**Breaking News - North Korea Nuclear Testing and military threats**

[Jono8]

ahh.

However, it is alright for America to have them, and the UK, and Russia and China, but not North Korea ?

I'm sorry, as much as I know Korea is a badly run country they shouldn't be stopped from doing things. This isn't a dictatorship, nobody can tell county's what to do.

If Korea wants nuclear weapons, they can have them. It's hypocritical for America and other countries to have them, and be considered less of a threat then Korea.

You fail to see the main reason.

Countries like the U.S.A,UK and russia have governments and political parties and the use of nuclear weapons must be agreed upon by a lot of people and would be heavily discussed.

NK however is run by a crackpot leader who wouldnt have to answer to anyone if he wanted to launch a nuclear weapon.

This is why and, despite your opinion, it makes sense.

 

[CliffyBiro]

Hi there,



Look at the other columns, as well...

Hmm I missed that.

That's a hell of a lot of reserves.

 

[Frosti]

Manpower means nothing these days, the North Korean Army has 1/100 of the Americans millitary spending.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

It's an autonomous country - why shouldn't it be able to do whatever it wants within its own borders? Why should we be able to dictate to others what they can and can't do?

That is part of the concern in that North Korea have previously test fired missiles that have left their borders and flown over Japan, which would justifiably be concerned about this and would also be justifiable in shooting them down, which they did not do.

Also, Japan is one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth yet they decline to possess nuclear weapons due to their pacifist constitution and the restraint they have used has been admirable so far. They are putting their faith in the UN to resolve the situation and the UN cannot be seen to fail.

North Korea doing things within their own borders is one thing but testing nuclear weapons with such a deluded and autonomous leader such as Kim Jong-Il, whose disregard for peace and stability in south east Asia is worrying, is another matter entirely.

 

[Tummy]

You fail to see the main reason.

Countries like the U.S.A,UK and russia have governments and political parties and the use of nuclear weapons must be agreed upon by a lot of people and would be heavily discussed.

NK however is run by a crackpot leader who wouldnt have to answer to anyone if he wanted to launch a nuclear weapon.

This is why and, despite your opinion, it makes sense.

Korea might be ran badly, but they have every right to bear arms, in the same way America, China, Russia, UK have weapons.

I don't agree with North Korea having weapons, but they should be able to, they have the same rights as America, China, Russia, ect ect...

North Korea are willy waving, showing off weapons on the same scale as weapons America used in the 1950's. They however, have the same right to have weapons as other countries in the world. People forget this.

 

[Gog]

N Korea has more submarines than anyone else! Wonder how many are actually servicable.

 

[scorza]

Korea is willy waving.

America are stable ? they've invaded two contries in recent years, they've had the vietnam war, they had the first gulf war. They seem to be trying to govern other countries.

Korea might be a shockingly badly run country, and might be a **** hole, but they've got every right to arm themselves, as much right as America. No matter who is in charge.

No offence, but referring to Korea is stupidly ambiguous - there is North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and then there is South Korea (Republic of Korea). Two separate, very different countries still technically at war with each other, although a ceasefire has lasted for 40-odd years.

If you don't even know this then how can you expect anyone to take your world views seriously?

 

[Frosti]

N Korea has more submarines than anyone else! Wonder how many are actually servicable.

 

[SourChipmunk]

What size an army do the Americans have?

We're all between about 5' 9" and 6' 2" on average.

 

[V-Spec]

I can see the concern with NK developing a nuclear weapon and ways of delivering it. Not so much in the short term, but more in the longer term. Mainly down to the fact that we simply don't know that much about NK, and the fact its regime is so "behind closed doors" we can never be sure what their intentions are.

In my opinion the risk lies in the fact that Kim Jong is ill, and probably won't live/lead for much longer. So he hands power to his son or whoever, and nobody in the outside world can really be certain of anybodies intentions.
If they were allowed to develop a usable nuclear weapon, before the country falls into disarray, it'll be very very difficult and risky to "contain" the threat if the country is destabilised.

Countries like America/etc are stable, we mainly know how they're run and we have lots and lots of ties/trade with them, so its fair to assume their not on the verge of collapse or are an "unknown entity" like NK are.

 

[matt_fsr]

They have lots of diesel powered subs... they tend to be old, noisy and rubbish... nuclear powered subs are where it's at!

According to what I've read from "Sink the Belgrano" a well handled Diesel-Electric sub will always be able to detect a nuke sub first, as the Electric one is quieter - there's no way to reduce the reactor hum/vibrations which get picked up on sonar.

That said, I suspect the technical prowess of the boats and crew of NK are probably pretty low, and the main powers have a huge range of ASW aircraft available to use against subs.

 

[Jono8]

Korea might be ran badly, but they have every right to bear arms, in the same way America, China, Russia, UK have weapons.

I don't agree with North Korea having weapons, but they should be able to, they have the same rights as America, China, Russia, ect ect...

North Korea are willy waving, showing off weapons on the same scale as weapons America used in the 1950's. They however, have the same right to have weapons as other countries in the world. People forget this.

ofocurse they can bear arms. But nuclear weapons are a bit different as they hold the risk of destroying the whole planet.

I can totally see why the international community doesnt want North korea to have nuclear weapons as they might very well be stupid enough to use them, and no government vote or rules can stop them.

 

[Tummy]

No offence, but referring to Korea is stupidly ambiguous - there is North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and then there is South Korea (Republic of Korea). Two separate, very different countries still technically at war with each other, although a ceasefire has lasted for 40-odd years.

If you don't even know this then how can you expect anyone to take your world views seriously?

well hell mr anal.

I mean North Korea, the country that this discussion is based upon.

Because you don't agree with what I'm saying, please put forward a better argument then just saying what you have said.

You've offered very little, I've said in posts before that they have offically being a ceasefire since the 1950's.

 

[Tummy]

ofocurse they can bear arms. But nuclear weapons are a bit different as they hold the risk of destroying the whole planet.

I can totally see why the international community doesnt want North korea to have nuclear weapons as they might very well be stupid enough to use them, and no government vote or rules can stop them.

Yes they do have every right to bear arms. End of. Nuclear weapons are a form of weapon.

I again 100% agree with nobody should have nukes or silly people shouldn't have nukes, but to simply come out and say to another country

"oh you can't have those"
"why not ?"
"well we don't like, it and we don't think you'll use them very well"
"oh ... but you have them ? and you've being at war with lots of people"
"but thats not the point"

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

Tummy, you're suggesting that we just freely let anyone mad nutter develop nukes if they have the means, as if the Cold War and the lessons learnt from that never happened? And you can't seem to understand why this would be a bad thing?

I'd love to see if you still hold that opinion when half your family is incinerated and the other half is dying from radiation sickness. Letting people arm up with nukes as and when they please will lead to another nuclear arms race, except if the arms race this time is perpetuated by a country with a lunatic in charge, someones going to push the big red button, others are going to retaliate, and the whole world as you know it is going to end.

 

[SourChipmunk]

Hmm I missed that.

That's a hell of a lot of reserves.

Those aren't trained soldiers. That is the entire adult male population that will be forced to go to war if necessary.

 

[scorza]

well hell mr anal.

I mean North Korea, the country that this discussion is based upon.

Because you don't agree with what I'm saying, please put forward a better argument then just saying what you have said.

You've offered very little, I've said in posts before that they have offically being a ceasefire since the 1950's.

LOL you can call it being anal if you want, I prefer to call it attention to detail.

IMO you can't really discuss North Korea without discussing South Korea also - so much of geopolitical landscape of the region is shaped by the relationship between the two countries.

 

[V-Spec]

Yes they do have every right to bear arms. End of. Nuclear weapons are a form of weapon.

I again 100% agree with nobody should have nukes or silly people shouldn't have nukes, but to simply come out and say to another country

"oh you can't have those"
"why not ?"
"well we don't like, it and we don't think you'll use them very well"
"oh ... but you have them ? and you've being at war with lots of people"
"but thats not the point"

Its not as simple as saying "NK have the right to nuclear weapons" so they should develop them. As I don't think anyone is entitled to have this type of technology as a "god given right" the way you put it.

When a rather harsh regime decides to start creating weapons that can delete entire capital cities and kill millions in one hit, the international community also has a "right" to consider the risk and oppose it, with force if necessary.
Especially if the regime in question is expressing violent threats and "willy waving" its difficult to ignore someone when they have actually developed the technology.

If they do develop it, without intervention I guarantee they'll threaten to use it in future, and it'll make the world a far far more dangerous place.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Does anyone here think that the NK military would prove a match for the US ?

I don't want to see any conflict there but if Mr Kim thinks that he can rival the most awesome military machine on earth then he should lay off the Napolean Brandy and caviar.

 

[Manlove is my forte]

I honestly cant see why any nation would want a Nuke these days.

I can understand from the 1940's - 1990's Due to WWII and the Cold War (WWII being about winning the war and the Cold War being about preventing a direct conflict from nations that have nukes)

But I think most nations have come to realize that Nukes are of no strategic value if a war should occur. All they will do is create more enemies than friends on the international stage. I can not imagine that any country could or would support a nation that dropped a first strike nuke, I think some nations populations would be up in arms if their country responded to a nuclear attack by launching a nuke in retaliation.

NK would have to have enough nukes and a system of delivery that would be capable of hitting and crippling every other major world power at the same time in order to be able to hold a sufficient strategic advantage, very few nations have that sort of nuclear arsenal.

Nukes are so taboo that they are almost not worth investing in. A stronger air force an Navy with power projection is surely the way to go.