations have a right to act in their own interest, so fine. North Korea will attain its nuclear deterrent and the United States will get uppity about its hegemony being challenged. Hot air, but fine. If the US wants to kick up a fuss about something is can't do anything about, so be it.

Ah, I can see you've taken the time to do all of about 5 minutes of research on Wikipedia, enough to reference the Blood Telegram and brush off US support for unjust wars because the President went ahead with executive power. What we see here is the US being ambivalent to any humanitarian cause. It only matters where US interests are concerned, and if the US interests go against the humanitarian resolve, well hey - what's it matter. The irony here being you're willing to say anything to sign off against US aggression, holding them accountable for nothing. It's not that they just 'approved' of it, it's that they helped in the fight, providing aid. The argument that it was a 'proxy war' is no excuse, it was willing to support nations that use systematic rape, so long as it benefits them.

They are more likely to hurt themselves. They can't even get an ICBM to work, what chance have they got with something as advanced as a nuclear weapon?

I seriously doubt North Korea will actually do it. They don't want to look MORE stupid.

The same reason anybody wants them - its a nuclear deterrent that will make the rest of the world treat them seriously, regardless of the size/capabilities of their actual conventional military.

So basically you think that if I support say the UK's nuclear deterrent, a democratic fairly liberal nation that is incredibly stable I should also support North Korea's? With no regard for the clear differences in freedom or stability of these two nations? When it comes to nuclear weapons we should act as if all nations are the same? Despite that fact that this is not the case and some nations we more reliable as it were when it comes ot this than other nations?

North Korea isnt stupid. Theyre insane. If they were stupid they wouldn't be a problem. They've weaseled their way to nuclear power status and a position where they can pretty much do what they like while the worlds superpower looks on in dismay. They've created the model for doing that that the likes of Iran try to emulate. The UK's first hydrogen bomb failed. Failures how you learn. Theres a reason pretty much every rouge state going buys and copies north korean missies.

No actually we went in due to the massacre Gaddafi had ordered and was on going. Just go look at some of the reports that were coming out of Libya including the UN report from a team that was out there while it was going on. Not sure why you are mentioning Iran since my post referred to Libya the First Gulf War and Afghanistan as legitimate conflicts.

We can afford consistency, its not how the world works. Why should we be bound by the doctrine or everywhere or nowhere? We have an chance to easily remove a dictator who was murdering his own people and have supported terrorism against the UK and USA. I'm sure France, the USA, Norway, Canada and quite a few others all got involved because of oil deals with BP right?

If you'l notice the main thing stopping action over Syria is that Assad has protectors in China and Russia who are supporting him. But I'm sure that must be the West's fault too.

They aren't insane. Their leadership is strange and they don't make much sense to us. But it is clear that the media portrays them as a joke, South Korea would be allowed to invade if they were a threat to anyone but themselves.

You have to have part of your brain missing to think that North Korea would actually use its potential nuclear arsenal against South Korea. Aside from the fact that the fallout would also kill its own people, the United States would send a nuclear missile so quick you wouldn't have time to finish your supper. Besides, the United States has done far worse to the rest of the world than what North Korea has done to its own citizens. I have no desire to make NK look like a force for good, but by no means is it any more 'evil' than the United States.

I have no desire to think of North Korea as an 'enemy'. As iterated above, the United States does far worse in its daily practice than North Korea has any hope of doing. The difference between you and me is that I have no 'side', you will happily collude in whatever ****-hole foreign policy plan the United States has up its sleeve under some deluded guise that 'USA = good guys'

Do you really want me to list all of the evil things the United States has done with its monopoly on power?

Firstly, why do you think the North Korean government would care about fallout harming its own people? It's perfectly happy to let them starve in the millions. Secondly, the fallout wouldn't be enough to kill them with a limited nuclear strike.

Thirdly, if North Korea builds a long range nuclear missile then it will have a deterrent against the USA intervening against them in a second Korean war.

Fourthly, why doesn't South Korea look anything like North Korea?



I do not support all US policies; I just hate the North Korean government and think it should be destroyed. You think that its a bad thing for the USA to stop North Korea gaining more weapons. Why? The outcome of that policy is that the most oppressive country in the world will not be able to make itself invincible.



How about you find an example nation which had a "monopoly" on power like the USA does which behaved in a less aggressive manner. If the USA wanted to it could take over the whole of Africa and much of South Africa.

Lol the Western allies stockpile nuclear weapons like it's no man's business and is surprised when 'the East' wants to do the same? Absolute joke.

By no means do I think that nuclear weapons are a good thing for our shared humanity, but hey - what right does the United States have to argue against their claim for nuclear weapons when they themselves have more than every nation except Russia? As far as I'm concerned, North Korea has as valid and legitimate a right to nuclear weapons as the rest of us.

Any disagreement is just a double standard.

"Whaaattt?? They want to have weapons too? Well that's preposterous! Only we are allowed to rape, pillage and invade foreign third world nations! Only we're allowed to stockpile the most deadly weapons on the planet! This is an outrage! Their claim to nuclear technology is an affront to peace and love!!1 What's that? Our weapons? Oh, don't be silly, we only carry nuclear trident missiles of love, we're the good guys, don't worry!"


Pshh..

This is total idiocy at its finest, no offence intended.
North Korea: utterly unelected Stalinist regime which enslaves and starves its people and has declared repeatedly its intention to wipe out S Korea and threatens the free world.
USA/NATO: liberal democracies, respecting (sorry, CONCEIVING) human rights. Magna carta/trial by jury, habeas corpus and so on. Prosperous and, most importantly, liberal.

The North Korean state has no RIGHT to nuclear weapons. It has no RIGHT, even, to exist. It is a mass murdering, warmongering regime with no democratic legitimacy whatsoever, and no observance of human rights. Smart-arsed left-wing do-gooders only embarrass themselves by spewing this "right to nuclear weapons" crap out of their mouth; bigoted anti-Americanism barely veiled as an actual credible viewpoint.

Thirdly, if North Korea builds a long range nuclear missile then it will have a deterrent against the USA intervening against them in a second Korean war.

How about an invasion! We have a good record when it comes to invading countries for oil- sorry, I mean for nuclear weapons- sorry, I mean... well wait a second, The only record we have is for invading for no reason att all!

Good, this is what I want.

For far too long the US has remained unchallenged and I respect NK's right to nuclear weaponry as much as I respect the US's.

I'll go one step further than I already have. Foreign nations acquiring nuclear weapons is the only fail-safe against the United States, a power that exists already and for too long, with no military opposition. With the US's military record, I'd prefer the US to be challenged. I support North Korea's right to nuclear technology. I will join you in your anti-Nuclear campaign the minute you decide that US citizens are equal to that of everyone else and must too, drop their weapons if they insist on others doing so.

The United States has installed dictators, assassinated democratically elected figures, and organised more coups than I care to list.

North Korea by extension has never laid a finger on the world. Whilst I have respect for NK's home affairs, their military record in comparison to the US's is far cleaner. I would be far happier with foreign affairs if there was a nuclear missile aimed at every major US city than have the US unchallenged.