Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

North Korea likely to carry out nuclear test

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 30 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    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.
    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?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain how countries like the UK and America who already have nuclear weapon technology can possibly dictate to others who want to similarly equip themselves.
    Double standards, much?
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    It can do something about it so long as South Korea feel that their security is threatened. The nations are still, technically, at war. A pre-emptive strike in the medium of self-defence is appropriate.



    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.
    Using wikipedia as a point of reference, that's what is primarily there for. Well, that's the bi-product of having a separation of powers that the US seems to uphold, that the executive can get greater power than it actually deserves and accountability is more difficult in geo-political issues as the Head of State is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The thing is, with the U.S. being a liberal democracy, it is difficult and sometimes counter-productive to judge previous governments actions and applying them to the present. The Cold War, for the most part, was reactionary realpolitik to the Soviet Union's spread of Communist-inspired ideology. I'm not saying the United States is an unconditionally glorified nation but it is a damn sight better and in realism terms, a far better alternative than a Soviet hegemony world and a Chinese hegemony world. You'll find also, that it isn't just the US that acts in self-interest. Every nation will act in self-interest, it is what a government is mandated to do, to act in the interest of the nation and the people it governs. I'm merely disputing your senseless anti-Western sensationalism.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FranticMind)
    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.
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    What is going to change if they have nuclear weapons if we take them seriously, we're not give them more money or anything?

    We have nuclear weapons and we tell them not to do stuff but they still do it, so they are not taking us seriously even though we have nuclear weapons.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    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?
    You said "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."

    You are clearly implying that the best case scenario is those countries with nuclear weapons keep them while disallowing any country that doesn't have any at the moment to acquire any nuclear weapons in the future. You didn't mention anything about stability then.

    And how would we measure something like the stability of a country? Last time I checked, N. Korea has had the same method of rule for a century now and there is more chance of an uprising in China than in N.Korea (unfortunately). Also, whether a country is "liberal" or "democratic" really has nothing to do with its stability (case in point: Russia).

    Lets be honest, the current criteria for having a nuclear stockpile is whether you are one of "us" unless of course you had them before we could do anything about them. Would there be any outcry if for some bizarre reason, Switzerland decided it needed a stockpile? What about if Venezuela did?

    And finally, the most crucial point, the reliability of a nation is extremely subjective, who do you think is more trustworthy with a stockpile in the views of the UK government, USA or Pakistan? I'm pretty sure China would disagree. North Korea will be more worried about US nukes then the US will be worried if N. Korea acquires them.

    In the end, it comes back to what I said, the only moral ground a person can hold in this debate are aforementioned, every country has a right to protect its citizens. Iran, for example, might be evil in your eyes but I'm sure there is a kid in Tehran similar to you who thinks the same about the UK.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    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.
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    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.
    I'm sure the LRA don't have protectors in China or Russia. Why not issue a full ground invasion of Central Africa to protect civilians there? And if we "can't afford consistency" perhaps we should at least disassociate ourselves with these corrupt regimes, instead of buying their assets and selling them weapons with which they are killing their protestors. Yes I'm pretty sure that the nations you listed above got involved for socio-economic reasons, and to prevent Libya's assent to recognition in the Muslim World. Gaddafi although being a lunatic, had very good initiatives designed to lift Africa out of poverty, such as the Gold Dinar. It's totally understandable that Globalist Bankers would have done anything to destroy him if he was pursuing such policies.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FranticMind)
    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.
    I guess it depends how you define insane. If someone was kept in a shed their whole life and was only allowed to read books about the greatness of sheds in relation to the rest of the world.. Perhaps very eccentric would be a better term.

    The outcome of the last korean war was effectively a stalemate. Why would it be different now? Neither the us or china want to fight it out with each other over korea.

    How is Korea selling military tech and sending nuclear scientists to the likes of syria not a threat to anyone but themselves? We dont stop them because its a deadlock that nobody wants to destabilize. I think the red line of directly supplying nukes to other states hasnt been crossed because china drew it. Theyre like chinas pet rottweiler.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    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 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'
    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.

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

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    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.
    I dunno. The Chinese have a lot of interests in africa and might not like that. The us have enough capability to fend china off (except in chinas back yard) but then theres the issue of who supplies what weapons to who. Like that "game changing" air defense system russia was going to supply to iran but didn't. Thats the first thing any country who was really upset with the us would do. There's also the issue of being somewhat restricted by the anti imperialist justification for ww2, which we took seriously enough to give india back when we couldve just marched in and shot all the trouble makers like we used to. Then theres the issue of the eu which may not be geared up for war but it soon would be if the us started something that looked like the beginnings of global military conquest. Finally theres nuclear weapons which effectively nullify my last point because that type of conquest cant happen any more as displayed by the cold war. Wars between major powers are now fought in more subtle ways and it just so happens america is top dog in that age. I think you'll find america has been just as aggressive in spreading democracy and free market capitalism as the soviets were in spreading communism. If one of the few remaining non capitalist countries didnt see a world where country like cuba being punished for not conforming to americas system they might not be quite so zealous in their pursuit of wmd's. In this age its all about funding revolutionaries, proxy wars, arming an enemies enemy and propaganda. I'd let them be communist but warn them to stay out of our affairs in return for staying out of theirs
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jiytt)
    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.
    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.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    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.
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by avig613)
    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!
    hahaha! lool! completely agree with you!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    agreed! why is the us,france,uk,russia,china nuclear weaponry be unchallenged whilst we hypocritically disallow libya,iran, and NK?

    how come we are not even allowed to ask if israel has any?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    I would rather live under the rule of the US than in a world in which North Korea has nuclear weapons.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Far too many people in this thread are making so much of an effort to be fair and diplomatic and say that NK deserves weapons as much as anyone else that they have somehow missed the fact that this argument ends with North Korea having nuclear weapons.

    Given a choice between North Korea having nuclear weapons and North korea not having nuclear weapons, it worries me that so many people have so little regard for their own stability.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    Yes, the CIA has had a hand in a some coups. Coups against dangerous dictators who would spread communism and oppression across the world. Yes, American puppets haven't all been particularly savoury - but the alternative was worse. For these reasons I have always been skeptical about the Arab Spring. If Islamist fundamentalists (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood) take hold of countries in the Middle East, just across the border from Israel, then WW3 isn't far away. If I had a choice between Hosni Mubarak and the Brotherhood, I'd much rather have Mubarak in power - far less of a threat to Egyptian, Middle Eastern and global liberty.
    You are whining about diplomacy, about real politick. That's just how the world works.

    At the end of the day I sleep safe in my bed at night knowing the US and NATO are still in charge of world politics. It may be a messy business protecting the fundamental principles of freedom and happiness, but at least the side with all the nukes is the one protecting those principles in the long term.

    You show nothing but naivety and ignorance in your assertions about N Korea. Are you a troll?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 9, 2012
New on TSR

What do you think of the BBC?

UK Parliament wants to hear your views

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.