Wait...I can't get a hold of this...are the UN the determining factor, or not? Are we proposing invasion of Israel for defying Un dictates as well? Or do we conveniently wage war in support of those UN resolutions which are to our advantage, while ignoring those which aren't? Surely not...
I believe Kodos (or was it Kang?) said it best at the end of the Monkey's Paw segment of the Simpsons, Treehouse of Horrors II episode: "That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!"
Exactly, and that's the rub. I was just outlining the real-world chain of events (you can scratch the ABM star wars thingy from my list, totally irrelevant) necessary for the U.S. to destroy it's nuclear arsenal. It will not happen unilaterally (and I thought we were all against unilateral action by the U.S. anyway? )
Thanks for completely skipping over the implication that it isn't the US determining who should and should not have nukes. It is the world community deciding these issues. I'll be sure to spell it out in big flourescent type so you don't miss it next time.
Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. It's in the best interest of the U.S. to keep other countries weapons to a minimum. Whether we like it or not having power is important. If the world could get along I'd say sure. Let them build what they want. But I'm glad our country is trying to keep us safe. I'm glad they don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Freedom is fine until you abuse it. Then you lose those privledges.
everything that north korea is saying should have as much weight with everyone as what iraq says about how it will beat america. north korea won't do anything...they like to talk and threaten but they can't do anything.
Heyp - I think nukes are still a valid deterrent. You would be comfortable with us dismantling all of our nuclear weapons, while other countries still have them? I wouldn't be regardless of our naval supremacy. A properly places nuclear bomb could wipe out a whole carrier group/naval base/etc. Isn't that pretty scary?
North Korea responded with a warning that that any US attack on its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon would trigger "full scale war". How ridiculous that North Korea would say if we attack them, they'd actually fight back!!!
I guess you missed this part, <blockquote><hr>"<i>He said such actions would mean that the US was either planning to invade the North or launch attacks against it. In response, <b>he insisted, Pyongyang would not just sit and wait, and might decide to strike first if necessary</b>. </i>"<hr></blockquote> anyhow, it is just tough rhetoric. This is what they always say. It is the DMZ, afterall.
I guess you missed this part, If a country that hates us and has declared us an axis of evil starts building up massive amounts of military on our borders, would (or should) we wait for them to attack first? anyhow, it is just tough rhetoric. This is what they always say. It is the DMZ, afterall. Agreed.
Here is a good explanation of the situation with North Korea. This doesn't do justice to the thoughtfulness of the analysis, but the author concludes with the following quip about the Bush administration: <b>"...by not admitting that what's happening is a crisis, they're simply letting the situation drift until a nuclear North Korea becomes a <i>fait accompli</i>. At which point they'll blame it on Bill Clinton."</b> A point that hasn't been made in this thread -- it's not the size of their army that lets North Korea taunt the U.S. so openly. It's the estimated 13,000 artillery launchers with which they "could destroy Seoul in five minutes" without even crossing the border. We may have the massive nuclear arsenal and the world's largest navy, but the fact is that <i>they're</i> deterring <i>us</i>, not the other way around. We're the ones with something to lose if there's a conflict. You see, at the heart of this is the fact that North Korea's economy is falling apart, and they're so desperate for economic aid that they don't mind risking a war. Acting unconcerned is the Bush administration's "clever" attempt at calling their bluff -- saying, "Oh, well, we're powerless to stop you; I guess you'll have to go ahead and develop those nuclear weapons," and seeing what happens. The only problem is that given North Korea's response, this strategy is going to leave us with a desperately poor country with a bunch of spare weapons-grade plutonium. To repeat: A desperately poor country with a bunch of spare weapons-grade plutonium. Do the math on where you think that leads. And good luck sleeping tonight.
Originally posted by MacBeth Buck..I don't get it...So you're saying that, in order for us to disarm, we would have to be assured of no threat from any other party, right? Why? Every nation of whom we are demanding disarmament is in the opposite situation. We are telling Iraq that they can't be in the room if they're carrying, meanwhile we've got a cannon in our pocket...Who apponted us the arbiters of nuclear justice? Nature did. There is only one nation that has the power to lead coalitions to defend other nations and peoples. It's not braggadacio; it's just the way it is. We're the ones are at risk later on when things get out-of-hand, so we should be the ones most interested in resolving things early. Just like the quote someone posted here recently from a Turkish woman: 'Are you for a war against Iraq'? 'No' 'But aren't you concerned that Saddam may attack his neighbors?' 'No' 'Why not?' 'Because the US would smack him down if he does' And in this particular instance, Iraq was told it could not have WMDs because it had invaded it's neighbor (and they agreed to it). To equate the 'US with nukes' and 'Iraq with nukes' is just downright disgusting'. As I have said many times before, if you're going on record, there is only one nation on eatht who has ever used nuclear arms against an enemy...the ol US of A...Why do we get the right to decide who can and who can't be responsible with them, especially given that we have been the least responsible ourselves? That's just ludcicrous. 'Least responsible'? How's that? Were you alive in '45?; no...were you the President in '45, having to make that decision? Was the same stigma associated with nukes at the time, or was it just considered a big bomb? I can't stand monday-morning quaterbacking. It would have been so easy for you to make the decison back then, eh? Since you apparently possess remarkable omniscience, you really should be President now.
A no-win for the US, eh? Either: Let them be the market for weapons-grade plutonium -or- Succumb to the blackmail and essentially fund their War machine, while they may continue weapons developent programs anyway. I guess under option 2, at least the Nuclear Plant would be shut down. (Maybe it's time to move Seoul down a few hundred miles.... )
China is the root of all evil. N. Korea is basically a Chinese colony. They will do whatever China tells them to. If China had never gotten involved in the Korean peninsula, then Korea would be one country, under a democracy, and a US ally. China doesn't want a democracy neighboring them, which is what would happen if S. Korea annexed N. Korea. Bush is acting like a sissy to N. Korea because he doesn't want to anger the Chinese. Come on, Mr. Bush, be a man and stand up to N.Korea and the Chinese.
Bush is acting like a sissy to N. Korea because they already have the bomb (and so do the Chinese). We could win a war if we had to, but a bomb would go off somewhere (Japan, S. Korea) and that's not acceptable. N. Korea will have to be figured out through some other means. N. Korea, IMO, is an example of why we have to stop Saddam now. It doesn't necessarily mean we have to go to war with Iraq (although that may be what happens) we just need to get rid of Saddam and ensure that a friendly regime is in place. If Saddam had nukes, don't you think he'd use them to blackmail the U.S. or Israel (or Kuwait, Iran or Saudi Arabia for that matter) just like N. Korea has been doing for years?
They threaten to invade Taiwan, they ruined Hong Kong after getting it back from Britain, they have taken over the goverments of Southeast asia (Thailand's government is mostly people of Chinese descent now), they always antagonize Japan. China is still imperialistic, but in a secretive way.
