North Korea Discussion Thread.

"If you want a nuke-free world..."

And I'd like nobody ever to hurt anybody ever again while we're on the topic. But really, when did the US ever say we wanted a nuke free world? Nukes have brought so much goodness to the world.

If it hadn't been for nukes the US and Russia would most assuredly have fought WWIII and most of the world would have looked much more grim then it is today.

Nukes are a tool. Don't see them as anything more or less. They are capable of killing lots of people. Leveling cities. And destroying the most secure of military bunkers. (Oh, and the technology is capable of lighting entire cities with minimum pollution)

But as I said before, this tool is so fearsome that it has prevented many wars. Just by the mere threat of its existence.

If I could go back and un-invent nukes I'm not sure I would.

But as with any tool there is also a dark side. Because this weapon is so good at what it does (destruction) people who wish to destroy life (ours in particular) seek it also. And if they get it then the blood of the innocents will flow unlike anything seen in the history of the world.

That's why we want to have them but don't want others to have them. Nukes aren't some toy you share. They're the bringers of death and destruction on a really really big scale. And if they didn't exist today...

Pakistan and India would start just massacring each other.

North and South Korea would be at it faster then you can say Coi-pung-yuck.

China would be raping Taiwan.

And Arab and Israeli blood would stain the sands black for miles.

 

I agree 100% with DathKa's last post.

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

Uh, no. North Korea has restarted their nuclear reactors because the United States cut-off it's oil supply. Very idiotic move for the US, if you ask me.

 

How is the killings of innocent people a good thing???

 

The US has forced other countries into bieng aliies, with Nukes, if you asked me that sound like Fashism.

 

How is the killings of innocent people a good thing???

I don't think that is what DathKa meant. Re-read the post carefully.

The US has forced other countries into bieng aliies, with Nukes, if you asked me that sound like Fashism.

Name examples, please.

 

DarthArsenal6 "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 !"

It's really Dathka (no 'r' and no capitol 'k') but that's beside the point .

I'm trying to figure out what you said but I'm at a loss .

Just to be clear, could you rephrase this bit: "i think the war on Iraq is really OUR war and NOT THE WEST "

Thanks in advance!!

But as to the second part. We believe that there is a clear threat from Iraq. Our intelligence is telling us that Saddam is dealing with and funding terrorism (some openly, some not) and that some of that terrorism is aimed at the US. We believe that it is only a matter of time before Saddam gives information or actual WMDs to Al Quaeda or Hamas. And that they would have no qualms about using such weapons to attack us or our allies.

Secondly. History has shown that Saddam Hussein has an incredible lust for power and conquest and is willing to and has used any means at his disposal to achieve this conquest. No country since WWI has used chemical weapons to attack their enemies on the battlefield... with the exception of Iraq.

Saddam clearly has no qualms about such methods. And if the US and other Western nations weren't able to interfere he would set out on a conquest of the middle east. His vision is an Iraq empire. And once he has nukes he may just be able to blackmail his way into that empire.

Why give him that chance? Why not destroy him now?

EDIT: More stuff!

JediMasTer-NaThAn "How is the killings of innocent people a good thing???"

Darth_Guy "I don't think that is what DathKa meant. Re-read the post carefully."

I may not have been clear enough in my earlier post. And if you misunderstood I apologize. I don't think killing innocent people is ever a good thing. And I believe that is why Nukes have stopped so many wars. The destruction of human life on such a vast scale makes the humanity in us revolt. We can slowly assimilate statistics. 100 casualties here, a 1,000 there. But snuffing out millions of lives in an instant gives any man, women, or child a pause to think about the reason of it all.

JediMasTer-NaThAn "The US has forced other countries into bieng aliies, with Nukes, if you asked me that sound like Fashism."

Actually its bribery. And during the cold war it felt safer to be protected by the MAD shield of a super-power then just to sit out in the cold.

Several countries that eventually joined NATO may have felt shoved into the organizaiton, but they also knew that they either had to join NATO or the soviets. Anyone who stayed on the sidelines was probably gonna be a hapless victime in the chess game between the superpowers.
And NATO was the better option since the US only stationed troops in your country (which was actually good for your economy) but stayed pretty much 'hands off' regarding any internal matters.

 

It would be nice to be sure. Who would go to war unless they weren't absolutely sure there was a real threat?

 

KaineDamo "Who would go to war unless they weren't absolutely sure there was a real threat? "

The US would .

I may sound like I'm just messing with your head but hear me out.

After WWII the US has taken a constantly more and more pro-active approach to war. We first realized in WWII that if someone has stood up to Hitler when he first invaded Poland WWII would have been easily avoided.

That was our reasoning in Vietnam (stand up to the commies here while they're still beginning) but that fireballed into one big mess (but in the end there was a free South Vietnam).

Now that we live in a world where WMDs can be more easily achieved pro-active can be to late.
Once someone has a WMD you can't fight them anymore. Or if you do fight them you have to be ready to risk mass casualties (both civilian and military).

This is where the much dreaded 'pre-emptive' approach comes from. We need to stop them before they get WMDs (and delivery capability).

The plus side to pre-emption is that you hardly fight any major engagments. Most of what happens is taken care of by spooks (CIA,NSA) and ghosts (special forces).

The PROBLEM with pre-emption is that you can sometimes be wrong. Maybe this guy will never harm a hair on your head. Maybe he will never sell those WMDs. But under the pre-emtion doctrine we can't take that chance.

 

We first realized in WWII that if someone has stood up to Hitler when he first invaded Poland WWII would have been easily avoided.

Sorry if I seem picky, but don't you mean Austria and Czechoslovakia?

 

"Sorry if I seem picky, but don't you mean Austria and Czechoslovakia?"

Do'h ! The man knows his wars.

 

First of all, A LOT happens in the DMZ on both sides. In 1994 when I was there, the North Korean's started hitting a part of the DMZ with mortar rounds, which caused us to open fire into the DMZ with our 25mm guns on our Bradleys.

 

Thanks V03



First, the US Military can fight and win wars on two fronts at a time. They train for exactly that constantly, and all you have to do is see how we fared in WW II to see that we can hold our own on two major battle arenas.

Second, N. Korea is using these nukes as a bargaining chip. Their current leader is a spoiled brat of a ruler who was given everything by his father who was the dictator before him - and he's playing a dangerous game. Somewhere in my mind I think of him as sort of a madman in front of a Risk game board playing games not realizing that it's for real. I don't think he truly understands the consequences if he were to do something really stupid.

Their people are starving under the weight of an opporessive military and government. The government's goal is obviously to stay in power, and they see the election of the moderate from S. Korea in the presidential elections held recently as a plus for them to see how much they can push the US. The newly elected S. Korean gov't isn't as tolerant of our presence there as the old one was.

Do I think we will have war there?

Maybe.

Do I think we can win?

Of course.

Do I think the conflict has the potential to spread?

Yes, unfortunately, if China decides not to back us and stands with the N. Koreans. That would be a nightmare scenario, but one we aren't unfamiliar with from the Cold War fighting other communist states.

As far as having nuclear weapons is concerned, the US and other nations in posession of these arms (with the exception of India and Pakistan) have forged treaties to avoid such wars. Do you think rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, or N. Korea would honor such treates as more civilized nations have? I personally don't think so, and their word has been proven that it cannot be trusted.

We are in a dangerous time here, folks. I think N. Korea holds a much more dangerous threat to world stability than does Iraq. However, I think we can deal with both at the same time.

 

Wow...it's funny to see how many people here actually think that they know what they are talking about, when they have nary a clue.

Wake up and see the big picture folks. It's not about all the whinos of the world crying about "American Imperialism" or whether America should be fair and allow everyone to have nukes. It's about world stability, and yes, sometimes it takes wars to maintain the peace. The bad guys aren't just going to go away, like many of you all think. In fact, I bet alot of people think that there are no bad guys anymore.

 

First off, I agree with DM - the American military is more than capable of fighting on two fronts. It's capable of fighting on many more than that. It doesn't taste nice politically, but America is THE only superpower, with the means to project power on such a scale that fighting several fronts is possible.

Second, all this talk of American double-standards is nonsense. Anybody who wants to read history can find out that America, by FAR, has been the most moral world leader (even Britain, which is now considered America's closest ally on this war on terror, committed countless atrocities at the height of the British Empire). And where nuclear capabilities are concerned, I'd trust their judgement in most cases - I certainly wouldn't like to see North Korea, Iraq or any of the other 'axis of evil' countries with nuclear weaponry.

Thirdly, this has nothing to do with imperialism. It DOES set a double-standard - we are fully aware of North Korea's actions in regards to nuclear weapons, but we are much less sure about Iraq. However, we have chosen to pursue Iraq. This looks a little dodgy, but I can understand the problems with building diplomatic and international support for one war then suddenly switching the target.

Fourthly, North Korea should NOT have nuclear weapons. It is a totalitarian Government, with no recognisable ideology. It is also highly unstable.

Fifthly, this talk of it leading to WWIII has come up every single time military action has been contemplated. If there was going to be a WWIII, it would have happened during the Cold War. No one is going to stand up to America - and even if they did, America more than has the capability to remove them, especially when considering its numerous allies.

Sixthly, the threat from Iraq is on the entirity of the West, not just America. It wasn't just America fighting during the Gulf War, it isn't just America policing the no-fly zones, and it isn't just America enforcing the trade embargo's. Saddam knows this.

Seventh, I believe N. Korea should be forced to disarm as fast as possible. I would ideally like to see this happen before a war with Iraq, but I know that isn't going to happen. It should be a priority, though.

Eighth, the fluffiness has to stop. The America and British Governments need to adopt a clear, stated mission on Iraq, make it clear in published objectives, then GIVE IT TO THE MILITARY to organise. Politicians are not generals, and vice-versa. Let politicians decide the objectives, but for god's sake let the generals take us there. Military men and women are much better at military matters than are civilians, not surprisingly.

Ninth, let there be a decent international coalition for dealing with this. On the issue of N. Korea, I'd be happy to let America go it alone (simply becaue materially and morally it has the means), but it's about time other countries pulled their fingers out and contributed. Germany is a perfect example of this - it yearly cuts down its defence budget, lets it military equipment become obsolete, and, when America is sacrificing its men and equipment to ensure that Germany is safe, it criticises it and calls it imperialistic. The same with the bloody French, though they are a bit better.

/reads up and decides he sounds like a conservative. Oh dear, what AM I coming to.

- Scarlet.

 

Great post, Scarlet.

 

Excellent post TSB.

In the case of NK, the US did what the world always asks it to do, and instead of using military force or threat of war, it used sanctions. Then this guy threatens with the nuclear weapons, that I believe will not go over verywell with the world court. Number 1 he is threatening to start a nuclear war, not retaliate or use his weapons as a means to divert an attack, but he is using his weapons to blackmail, I also think he is trying to play on the anti-American sentiment that is high in this world under the current adminsitration.

China is the key player in this arena, I doubt China wants the US to strike at North Korea and allow that radioactive cloud to float over their country, but I also doubt China wants North Korea to strike at the US bases in South Korea, due to that same radoactive cloud. Im sure Russia and Japan will both have something to say about this.

 

Hey, I'm all for taking out dangerous dictators.

But let's keep the collateral damage to a minimum.

 

Rather than send in troops or bombs to Iraq/N.Korea, why don't we assinate the top people in these countries and do all we can to help start a system of democracy in these countries.

By assassinating arther than full-on military action, we would n't have to worry about the cost of innocent lives.

 

Assassination leads to so many other problems, mostly a power vaccum. And when the leader is assassinated we have no authority to tell them to become democracies or install a person we want in charge.

A Power vaccum could lead to more loss of lives than a conventional war. It would lead to a Civil War most likely, several different factions vie for power, and alot more poor villagers and citizens get hurt or killed.

Remember World War I was started due to an assassination.

 

That's a fair point.

Well, it seems to me that if we, the West, want to dictate who should have what weapons, when theses despots/loons decide not play ball, we then have to goin and take charge of the situation. ie wipe out the loons and set up a democratic system for that country ( by this i mean set up polling stations, help the potenetial MPs have their voices heard etc and let the people vote).

We can't keep threatening to take care of the bullys. It's time for us to put the bullys in their place and let the decent people have a chance of running these countries and living ordinary lives.

If we just keep threatening and sulking (sanctions) then this whole charade will continue.

 

Ah yes like Harrison Ford's speech in Air Force One "For all who would use fear as your weapon to stay in power, not anymore. No longer will we be afraid, its your turn to be afraid." We need a guy like that as president.

 

Wow Scarlet,

I can't believe I am actually aggreeing with you on one of your posts!

Nicely put.

 

Dathka

"After WWII the US has taken a constantly more and more pro-active approach to war. We first realized in WWII that if someone has stood up to Hitler when he first invaded Poland WWII would have been easily avoided."

Great Briton and it's Commonwealth did stand up to Hitler. The US took another year and a half to find it's ticker.

 

North Korea is probably the most unpleasant regime in the world today. However, the fact that there has been no huge military build up in preparation for an imminent attack should tell us something. Clearly NK is as "evil" as Iraq and from what we can gather is much more of an actual threat, and there lies the nub of the matter. For all of the tough talking the US desperately wants to avoid an actual military conflict with NK because of the probability that they have already developed a nuclear bomb, albeit a crude device.
Of course America can fight on any number of fronts and win them all hands down. The NK leadership, despotic and cruel as they are are fully aware of this. Their position, whilst reprehensible from any moral point of view makes perfect sense in the world of realpolitik. They have simply reasoned that the whole Cold war arms race game was a sham. Who needs thousands of ICBM's if you have as many as two functioning nukes and a couple of "dirty" bombs sitting on the subs bench. The US is a prosperous, largely contented nation with a lot to lose, NK is an appalling Stalinist hellhole on the brink of starvation, named by Bush as a future target in his axis of evil speech. In any war the US would flatten them in a week tops but would the US embark on such a war if NK had the sword of damocles hanging over any of their cities.
I would take issue with previous comments about the benificent nature of US hegemony. Try telling that to the victims of the Contras. As for nukes keeping the peace I fear that this is simply a short term mistake, rather akin to believing that european imperialism was progressive at the end of the nineteenth century. For one thing the hawks in the US administration from the time of the Korean war right through Vietnam seriously countenanced the use of nukes against civilians. If the Korean war had dragged on or the tet offensive had led to higher casualties amongst US forces it is a real possibility that tactical nuclear weapons would have been used. The point I'll close on is a gloomy one. Nuclear proliferation may be halted, personally I have my doubts but it might be, but what of chemical or bio weapons, both of which are relatively speaking lo-tech and cheaper to produce. The US can't police the world, it doesn't have the moral authority to police it in any case and sooner or later they and their allies are going to learn that lesson the hard way.

 

Every body here is saying the US can take on multiple wars at the same time, but you are thinking for one that:
N/K and Iraq are working seperately or alone.
What if they have many allies who will not show there real loyaties until it is to late for the US. Right now the US has pretend friendships with countries that are potential enemies with the shortest of notice.


Who is to say that the US is not being drawn into a battle that would show you all your enemies faces, that 2 enemies could quickly become 10-20-40 countries, who says they are not willing to fight for lack of technology but wiling to fight you for their superiority in numbers.

And lets not forget people that Major wars are not fought with proffesional soldiers they are fought with conscripts/draftees