North Korea likely to carry out nuclear test

Scroll to see replies

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..

I don't think "we want better weapons than everyone else" 1) suggests a double standard or 2) is an unreasonable position to hold. Why would you want another country to have the most destructive weapon known to man, even if they weren't known to be full of militaristic mentaloids.

Reply 21

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by Aj12

Where did I say that? I argued that a nation does not need nuclear weapons to defend itself but by pursing them it will bring itself against the US as well as China Russia US the UK and France.

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.

Simply put it will end up much worse. You seem to think a challenger to the US will stop this? I disagree I think it will make it far far worse. You make it sound simply to pursue nuclear weapons. It costs billions and will lead to a nation being alienated by the International community. If a nation wants to avoid invasion by the US then they can easily build up their military conventionally rather than going with the far more difficult option of nuclear weapons.

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.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 22

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by CyclopsRock

We want it all but we don't want anyone else to have what we have. That's the fact in hand here and the truth is that's a double standard. Nuclear weapons are all fine and dandy when it's just us and our mates bullying whatever desert bedouins we can find, but as soon as an East-Asian power decides it wants to pursue them "oh Gawd, the humanity!", suddenly you're all about 'keeping the peace'.

The US is just as full as 'militaristic mentaloids' as North Korea is. Just look as the Nixon-Kissinger regime for Christ sake.

Reply 23

for_healing_only

Because all it will take is one nation with a crackpot in control to nuke it's neighbour for MAD to happen in certain regions.

Thsi is why I don't like nuclear weapons, they are far to unrefined. Biological weapons were where everyone should be looking.

Reply 24

VeniViciVidi

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

North Korea has as valid and legitimate a right to nuclear weapons as the rest of us.

Any disagreement is just a double standard.

Are you referring to the nation that actively suppresses any form of individual thought? The nation with a systematic order of brain-washing under a quasi-Marxist and Stalinist state? The state that sends any type or form of political opposition to Stalin-esque Gulags for a life of servitude and slave labour?

Also, it is not a double standard, per se. When a state says they wish to see a neighbouring and ideologically opposite state's capital to be 'in a sea of flames', do you think they are capable of being a rational state actor? Hence, do you believe that rational state-actors are allowed to have nuclear weapons? If you do, then you're far out of check with International Relations.

I'd like to point out that states have a right to argue whatever they please if it goes against their interests and a stable Korean peninsula is in the United States' interest.

"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..

Oh right, the US conducts systematic rape in most third-world nations, do they? Please deliver some evidence of this, I'm sure the world media (notably RT and al-jazeera will love that information that you seem to possess). It looks like sensationalism has got the better of you and you seem inept of conducting intelligent, constructive debate.

Reply 25

Milos1989

This is already the 1,000 th time that are trying to launch rockets, I think it should not be afraid of them, they have a command center with a prehistoric type of Commodore computers... :biggrin:

hahaha

Reply 26

for_healing_only

I get the feeling they will eventually blow themselves up and we won't have to worry about them anymore.

Reply 27

silverbolt

Original post by Aj12

I'd much rather live in a world where a select few countries have nuclear weapons and can be accused of double standards than one where every single nation no matter what they want the weapons for can freely develop with no fear of consequence. The less nations with nuclear weapons the better and if that leads to accusations of double standards then hey I can live with that.

Sorry but have to bring out the old tired tested but true argument of . America is the loudest voice when it comes to who can and cant have nukes yet still remains the only country to use against a populace and civilian one at that.

Reply 28

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by VeniViciVidi

Completely irrelevant information here, but yes - yes I am.

Also, it is not a double standard, per se. When a state says they wish to see a neighbouring and ideologically opposite state's capital to be 'in a sea of flames',

Thus begins the 'THEY WANT TO WIPE THEM OFF THE MAP :redface:

mg:' statement. If we seek nuclear weapons, we must respect their right to do the same. If NK wanted to eliminate South Korea, they would have done so already through conventional military means.

do you think they are capable of being a rational state actor? Hence, do you believe that rational state-actors are allowed to have nuclear weapons? If you do, then you're far out of check with International Relations.

I'd like to point out that states have a right to argue whatever they please if it goes against their interests and a stable Korean peninsula is in the United States' interest.

You're making a great case of proving my point. If the United States has the right to apply its interests in practice, so too does the rest of the world, including North Korea.

Supporting Pakistan through military aid during the war of 1971 against India and Pakistan in which Pakistan used rape as a systematic tool in Bengal.

Ah yes, nothing says 'I'm an moral arbiter of social debate' like second guessing what news sources I use. I imagine you do that out of insecurity though, so it's no skin off my back.

Reply 29

In2deep

Original post by Aj12

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.

Reply 30

VeniViciVidi

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

Completely irrelevant information here, but yes - yes I am.

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant as it contributes to what is deemed a rational state actor.

Thus begins the 'THEY WANT TO WIPE THEM OFF THE MAP :omg:

' statement. If we seek nuclear weapons, we must respect their right to do the same. If NK wanted to eliminate South Korea, they would have done so already through conventional military means.

We don't have to 'respect' anything if it doesn't confer with what our national interests are. Fortunately, in contrast to many other nations, our interests are for the most part, good.

You're making a great case of proving my point. If the United States has the right to apply its interests in practice, so too does the rest of the world, including North Korea.

Indeed, but as the aforementioned, if the interests clash with the United States' interest, then the United States has a duty to act in its national interest. Hence, it is not double-standards, just strategic realism.

Supporting Pakistan through military aid during the war of 1971 against India and Pakistan in which Pakistan used rape as a systematic tool in Bengal.

The crux of the involvement was a reaction to communism (a la classic Cold War containment) spreading in Southern Asia as India was backed by the USSR. Whilst I have reservations and the United States certainly has a dark history in the Cold War, it still doesn't confer to systematic rape conducted by the United States.

Ah yes, nothing says 'I'm an moral arbiter of social debate' like second guessing what news sources I use. I imagine you do that out of insecurity though, so it's no skin off my back.

Please re-read what you have quoted on my previous post as you will notice I didn't second-guess your news sources. Quite the contrary, the information you possess of the United States invading third-world countries with notions of state-sanctioned rape is an unsubstantiated claim unless you've got evidence to bring to the table, it would be of great interest to anti-Western media outlets such at RT and al-jazeera that seem to align with your sentiment.

Reply 31

Nick100

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.

It isn't 'the East' that we're worried about; we aren't particularly bothered by the fact that India, Pakistan or China have nukes. What we are worried about is our enemies getting nuclear weapons. North Korea is perhaps the worst country in the world; it grants its citizens no freedoms, it runs concentration camps containing hundreds of thousands of people, and it would invade South Korea if given the chance. It can't defeat South Korea with conventional weapons, but with nuclear weapons it could stand a chance of winning (assuming it could threaten US cities and keep them from retaliating on South Korea's behalf).

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.

The double standard is toward South Korea; the US doesn't allow them to build nukes even though they aren't controlled by a crazy, evil, totalitarian dictatorship. There isn't a double standard with North Korea because North Korea isn't on our side; it is an enemy. You could use your arguments pretty much verbatim to support German re-armament in the '30s; they don't work.

Remember that time in 1945 when the USA had a monopoly on nuclear weapons and the most powerful military ever, and then it destroyed the Soviet Union and took over the world? Me neither.

Reply 32

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by VeniViciVidi

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant as it contributes to what is deemed a rational state actor.

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

We don't have to 'respect' anything if it doesn't confer with what our national interests are.

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.

Fortunately, in contrast to many other nations, our interests are for the most part, good.

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.

Reply 33

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by Nick100

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.

The double standard is toward South Korea; the US doesn't allow them to build nukes even though they aren't controlled by a crazy, evil, totalitarian dictatorship. There isn't a double standard with North Korea because North Korea isn't on our side; it is an enemy. You could use your arguments pretty much verbatim to support German re-armament in the '30s; they don't work.

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'

Remember that time in 1945 when the USA had a monopoly on nuclear weapons and the most powerful military ever, and then it destroyed the Soviet Union and took over the world? Me neither.

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

Reply 34

CyclopsRock

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

I think you're making a gross miscalculation when you say "nuclear weapons are all fine and dandy when it's just us and our mates bullying..." etc etc. Nuclear weapons aren't "fine and dandy" but they do exist. No amount of politiking and global summits are going to wish them out of existence, and that's the reality of it. You can't unmake nuclear weapons, but what you can do is seek to halt their spread to additional nations. It's true that nuclear weapons give one a strong negotiating position (Though only slightly - you'll notice that the only time nuclear weapons have ever been used were against a quite extraordinary enemy in a quite extraordinary time. US, Russian and British troops have been involved in a great number of conflicts since, all without having used nuclear weapons).

Besides, like I said before, wanting to have better weapons than your enemies is not a double standard. This becomes doubly the case when the country you're talking about's entire raison d'être is invading their southern neighbour and have an enormous, conscripted army. They make the hawks in the US military top brass seem positively dove-like.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 35

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by CyclopsRock

Actually you can.

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

but what you can do is seek to halt their spread to additional nations.

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.

It's true that nuclear weapons give one a strong negotiating position (Though only slightly

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.

Besides, like I said before, wanting to have better weapons than your enemies is not a double standard. This becomes doubly the case when the country you're talking about's entire raison d'être is invading their southern neighbour and have an enormous, conscripted army. They make the hawks in the US military top brass seem positively dove-like.

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.

Reply 36

TheHansa

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.

This I agree with. To counter balance America, nuclear weapons sharing organisations should be set up, one for the Muslim world, with missiles being held in the most stable Muslim country, one for China and their hegemony and so on and so forth rather than each nation having their own as these things could easily fall into the wrong hands should a revolution take place and I think this is Aj12's point. The USA will not undergo a massive period of lawlessness where sufficient protection of these devices would be maintaned, NK might.

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

I agree, but the same logic applies elsewhere. Living alongside the United States is like knowing there are tactically placed ready-to-detonate bombs surrounding you everywhere you go, in the event that your dad disapproves of what you're doing.

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.

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..

because the west wont use them unless in the retaliation

whereas these fruitloop countries will use them first

What a joke if they make them.

Reply 39

TheHansa

Original post by Aj12

Have a read of this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/asia/24beijing.html I think we all over estimate just how much control China has over North Korea.

Very true indeed. North Korea is a rabid dog and I'm sure the Chinese would love it if it were to become democratic and capitalist, this way they could stop giving it aid and start selling it manufactured goods.