North Korea moves rocket into place (with video)

FutileBreadMachine · 13 Apr 2012 at 11:17

fez said:
Come on, would any country that was remotely like North Korea suddenly start bowing down to international pressure. Countries don't like to be treated like children regardless of the perception of the international community.

He is their new dictator, he can do anything he likes. He could either start trying to repair relations with the rest of the world, or he could appear "strong" to his people by showing the west the finger. Evidently he chose the latter.l

LOAM · 13 Apr 2012 at 11:19

Craterloads said:
Wow so all the crippling sanctions and embargoes how NO effect on NK? Why sanction them when they are only doing what others have done and are doing regarding weapons?

The point being that there would be absolutely no need for sanctions or trade embargo's or indeed a requirement for international aid if the regime adopted a non aggressive military posture and stopped raping its own country.

The fact remains that a tiny percentage of elite within NK live like gods with untold, uncountable wealth and squander untold money on edifices to themselves whilst their nation dies at their feet too scared to complain.

Any country providing international aid has every right to demand political change for continued aid, aid which as stated could and should be negated by government who had its subjects interests at heart and not one who's sole intention it to feather its own nest.

Finally I dont remember any nation that has officially been at war with its peaceful neighbour since the 1950's and who randomly launches artillery shell bombardment upon said nation and sinks its ships within its own waters being treated any differently to how NK is currently treated.

Firestar_3x · 13 Apr 2012 at 11:22

Craterloads said:
So if they were a democracy everyone would be fine with their nuke program?

And who says they are "crazy" ? Seems anyone who does things differently or disagrees with the US are "crazy" just like how they try to paint the Iranian's, which we all know to be untrue.

I would put that same question to you in reverse, aka America being the crazy neighbour attacking other countries on what seems to be at every opportunity it can get. Wouldnt you want a deterrent?

Answer my question please.

if your next-door neighbour was crazy and spent his days walking up and down his garden with a loaded shotgun would you phone the police?

Craterloads · 13 Apr 2012 at 11:25

Firestar_3x said:
Answer my question please.

if your next-door neighbour was crazy and spent his days walking up and down his garden with a loaded shotgun would you phone the police?

Of coarse, but its completly out of context and is irrelavent to this discussion. I see what your trying to say but it just doesnt apply hear.

LOAM · 13 Apr 2012 at 11:32

Why does it not apply ? NK has, in recent years launched several unprovoked attacks on SK.

Rather than walking round the garden with a loaded shotgun they are taking pot shots with it.

stuman · 13 Apr 2012 at 11:56

1st priority for any country and leadership is to be self sufficient. if it relies on aid from other countries to keep its population alive then they need to re-asses distribution of funding away from its forces and space program.

it's like giving a homeless person money for food whilst he plays angry birds on the newest iPad.

Firestar_3x · 13 Apr 2012 at 12:02

Craterloads said:
Of coarse, but its completly out of context and is irrelavent to this discussion. I see what your trying to say but it just doesnt apply hear.

It is indeed relevant but the NK problem is on a larger scale, the potential threat is not localised to a neighhood or town but to a whole region.

The posturing coming out of NK is that of aggression, the rest of the world didn't suddenly turn round one day and think, hmm you know what would be funny, let’s put sanctions on NK.

When a country is aggressive towards all who approach then why should be allow them to produce weapons which could be used again other stable nations.

[TW]Fox · 13 Apr 2012 at 12:15

Craterloads said:
So if they were a democracy everyone would be fine with their nuke program?

No.

Why does everyone think this? It is not fine for ANYONE to embark on a new nuclear program. It doesnt matter who they are - it would be the same if Canada were to decide they were going to develop them. Just as it's not acceptable for Israel to have nukes either - but sadly the horse has bolted from that particular stable.

It is far more complicated than the ill thought out arguement of 'Well X has them so why shouldn't Y.

The goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons - not to allow an arms race ending in everyone having them. But it cannot happen overnight, the results of one day the USA waking up and saying 'We dont have any nukes any more' could be almost as bad as letting everyone have them.

Tefal · 13 Apr 2012 at 12:18

[TW]Fox;21675376 said:
Just as it's not acceptable for Israel to have nukes either - but sadly the horse has bolted from that particular stable.

Israel didn't sign the NPT did they?

if so they're 100% free to pursue them and they have not done a test detonation so are still following the testing ban.

If NK didn't sign it they to are free to pursue it but they have violated the test ban.

sbi5ar · 13 Apr 2012 at 13:05

*Tin foil hat time*

As soon as they deemed they could launch the rocket up to a certain point they caused an explosion to destroy the rocket making the world seem as if they couldn't launch "intercontinental rockets" etc... where as in fact they can...

Just a thought that cropped up... Don't really believe it myself, but thought it worth putting out there

cm1179 · 13 Apr 2012 at 13:56

sbi5ar said:
*Tin foil hat time*

As soon as they deemed they could launch the rocket up to a certain point they caused an explosion to destroy the rocket making the world seem as if they couldn't launch "intercontinental rockets" etc... where as in fact they can...

Just a thought that cropped up... Don't really believe it myself, but thought it worth putting out there

nope

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/reports-north-korea-missile-launch-fails-233554220.html

never has the phrase ''doomed to fail'' been so appropriate. my vid wasn't a million miles off.

ThomasTheTankEngine · 13 Apr 2012 at 14:48

sbi5ar said:
*Tin foil hat time*

As soon as they deemed they could launch the rocket up to a certain point they caused an explosion to destroy the rocket making the world seem as if they couldn't launch "intercontinental rockets" etc... where as in fact they can...

Just a thought that cropped up... Don't really believe it myself, but thought it worth putting out there

I doubt it. The major difficulties with ICBM's aren't the launch. It's launching something that's powerful enough to get into space, fly to the other side of the world and then drop out of space with some degree of accuracy.

So far all of their tests have been the equivalent of buying a Ferrari and then crashing it on the forecourt.

sbi5ar · 13 Apr 2012 at 15:07

jimbob27 said:
So far all of their tests have been the equivalent of buying a Ferrari and then crashing it on the forecourt.

Thanks for clearing that up

And as for your analogy... It immediately made me think of this:

bitslice · 13 Apr 2012 at 23:36

Apparently something fishy with their planned flight path

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/noko-lying-launch/

Also somebody else raising issue with the Blue Peter tinfoil satellite they showed people (apparently that really was the one they were gong to launch...)

starfighter · 13 Apr 2012 at 23:48

[TW]Fox;21675376 said:
No.

Why does everyone think this? It is not fine for ANYONE to embark on a new nuclear program. It doesnt matter who they are - it would be the same if Canada were to decide they were going to develop them. Just as it's not acceptable for Israel to have nukes either - but sadly the horse has bolted from that particular stable.

It is far more complicated than the ill thought out arguement of 'Well X has them so why shouldn't Y.

The goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons - not to allow an arms race ending in everyone having them. But it cannot happen overnight, the results of one day the USA waking up and saying 'We dont have any nukes any more' could be almost as bad as letting everyone have them.

Nukes exist, they arn't going to be uninvented. The fact that a lot of countries have them stops them being used. There is no goal to get rid of nukes, do you think the UK or the USA will ever get rid of them, will we heck. The goal is to stop nutters aquiring them and lack of democracy and bad governments go hand in hand.

If a stable western democracy started a nuke program the west wouldn't complain.

arekgreenman888 · 14 Apr 2012 at 00:33

Craterloads that girl in your signature is smoking hot. If only NK girls where that hot that country economy would boom and they could launch more missiles and prosper...

Rachmaninov · 14 Apr 2012 at 00:37

Bet someone's balls got hooked-up to the national grid when that crashed.

kwerk · 14 Apr 2012 at 02:18

I have a feeling the launch will get tied to Iran somehow and used as an excuse to bomb/invade them.

arekgreenman888 · 14 Apr 2012 at 03:00

kwerk said:
I have a feeling the launch will get tied to Iran somehow and used as an excuse to bomb/invade them.

Nah, USA will beat them to it under the excuse that they have oil but and WMD's. Which they have both. Just like Iraq. hehe

I am sure that Osama is tied up somewhere in NK hotel with those playboy girls.

So Obama go get them.

Totality · 14 Apr 2012 at 04:53

stuman said:
1st priority for any country and leadership is to be self sufficient. if it relies on aid from other countries to keep its population alive then they need to re-asses distribution of funding away from its forces and space program.

it's like giving a homeless person money for food whilst he plays angry birds on the newest iPad.

A rather fitting analogy of the UK which relies on outside food, oil and gas to survive!

North Korea moves rocket into place (with video)

Wise Guy