1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Obligation to suppress emerging nuclear powers

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by sedm1000, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. Buzza

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Dec 30, 2003

    Posts: 1,216

    Location: Cheshire, UK

    Dont you think the US may have had a lot to do with that? Yet your resentment toward them seems quite strong.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2006
  2. Buzza

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Dec 30, 2003

    Posts: 1,216

    Location: Cheshire, UK

    Well said.
     
  3. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    I read that..but then i read your sentence which said that NK should be barred from developing nuclear weapons.



    Are those troops suddenly going to disappear or something? Whats going to change to make NK suddenly willing to take on the USA?



    Surely that is a second thought? If he isnt destroying seoul for fear of retaliation, hes not gonna do it just because he gets the bomb.


    That fact wont change with the bomb.


    Thats not a grudge.. :dunno: thats just a dislike..the US is the same toward NK, i wouldnt call it a grudge.
     
  4. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    There was no North or South Korea during the Korean war. It was a civil war.

    Perceived as more dangerous because thats what the US has been saying for the past 50 years...they really have done nothing other than be communist..

    Im not saying NK having nukes is a good thing..I just dont think we have any right to bar them...We certainly dont have the right to forcibly stop them.

    As for unstable worlds..You dont get much more unstable than trying to stop nations developing nukes...Its a tradeoff isnt it..You either get countries with nukes and a MAD/cold war situation arises, or you have constant sanctions/wars to try and stem the spread of such weapons..Personally I believe the first to be more stable.
     
  5. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    Yes the US had a lot to do with it....but there would have been no need for the US to help if the US hadnt of caused the Korean war :dunno:

    I dont resent the US..Ive always been pro US..but I can still point out their flaws.

    Im also not quite sure what this line of discussion has to do with anything.
     
  6. THMRK

    Mobster

    Joined: May 19, 2005

    Posts: 4,548

    Location: Glasgow, Rock City.

    They should be barred from devloping more. That's probably what I should have said.

    Not if NK's uncooperative attitude towards the US continues. No. They won't just disappear. But their presence creates more than a mere after thought. It effect says "We're watching you. Make a wrong move and we'll have you. We're here and we're ready".

    It will though. Suddenly NK can grew a set, for want of a better expression. They're within range of Seoul and Tokyo. If they get dragged into a conflict, then China have no option but to get invovled. They sure as hell don't want the US on their border. With a bomb, people listen and take you more seriously. NK will see it as, we have a bomb. Now listen and the US are merely thinking, they have a bomb and they're unpredictable (as I'm sure they think all communist states are) and they could, in effect trigger an arms race in the region. If that happens, Rep of Korea and Japan will no longer need to be under our nuclear umbrella, and that's bad for all kinds of buisness.

    I was thinking grudge because the US intervened in the Korean war...
     
  7. Buzza

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Dec 30, 2003

    Posts: 1,216

    Location: Cheshire, UK


    well when you see people willing to set off bombs to kill people with no regard to there own lives(suicide bombers). Having countries like Iran with nukes becomes all the more worrying. Im not saying North Korea has suicide bombers, but noone can afford(especially those in SK) can afford to risk a nuclear exchange whatever the chances of it happening.
     
  8. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    My bad..sorry.

    Im confused here...Youre saying that NK is going to start a war as soon as they get a nuclear bomb? They already have the capability for nuclear weapons, nothing has happened yet. North and South Korea are closer to reunification than theyve ever been. Why would the North even want to start a war? Just for the fun of it?


    They didnt intervene, they caused it :o The Korean war is what established the Kim family as the leaders of NK...if anything they would be grateful.
     
  9. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    There are about 14 million people living in the city of Seoul. North Korea has 10,000 artillery pieces within range of the city. They can drop something like 500,000 rounds on top of the city in the first hour of an attack. That would essentially destroy the entire city...

    South Korea has been living under a huge threat for the past 60 years. Nuclear weapons wont make a difference.
     
  10. THMRK

    Mobster

    Joined: May 19, 2005

    Posts: 4,548

    Location: Glasgow, Rock City.

    No. I'm not saying they will. What I'm saying is thats probably how the US will see it. That they could. I'm also aware that they are closer to reunification than ever. But if that were to happen, who would rule? Which idology would win out? Why start a war with the South? So that you're ruler and your idology wins out. This is, how I think, the US percieve the entire situation.

    Be greatful to imperialist pigs? I think not, some how :p
     
  11. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    Who cares how the US sees it? This thread is about our own thoughts isnt it?
     
  12. THMRK

    Mobster

    Joined: May 19, 2005

    Posts: 4,548

    Location: Glasgow, Rock City.

    Tis indeed. My own thoughts are that NK shouldn't posess the weapon because it could cause an arms race in the region. Just because you have the bomb, doesn't mean people will listen. If you have the bomb and people don't listen, you sure as hell can make them listen through force. That's my thoughts anyway. I don't think the region would survive and arms race.
     
  13. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    I dont see why there would be an arms race...South Korea have eleventy billion bombs by proxy from the USA...China has a ton...I dont see an arms race happening.
     
  14. THMRK

    Mobster

    Joined: May 19, 2005

    Posts: 4,548

    Location: Glasgow, Rock City.

    It wouldn't be safe for Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to try and attain nuclear weapons. I don't think China would be to happy about that either.
     
  15. Buzza

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Dec 30, 2003

    Posts: 1,216

    Location: Cheshire, UK

    Artillery shells dont have radiation and fallout which spread to other countries, which is one of the reasons why you get international attention, another reason is noone wants to see SK attacked and people die.
     
  16. mdwh

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 29, 2004

    Posts: 663

    And there was me thinking that a certain western democracy could be considered a patriarchal or theocratic state ;)

    Personally I'd rather that there weren't any new nations getting nuclear technology. But this is from the point of view that the world is a better place by minimising the amount of nuclear weapons, especially from my personal point of view of someone living in a nation which has them. But I can't see any *moral* argument for claiming that we have more of a right to them. Given the way that the US bullies non-nuclear nations, it doesn't surprise me in the least that they are striving to obtain nuclear weapons.

    Also, my argument would apply to other western nations that are currently non-nuclear - I'd rather that they remained that way. And similarly, nuclear nations should not be continuing to develop more nuclear weapons.
     
  17. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    They wouldnt try and attain nuclear weapons, thats my point...

    None of them need to because all three of those countries have the USA going to bat for them.

    This is all academic anyway because north korea already have nuclear ability...theres no arms race because of it.
     
  18. THMRK

    Mobster

    Joined: May 19, 2005

    Posts: 4,548

    Location: Glasgow, Rock City.

    They may try and attain nuclear weapons if the current five party talks fail. That's what Russia, China and the US are all afraid of.
     
  19. sedm1000

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 19, 2002

    Posts: 3,244

    I thought that they had been split on the 38th and set up separate Governments by this point... I`m sure you`ve got a better handle on the history than me.

    Was MAD more stable than the situation now (or during the 1990`s anyway)? Is the threat of terrorism less or more pronounced than a nuclear threat? America may be more deferential toward s a nuclear Iran, but would this improve the Middle Eastern situation, or create more tension - especially with the prospects for a limited nuclear war between Israel and Arabs, one that the US would most likely have to intervene in. There is also the issue of control over nuclear facilities - in politically less stable countries should we be concerned about lack of safeguards over who has the power to press the red button. Are these countries more succeptible to rogue generals/terrorists taking control of nuclear material? Casey Ryback is getting on a bit and cant be relied upon to sort these things out forever.

    I`m not trying to forward one conclusion over the other - I think the US is highly hypocritical in its foreign policy. This policy does seem to buy continued Western peace (maybe at the expense of a few minor conflicts). As nice as parity sounds, are nations too self-serving and limited by human flaws to coexist peacefully? Oppression might be the only way to keep the peace.



    They are what god says they are. ;)
     
  20. Jake 2.0

    Banned

    Joined: Dec 16, 2002

    Posts: 10,237

    US said Iraq has WMD = WAR. result = no WMD found
    US says Iran will develop WMD while Iran maintains it is for peaceful purposes only? why do people find it so hard to believe? you know the more you push someone the more they will retaliate, how can you know what iran will do even before they have completed whatever they are doing? i dont get this all.
    Even if Iran do make WMD, why would they in their right mind attack ANY country. it doesnt make sense they KNOW US and UK (if no other country) will fight them (read destroy them) if they used their nuclear weapons.

    and NKorea is probably more of a thread then Iran but US is not going there? People say iran is more of a terrorist country but i think Israel is for what its doing in palestine. but then anyone associated with US is hardly ever a bad guy even if US has killed so many people in the name of "war on terrorism"!