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

Moses99p said:
Hi there,



It's the way to go if you are a powerful country... but North Korea wouldn't be able to deter anyone with a fancy airforce... the only way they can stop people messing with them is to develop nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

This may seem like a stupid question, but other than the Trade/Aid embargo's which have been put in place due to NK's posturing who has shown genuine aggression to NK in the last 40 years? Yes they may be "Still at war with SK" but honestly has there been any attempted invasion in that time?

I honestly cant see how a Nuke buys them any political clout, I cant see how it will better their economy, I cant see how it will better their standard of living or national wealth. There is no value in my mind to having a Nuke, if anything it distances them from their allies.
 
matt_fsr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not neccesarily.

The Royal Navy class of submarine, Trafalgar I think, has pump jets for propulsion and one of the most advanced sonar systems in the world and also is one of the quietest boats ther is.

The US Navy Seawolf class are reputed to be quieter at 25 knots than the Los Angeles class subs are while berthed.
 
I reckon if some people in this thread had power they would give NK some nuks :p

Get real people its a fact NK SHOULD NOT have them. It's like letting some kid on a high powered 1000+ CC motorcycle or something, they don't know how to handle it and it'll end in disaster!
 
Manlove is my forte said:
This may seem like a stupid question, but other than the Trade/Aid embargo's which have been put in place due to NK's posturing who has shown genuine aggression to NK in the last 40 years? Yes they may be "Still at war with SK" but honestly has there been any attempted invasion in that time?
Click to expand...

Attempted invasion - no. But they have kidnapped South Korean and Japanese citizens (including a 13 year old girl). Imagine that? Sending agents to a country to kidnap people at random - how amoral is that?
 
scorza said:
Attempted invasion - no. But they have kidnapped South Korean and Japanese citizens (including a 13 year old girl). Imagine that? Sending agents to a country to kidnap people at random - how amoral is that?
Click to expand...

... ... ... ... I don't know what to say... I guess that puts things more into context. If as a nation you are actively going out abducting foreign nationals I guess you are capable of anything and possibly narcissistic enough to believe world domination is possible... I guess our generation has not encountered the likes of a Hitler, a leader with the ambition, narcissism and capacity for world domination. But there are crack pot dictators out there that will try given the opportunity.

I guess we cant comprehend the desire and notion of actively seeking war and conflict, as we are comfortable in our living standards. Heck the worst thing to happen in the UK is we found out our MPs are slightly corrupt (but mostly within the rules)
 
so americans move their entire fleet to bombard North Korea. Then what i don't think the international community will sit there while USA blows up an entire country. Eventually a ground based operation would be inevitable and when that happens the Americans will be in a situation far worse then Vietnam was.
 
etom said:
so americans move their entire fleet to bombard North Korea. Then what i don't think the international community will sit there while USA blows up an entire country. Eventually a ground based operation would be inevitable and when that happens the Americans will be in a situation far worse then Vietnam was.
Click to expand...

I think the US is absolved from any blame here.

They, like the rest of the world, are justifiably concerned at the latest developments but it is for the UN, not the US, to show they mean business in resolving the crises we have seen in the last few days.
 
scorza said:
Attempted invasion - no. But they have kidnapped South Korean and Japanese citizens (including a 13 year old girl). Imagine that? Sending agents to a country to kidnap people at random - how amoral is that?
Click to expand...

A tad off topic but why would Nk want to kidnap a 13 yr old girl??...was there a reason for her being kidnapped??.
 
Tummy said:
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"
Click to expand...

your still missing the point. I mean no one can actually stop them anyway :confused:

All the international community can do is condem them and exclude them from trade/diplomatic avantages.

Or they can take military action.

It is up to North Korea whether they want to risk it.
 
Tummy said:
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"
Click to expand...

So what if they have the right to bear arms? We are more powerful and we have proven we are more responsible than them so we should get the say. If they want to threaten other countries then we will threaten them.

Should you have the right to an m16 assault rifle just because the police use them? No, because they use them responsibly and they decide who gets to use them.

If this was the 1930's, you seem like the type of person who would have been on your soapbox declaring Nazi Germany's right to arms, we did nothing to stop it and learnt a hard lesson.

We have the right to tell them what to do because we have earned it and we have won wars previously. Our values are human rights, equality etc. and I will suport that. If you support NK's rights to weapons of mass destruction, then you are supporting a regime which tortures, doesnt allow freedom of speech, fair trials or a man to own his own land.

I suggest you go read up some history on what happens when countries with the power to stop such actions, get into power through force (usually plenty of spilt blood) and are allowed to flourish using brain washing and controlling their people.

Im proud to say my family and our leaders have evolved to allow freedom of speech and other human rights and Im proud my country condems the ownership and use of nuclear weapons when they are in the hands of people such as Kim Il Jung.

He may be a reasonable guy, but the past tells a different story and its not worth the risk.

I would agree with your principle of allowing them the right to have weapons and such, but when Im not sure what their intentions are, I will support my own.
 
slambo69 said:
So what if they have the right to bear arms? We are more powerful and we have proven we are more responsible than them so we should get the say. If they want to threaten other countries then we will threaten them.
Click to expand...

Every country has the right to bear arms and protect its self.
That is my point.

slambo69 said:
Should you have the right to an m16 assault rifle just because the police use them? No, because they use them responsibly and they decide who gets to use them.
Click to expand...

Double edged sword, that is down to each country and said country's laws.
We aren't talking about rules inside countries, we are talking about a nation having the right to field an army and have nuclear weapons.

slambo69 said:
If this was the 1930's, you seem like the type of person who would have been on your soapbox declaring Nazi Germany's right to arms, we did nothing to stop it and learnt a hard lesson.
Click to expand...

I like how my opinion, is that while I don't like the leadership of the country, they have the same right as England, Russia, America to have arms. I do love how I'm a nazi sympathize :D

slambo69 said:
We have the right to tell them what to do because we have earned it and we have won wars previously. Our values are human rights, equality etc. and I will suport that. If you support NK's rights to weapons of mass destruction, then you are supporting a regime which tortures, doesnt allow freedom of speech, fair trials or a man to own his own land.
Click to expand...

I'm support the right, that we have as a nation to bear arms.
It's simple.

I might not agree with the leadership of the country in question, but why should other countries tell them what to do ?
We (english) have not "earnt" the right to tell any other country what to do, when we had the British Empire, we could decide what countries did, we don't. We live in times of freedom, and as such a country has the right to have weapons, of whatever level of destruction they want.
I suggest you go read up some history on what happens when countries with the power to stop such actions, get into power through force (usually plenty of spilt blood) and are allowed to flourish using brain washing and controlling their people.

slambo69 said:
Im proud to say my family and our leaders have evolved to allow freedom of speech and other human rights and Im proud my country condems the ownership and use of nuclear weapons when they are in the hands of people such as Kim Il Jung.

He may be a reasonable guy, but the past tells a different story and its not worth the risk.

I would agree with your principle of allowing them the right to have weapons and such, but when Im not sure what their intentions are, I will support my own.
Click to expand...

You've kinda just agree'd with me.
You said you believe in freedom, but you're not allowing a country to have arms ? ... :rolleyes:

I've not said I agree with North Korea's leadership. I've said, as a country, they have the same right as any other country to bear arms.

Intentions ? so you have no problem with America starting wars, Vietnam ? Gulf war ? Afganistan ? Iraq and killing thousands if not millions of innocent people, but you have a problem with a nation that is in ruins, testing and wanting to develope nuclear weapons... makes perfect sense, one rule for us, another for those we don't like.
 
Le_Petit_Lapin said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I am of the opinion that if us westerners can have something, then the other countries should be able to have access to them.

It has nothing to do with my family getting killed, or the world ending. :rolleyes:

It is about the fact that us, as westerners are telling another country to not do something that we ourselves have being doing for years.

I do not agree with nuclear weapons, I however can not see why some are allowed this and some are not, the simple answer would be to see no country have this kind of weapon, but then America wouldn't like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom