North Korea likely to carry out nuclear test

America will not descend into anarchy where these things could get chucked around North Korea might. I'd sooner see Iran a country which can feed and educate its people with them rather than NK.

Actually you can.

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

Well this is under the assumption that I want the currently existing nuclear nations to remain unopposed out of some unfounded belief that they're the 'good guys so it's okay'. A belief I do not have.

No, they're the only thing that'll give you a strong negotiating position against the United States. The US, its military and its hegemony are all vetoed by one thing, a nuclear weapon. By all means, as I've said before, I'm all about ringing the bell for peace and love and obliterating all nuclear weapons for all nuclear states, but I'm not going to abide by the rules that 'some nations get them because they're the good guys WOOT and the others don't'. I support North Korea's right to seek the same militaristic clout deterrent wise as the United States.

I suggest you compare the US military record to that of North Korea. We'll see who's 'dove-like'. Here's a spoiler: it's not the US. By comparison, North Korea has not laid a finger on the world, the US however will go to war with any desert nomad it can find if it supports its interests.

Don't be a hypocrite, you would only live "in a world where a select few countries have nuclear weapons" if those countries are ones you consider yourself to be "friendly". Hence, the less nations with nuclear weapons (apart from us!) the better.

The simple reason countries such as the US don't want N.Korea or Iran having nukes isn't because they are worried of being attacked, we could forever claim their leaders to be lunatics but we both know they won't risk their lives and their claim to power by sending a nuke in any direction as it will only results in a more powerful nuke being sent back within seconds. The reason is simple, they have no sway politically or militarily over a country with nuclear capabilities and that unfortunately cannot be accepted by an imperialistic government.

because the west wont use them unless in the retaliation

whereas these fruitloop countries will use them first

No nation has ever given up a fully working nuclear deterrent. .

Well in that case, why does any nation need them? You are of course making the obvious reason why we should all, unilaterally lay down arms, including Russia, China, The US and its allies.

That said, if the people United States have the right and desire to live under a state with a nuclear deterrent, so too are the rights of anyone else.



If a nation seeks to 'alienate' itself from the process set forth by the United States, it has the right to do so. Why you seem to think I have some obligation to prefer US autonomy above that of any other nation, I have no idea. As it is, the UN, its protocol and its reach are merely just extensions of United States hegemony. The only reason the United States is alarmed is merely because it feels its hegemony being challenged. Again, I'm all with you on the anti-Nuclear bandwagon so long as you're willing to apply the same rules on western Europe and US as you are East Asia and Russia.

I consider the judgement calls that senior US military chiefs to be outside of conventional humanitarian rationale. It's a moot point to makte.

You're contradicting yourself. First it's all about 'ration state actor', then it's all about 'sovereign nations and enacting their national interests'. I see no reason for North Korea to lay down ambitions for nuclear weapons that don't also see the United States, UK etc. doing so.

Not true. We bully the world, rape our fellow nations for oil and bomb whatever sandpit we can find. The United Kingdom's state interests, are for the most part pretty damn awful.

You're still failing to make a legitimate point here. It's simply a case of 'every nation must act for its own interests' that you're advocating here, in which case, carry on North Korea eh?

For whatever reason, the United States is willing support, and aid nations that use rape as a systematic tool, as long as the actions are in the interest of the United States. This tells us there's no reason to believe the US is a force for good and is at least ambivalent to the use of systematic rape in war.

By now, it is established fact. I have no need nor desire to conform to anyone's propaganda, not least that of Qatari state-run outlets.

South africa did.

Uhm, they really really won't.

Mutually assured destruction old chum. As loopy as they may be, (and they are, don't worry, I'm aware of that), they're not going to write their nation out of existence.

Google what a fully working nuclear deterrent is I don't think not even being able to carry out a successful nuclear test really counts now does it?

From the 1960s to the 1980s, South Africa pursued research into weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Six nuclear weapons were assembled.[2] With the anticipated changeover to a majority-elected government in the 1990s, the South African government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons, the first nation in the world which voluntarily gave up nuclear arms it had developed itself.

Apart from Iraq Afghanistan Libya and the first gulf war were all legitimate.

I don't consider China friendly but I can deal with them having nuclear weapons. When it comes to nuclear weapons the only position that makes any sense and this applies to those that want all nuclear weapons to be launched into the sun is that you support the status quo or a form of it. The current nations that have nuclear weapons will always have them and will likely never give them up. No nation has ever given up a fully working nuclear deterrent. The best that any rational person can want is that the current nations with nuclear weapons stay the same, they cut their arsenals to more acceptable levels and any attempt by any nation be they Iran or Australia should be stamped on and stopped. Anything else is just a pipe dream. Unless of course you advocate all nation states to be allowed nuclear weapons in which case I think you are completely and utterly insane.

Everything is legitimate isn't it? We invade Libya as a result of a purposeful false translation of Gaddafi's statement of going "door to door", and we'll invade Iran because Ahmadinejad supposedly said he wants to "wipe Israel of the map", which again was another deliberate mistranslation.

Perhaps we should have some consistency? Why not impose a no fly zone over Gaza when Israeli state-terrorism threatens Palestinian sovereignty? Instead we let hundreds of children die at the hands of these terrorists.

Why not impose a no fly zone over Syria? Assad has done far more than Gaddafi ever did, and his regime has been involved in religious persecution, rape, and torture for years. Better still, why not impose no fly zones over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain?

After all, we imposed a no fly zone over Libya to protect civilians right? It had nothing to do with the rebels making illicit oil deals with BP from the onset did it? We might as well start policing the Bangladeshi-Indian border, and invade central Africa too? After all tens die everyday and we really need to protect those civilians!

So why the hell do they want to build them if they know we are not going to fire at them, and they know if they used them we would destroy them?

They clearly want to use them for something.

You are assuming all states are rational and stable. If that were the case then sure. If we could guarantee that nations would only ever use nuclear weapons for self defence then your idea that all nations have a right to nuclear weapons would be fine. MBut since we live in a world where many nations that want nuclear weapons are incredibly unstable and likely to collapse allowing nuclear weapons to fall into anyone's hands I think we should hold off on allowing all nations the right to the most powerful weapon ever created.

x

Perhaps it's my mistake I wasn't as clear. Your first argument was that the United States doesn't have a right to argue who has nuclear weapons and they must respect a countries right to do so. However, I'm saying that the United States has an obligation to act if its interests are threatened, which is, an irrational state-actor acquiring nuclear weapons. That's not a contradiction of terms, it's how realpolitik works. Stability in the Korean peninsula is in the US interest and with the North Korea adding to instability, it is an attack on the United States interest.

Not as a state, no, as you seem to inferring. Civil servants in the Blood telegram show direct opposition to the Nixon-administration's involvement (or lack of) in Pakistan. Infact, Congress actually imposed sanctions on Pakistan in 1971. It was really Nixon using his executive power, which didn't represent the will of Congress, to supply (and unofficially) support Pakistan. However, this was detene grounds and movement towards being aligned closer to China to curb communism and Soviet hegemony in Southern Asia. We all know what a crook Nixon was but I don't think it's calculated to reflect the entire ethos of the United States on the Nixon administration.

As I pointed out they never tested the weapons. Fully working nuclear deterrent requires proof that the weapons work. As well as this they only ever have 6 weapons when a nation that has produced a 100 plus nuclear weapons and has a huge nuclear infrastructure disarms I'll give some credit to the idea of nuclear disarment.

Lets not kid ourselves, no government will ever get rid of a weapon which could protect them from an imminent invasion no matter what state the country is in, it is the ultimate defence.

There are only two moral sides that hold any weight in this argument, you either a) want every country to get rid of their nuclear stockpile without any leniency or favouritism and without accepting a status quo or b) you accept every nation's right to acquire a deterrent which could protect them from an invasion, whether you consider them to be the "enemy" or not is irrelevant.

Allowing the status quo while acknowledging that certain countries use this advantage in a way that secures them resources and guarantees their dominance and future stability in world affairs is hypocritical because you would deem it unethical if the tables were flipped and it was countries near you who were being invaded.

Would you seriously accept the status quo if in a few years, for example, only Russia and China had nuclear weapons (hypothetical of course) and were invading countries for x reason knowing that your country would not be invaded if it had nuclear weapons? Exactly.