North Korea Discussion Thread.

Today, the N. Koreans brounght light machine guns into the DMZ (demilitiarized zone).

This article from CNN.com is the news story.

This is on top of them reactivating a nuclear power plant to produce fuel rods for nuclear weapons, and on top of them exporting missle technologies to rogue states.

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

I have a bad feeling about this.

Agreed. They are obviously trying to provoke the US at a critical time.

Today, the pentagon told the US armed forces, specifically the navy, to be ready to move on four days' notice in regards to Iraq. That is ominous enough.

But a war on two fronts? I think that might be politically costly for Bush, especially if it involves mass casualties, which it would.

Not good.

Peace,

V-03

ps great thread DM

 

I think North Korea is also trying to capitalize on the anti-American sentiment around the world. It doesn't seem to be working. Unlike other times, the US didnt start rattling its saber and shouting for war. Instead the US did what the world community thinks we should do, and that is use sanctions not the army. North Korea replies with threatening a nuclear war, they're not going to get many friends that way.

 

It would be a war on only one front of the US left Iraq alone.

 

Childishness on world format:

USA can have nukes, UK and France can, Russia... well rather not, but since you had 'em for so long... keep 'em. But other countries, no you can't have 'em...

na-na nanana...


(I hope you got the irony)

 

I was thinking that too. Any country the US don't like can't have nukes!

 

Last time there was a war with Korea it got China involved, if there is another war, Im not sure how China would react. Times are different now, the Cold War is over, having a capitalist neighbor is something China already has, well sorta, Russia is trying.

In North Korea, the people are hungry, the country is dying, and the government is probably the most corrupt on earth, but the military is well fed, well trained and highly motivated. A war with North Korea, even with China remaining neutral would produce alot of casualties. North Korea has the largest army in the world (combining the Active Duty with the Reserves), followed by South Korea. Let us hope NK grows up.

 

On of the big problems in the long term for the US is that if they go to war with North Korea they are have great worries about their ability to protect Seoul. Seoul is only 25 miles from the border with NK and almost everything in NK's asrenal is pointing at the city. In the event of war a city containing several million people could be devasted in no time.

 

North Korea has the largest army in the world (combining the Active Duty with the Reserves)

North Korea would lose any conflict with the US, numerical superiority or no. What it would be is very messy. I don't think they really mean it-but if they do, they can really create a whole lot of havoc on the way down.

The thing that also really bothers me is this: if they do attack, and surround/hold hostage our troops, or even kill a significant number of them, I fear that the US would resort to nonconventional anti-personnel weapons to neutralize that advantage.

That could easily create a cascade that leads to WWIII. China, at the very least, would not be thrilled with radiation drifting in its general direction.

Peace (here's hoping),

V-03

 

Thinking that WWIII is going to start anytime soon is just being alarmist. And this latest incident in the DMZ zone is being blown way out of proportion (for a reason). North and South Korea regularly exchange fire over the DMZ and bringing light machine guns into the DMZ isn't a threat to anything. The UN just wants to start applying political pressure to North Korea and I personally wouldn't be surprised if those pictures had already been taken sometime ago.

If worst comes to worst we'll hit the nuke power plant with some missiles. But I don't think it will even come to that. North Korea just wants to see how much it can get away with while we're paying attention to Saddam. They won't risk open war.

"Childishness on world format:

USA can have nukes, UK and France can, Russia... well rather not, but since you had 'em for so long... keep 'em. But other countries, no you can't have 'em...

na-na nanana...

(I hope you got the irony)"

I really don't see a double-standard here.

Even if you don't like the US you'll admit that we haven't historically been very hasty to use such weapons. No American in their right mind would wish to use such weapons without being attacked first. The very thought is sickening.

And that's the point.

Saddam has attacked his neighbors. Not to prevent harm to himself. But for his personal glory. Power lust. And in his blind ambition he is willing and has used all means at his disposal to achieve that goal. For our own safety we can not allow this man to gain such weapons.

The same thing for North Korea. The ONLY reason it needs Nukes is to threaten its neighbors. To blackmail the US.

You're basically saying it's ironic that we don't give rifles to serial killers even though we have rifles ourselves.

 

But hasn't The American Government unleashed chemicals on it's own troops and citizens.

The whole point is:

all Governments around the world are corrupt but some are easier to see.

 

But hasn't The American Government unleashed chemicals on it's own troops and citizens.

I dont know anything about Chemical weapons, and I know civilians wasnt in the picture. I know in the late 40s early 50s the US exploded a nuclear bomb near its troops, only 3 are still alive, most died of cancer in the 70s and 80s.

In the late 40s and 1950s the US was Nuke mad, always testing, testing and testing.

By the time the 60s rolled around DeGualle had France constantly testing, the US more than less quit, France continued until the mid 1990s. Until India and Pakistan detonated their bombs, France was the last country to detonate a nuclear bomb.

 

"But hasn't The American Government unleashed chemicals on it's own troops and citizens."

No. We've never 'unleashed' chemicals on its own troops. We've learned about radiation poisoning the hard way (nobody knew it existed back in the 50s). And I've heard of half a dozen soldiers who volunteered to be test subject for anthrax vaccines with some lethal consequences. But that about sums it up (unless you want to go into some pretty deep conspiracy theories in which case I suggest we start a new thread).

"The whole point is:

all Governments around the world are corrupt but some are easier to see."

I don't really see what corruption has to do with the willingness of a nation to use Nukes. I'm pretty dang sure Saddam isn't a corrupt guy at all (you can't be when anything you do basically becomes laws).

But I would say that Democracy has historically done pretty well in electing sane guys . Unless of course the population was insane... which opens up a whole other can of worms.

 

If the population makes Britney Spears number 1 every other single, what makes you think they can select a sane president??

 

If the population makes Britney Spears number 1 every other single, what makes you think they can select a sane president??

Thankfully, most of those people choose not to vote.

 

"No. We've never 'unleashed' chemicals on its own troops."

How do you know this to be true?

How can you possibly know this to be true?

 

Wasn't there a US submarine that was caught up in Hiroshema?? I heard something like that everywhere.

 

You're basically saying it's ironic that we don't give rifles to serial killers even though we have rifles ourselves.

No, I'm saying it's ironic that you have rifles in the first place.

If you want a nuke-free world, then set the right example. Then this pragmatism is justified. Otherwise it will only escalate things.

 

I know a US Nuclear Sub went to Hiroshima not too long ago and people were protesting which I find stupid. If American Nuclear subs cant go to Hiroshima, nothing remotley Japanese should be allowed with in 100 miles of Pearl Harbor.

 

FYI: the US army tested mustard gas on it's own troops, but let's stay on topic.

I'm not anti-american, I'm pro-world.

 

To be fair, it was a nuclear sub. What do you expect? A love parade in your honour? Jeez, millions of people died! And your sitting at your keyboard whinging because they're protesting at a nuclear sub??

Yeah so... Americans NEED nuclear weapons. To protect themselves against all the other countries with nukes. Duh! It's like the logic of the NRA. "We need guns to protect ourselves against everyone else with guns!"

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I want to stay on topic.

 

erm...........DarthKa
i think the war on Iraq is really OUR war and NOT THE WEST

There is no threat from Iraq on your soil !

 

There is no threat from Iraq on your soil!

Supposedly, there is a threat to our allies and our millitary installations. Not to mention our oil supply.

 

Us also has weapons of mass destruction. That is why NK is starting up there factories again.