**Breaking News - North Korea Nuclear Testing and military threats**
- Thread starter Manlove is my forte
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Yes, it pretty much is because of that. There are nations in this world who are nowhere near as well developed socially, politically and economically as other nations in this world. These nations are somewhat backwards and cannot be trusted to safely develop nuclear weapons and use them in a responsible fashion.
North Korea is one of these nations. It is a nation so backward that it brainwashes all its citizens with propaganda and blocks ALL content from the outside world. Yet you think they are as capable of looking after a nuclear arsenal as France?
What planet do you live on?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,311
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I was under the impression even a first grader could understand this concept?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 956
- Location
- N.I.
The one thing that "gulf war II - the search for more free oil" did
Was this
Unless you have a seriously big stick a-la nuclear weapons you are ****** if someone
bigger than you wants to invade your country and steal your stuff
Was this
Unless you have a seriously big stick a-la nuclear weapons you are ****** if someone
bigger than you wants to invade your country and steal your stuff
Could you possibly explain how this free oil thing works? Iraq is a member of OPEC, the USA must pay for Iraq's oil the same as anyone else?
When do we get all this free oil then because currently it would appear oil costs about $60 a barrel?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,547
Pakistan won't use nuke's any more than Israel will (hell i would guess Israel is more likely to use them if Iran ever gets their own), they have a nuclear power literally on their doorstep.
You can pretend that part of the world is run by loonys all you want but that is far from the reality as the people in charge are far more cunning than you give them credit (ignoring the fact if Pakistan ever was near being overthrown by militants the yanks would step in).
I am by no means versed in the subject but didn't NK stop their program the first time in exchange for help in building a power infrastructure or somesuch which Bush stopped when he was in power?
In which case i don't know why people are surprised this happened
[TW]Fox;14152324 said:
That is exactly what they said about China, Pakistan and India yet they seem to manage ok
The only thing i am even remotely worried about is if they decide to sell their nukes ><
As for provokation remember there are still 28,500 troops in US bases along the SK/NK border so its hardly surprising they are posturing and mud slinging as usual
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;14152324 said:
I'm sorry if it has come across as I am supporting North Korea, or the Nazi's.
I am of the opinion that, no matter how well developed a country is or how under developed, it has the same rights as any other country, this inculdes the rights to have an army, bear arms, and have nuclear weapons. This is what you are not understanding, I am not arguing that Korea should have weapons, i'm argueing that if they want them, they are perfectly in titled to develope them. As America have done, Russia, China ect ect.
However, while I don't agree with the idea of nuclear weapons, I am of the opinion that countries are free to do what they like, for America not to like what they do and invade.
Why?
Your opinion is perfectly clear, but it is deeply, deeply flawed.
Perfectly entitled according to whom? Not international law, thats for sure.
I do wonder how old Tummy is. His way of thinking seems to be at the same level as a GCSE modern studies/politics students who havent yet grasped that giving everyone the same treatment and broad set of rights is correct.
Whats the point in letting them develop nuclear weapons when we know they will not use them responsibly?
Whats the point in letting them develop nuclear weapons when we know they will not use them responsibly?
It's like adding another set of pistols to a mexican stand-off. Mutually assured destruction is all well and good if it stops that destruction from taking place, but by no means do I want the chances being increased.
Without a doubt it's hypocritical of us to say they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. In an idea world NOBODY would have them, I don't particularly like the fact the UK does, but we do, and will have for the forseeable future. What's done is done, and the existing nuclear powers aren't going to disarm anytime soon for precisely situations such as this. If no one else had a nuclear deterent, I suspect NK would have much less hesitation than one of the existing powers in pressing the big red button.
Again, the US did it in WWII, so is this hypocritical? Perhaps so, but two wrongs don't make a right, whether in the use or creation of nuclear weapons. Arguing the case in their favour is essentially over a moral technicality.
Everyone has the 'right' to have nukes, but do you actually want everyone to? It might be their country, but NK is on the same planet as the rest of us, and if it all kicks off thanks to them then nobody wants to be caught in the ensuing **** storm.
Without a doubt it's hypocritical of us to say they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. In an idea world NOBODY would have them, I don't particularly like the fact the UK does, but we do, and will have for the forseeable future. What's done is done, and the existing nuclear powers aren't going to disarm anytime soon for precisely situations such as this. If no one else had a nuclear deterent, I suspect NK would have much less hesitation than one of the existing powers in pressing the big red button.
Again, the US did it in WWII, so is this hypocritical? Perhaps so, but two wrongs don't make a right, whether in the use or creation of nuclear weapons. Arguing the case in their favour is essentially over a moral technicality.
Everyone has the 'right' to have nukes, but do you actually want everyone to? It might be their country, but NK is on the same planet as the rest of us, and if it all kicks off thanks to them then nobody wants to be caught in the ensuing **** storm.
I read today Japan has (understandably) expressed a lot of concern over the testing of the missles, i really hope the UN do put a stop to it otherwise Japan may well join in a nuclear arms race against North Korea, unlikely but possible...they will only be pushed so far i imagine.
It's all very well people saying North Korea have the rights to hold Nuclear weapons, but the fact remains when countries are fearfull those nukes may be used it becomes a world wide problem, not a matter of "well they have them, why can't we?"
It's all very well people saying North Korea have the rights to hold Nuclear weapons, but the fact remains when countries are fearfull those nukes may be used it becomes a world wide problem, not a matter of "well they have them, why can't we?"
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,547
Absolutely no one wants there to be so many powers which have them, but the problem is people without are classed as second class citizens without them on the world stage.
This is effect is puncutated when we are talking about states which have been made iscolated (reasons are of no concequence simply a statement of fact) and had poorly hidden threats made against them.
As for the many "they won't use them responsibly", based on what real evidence for NK as a country? (genuinely curious)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,376
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
It is more likely for me to sprout wings.
As i said after that, it's unlikely...but still possible, this is from a Japanese news article after NK's missle tests.
Can only imagine the feeling is amplified now.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;14152683 said:
One rule for us, another for them. Again.
America has the right to have an army, as much as North Korea.
America has the right to field weapons of mass destruction, as does North Korea or Pakistan.
[TW]Fox;14152683 said:
No, Countries can field an army, including weapons similar to other countries (in this case the nuclear weapons), America does it, China does, Russia, England... Why should North Korea (ignoring who is in charge) somehow not be able to field an army on the same level as another country.
Your opinion is that my opinion is flawed.
[TW]Fox;14152683 said:
No nuclear weapons are permitted under international law, America, who are breaking the international law themselves, have no right to ask North Korea to not develope them.
While I think North Korea, having nuclear weapons is a very bad thing. That however was never my point, North Korea are a country in a dire state, there constant verbal threats to the world at large are working against them, they're already fighting a lost cause.
The ye old "he must be a child", If I tell you I work in a school, would that help you ?
My point isn't what they will use them for, my point is that America are in no postition to tell another country not to develope a weapon, that it has the majority of, and that is illegal according to international law. It's like a thief asking another thief not to steal, because he thinks its wrong.
I feel sorry for Japan, they're a country that are too close for comfort to a ticking bomb.
I don't think Japan would join the arms race, I think they put faith in the UN to protect them. Japan have seen first hand what nuclear weapons can do.
Thats how Korea are seeing this, or I imagine, "They have these weapons, we need these weapons."
Imagine a stand off, America, England, Russia, China are all stood in a circle with guns pointed at each other.
"put down your weapon its illegal"
"you put yours down"
"not until you put yours down"
Then North Korea picks up a weapon.
"you can't join in"
"why not ?"
"because its illegal"
"... but your doing it"
*joins stand off*
America have **** all right to say what Korea can and can not do, The UN should put pressure on America, Russia, England to remove their nuclear weapons, but they seem okay with them breaking international law, however, North Korea aren't allowed to have them.
"put down your weapon its illegal"
"you put yours down"
"not until you put yours down"
Then North Korea picks up a weapon.
"you can't join in"
"why not ?"
"because its illegal"
"... but your doing it"
*joins stand off*
America have **** all right to say what Korea can and can not do, The UN should put pressure on America, Russia, England to remove their nuclear weapons, but they seem okay with them breaking international law, however, North Korea aren't allowed to have them.