NEWS: US Prepares for Nuclear Standoff With North Korea

Junglejakes post comes to mind:

Step 1: Impose Sanctions

Step 2: Putin twiddles thumbs

Step 3: China waves a finger

Step 4: UN sits on beach drinking a cold one

Step 5: NK nukes SK

Step 6: UN warns NK

Step 7: US takes out NK

Step 8: US gets criticized

Step 9: Europe and UN calls US warmongers



[edit on 26-4-2005 by Event Horizon]

Originally posted by Murcielago
Rice shouldn't have to apolagize for her remark...because its the truth.

Thats neither here nor then when it comes to diplomacy and dealing with a psychopathic leader. You dont win anything by calling a spade a spade in these kind of situations. You play to their ego and give incentives to acting in the way you want them to.

How expensive would a war be? Now consider spending 1/10th on humanitarian aid on the North Koreans and treating them with diplomatic gloves. You'd be suprised how much more ground you'd gain than calling them "tyrants" and "evil".

Originally posted by Ghaleon4
Kim IS a psycho. I think the world should be able to call him on it. If he doesn't like it, maybe he should change some of his policies.

psychopath: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse

This guy wont change his policies. He will use nukes if threatend or attacked. Calling him a tyrant is counter productive, however true the moniker may be.

N. Korea having nuclear weapons is totally destablising the region. What will they achieve by having these weapons? If they first strike on Japan or S.Korea then either the US or Japan will step in and destroy N. Korea. I doubt China will intervene to help their Communist friend, this would risk world war. The solution is simple, let Japan have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and let Japan and not US or UK troops invade and destroy N. Korea's military and nuclear targets. The reason i say Japan should carry out the invasion is because the US Military is stretched and using their troops in S. Korea will leave the South vunerable. France and Russia can sit back and cry all they want, the UN Security Council is there for a reason, I say India and Japan should be allowed in to strengthen the council.

This crap has been going on for awhile.

The two countries have been throwing this rhetoric back and forth for years, it isn't a "Bush" thing.

Nothing will happen, just the two nations throwing around some political muscle, that's all.

When the day comes that N.K. nukes the Western U.S. (because that is all they can as it is), N.K. is off the map. The Big boy missiles won't play if we need to use them. Simple as that. N.K. knows and the U.S. knows that. However, that could very possibly begin WW3, and neither country wants that.

-wD

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
However, that could very possibly begin WW3, and neither country wants that.

-wD

How do you know? Kim is gonna die some day and maybe he's thinking, "Hmm, why don't I take the world with me?"

Zip

I say we let the US wait it out. Fine, try to act diplomatic; and when North Korea nukes either South Korea or Japan, each and everyone of you who called the US a warmonger and pressured us into NOT taking action takes blame for every single innocent civilian MURDERED by this regime. You people need a reality check, these are people's LIVES that Kim Jong Ill is messing with. You only get one. Some kind of action needs to take place.

I am dead serious when I say you will have their blood on your hands. Yes, people die in war, but you are talking about millions of people dying from a nuke. Selfish thinking, "I dont want to be drafted. I oppose this war!"

Truth: Your life is no more valuable than one South Koreans or one Japanese citizens, let alone the millions that would perish. The US, if needed, could take out North Korea with far less loss of life on both sides. Both the UN and you liberals need to grow up and realize that life is a very important, not just to you, but to those who are being oppressed by these people. I am not calling out for WAR WAR WAR, I am simply saying that sanctions must be placed right now. I have already said it two times:

THESE ARE INNOCENT LIVES THAT THIS DICTATOR IS SAYING ARE MEANINGLESS!

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Ryanp5555]

Isn't having nuclear weapons just a way of flexing a country's muscles? Nuclear weapons haven't been around for very long, but let's look at the way they've been used historically. I wonder if there are any points that can made but studying the obviously human NEED to have power in the form of threatened nuclear holocaust.

1st it's important to remember that we, the U.S., are the only country to ever strike another with nuclear weapons.
1 1/2. Being the only nuclear force to have ever used nukes in wartime, shouldn't we be the "biggest" nuclear threat to the world? Doesn't the fact that we are the most powerful also make us the biggest threat? Are we not virtually acting alone in our campaigns to occupy other nations (for reasons that I am still unclear)?

2nd. When we used them, it was less to fight a war and more of a scare tactic. What I mean is that we had the means of ending the war with Japan without using the atom bomb.

3rd. The only two countries that could have hypothetically wiped the other out with a nuclear strike never launched a single missle at the other for fear of nuclear retribution. (This might be the same as saying "If one realizes that the other is just as powerful neither will strike for fear of MAD")

4th. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Russia fake having more nuclear missle than it actually had? Didn't Iraq try to give the impression that THEY had nuclear weapons? Couldn't that be what NK's doing now? Better not take the risk anyway.

5th. The world would be better if no one had any nukes.
5 1/2th. The only nuclear programs that any country actually has a prayer of disbanding (peacefully) are their own.

6th. NK is not the U.S.'s sole responsibility nor is NK solely the U.S.'s responsibility (it may just turn out that they are their own responsibility... wouldn't that be weird?)

7th. There are many good ways that we've found to kill each other without using nukes.

8th. We, the U.S., invented the atomic weapon. It should have been our responsibility to realize that, more likely than not, the nuclear weapon would be the driving force of many wars and possibly the end of the world as we know it. Ergo, I believe that because we created the nuke in the first place we should have either destroyed the technology or protected it better because if you trace the lines of technology sharing back far enough, we gave nukes to every country which currently has them. Hence, I think that, if NK has nukes, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

-- Before all of you start going mad about "we didn't give the technology to anyone! It was stolen!", I ask you: What the HE|| did we think was going to happen to the technology? Were we so naive as to believe that the technology would always remain our and solely ours?

9th. A little more off topic... We, the U.S., have made it our responsibility to disallow any country with whose policies we disagree (or those who simply don't give us enough money or resources) to gain any considerable amount of power ESPECIALLY while they are:
a. a small country or
b. have a young government. (This is why I think we haven't waged war with China a dozen and a half times over the past century). Being that we've made it our responsibility to police the world, for reasons I've established in #8 above, we've failed miserably (and should probably quit while we're ahead... or at least while we can still dupe the rest of the world into thinking that we're ahead).

10th. It is through shear paranoia that we believe that NK has nukes or even the gall to use them. If NK is going to strike anyone in any kind of act of war, the U.S. is not going to be first... not unless we continue to badger and goad NK in precisely the manner we have been.
10 1/2th. Again, being the most powerful and most aggressive, I declare that WE are the biggest threat to anyone. Maybe it's the thought of impending global insignificance that keeps us constantly on the offense. We're like a cheating spouse... can't wrap up an old bad relationship without starting a new one.

11th. Whose fault is it that we're NK's enemy? Whose fault is it that NK has nukes? Ours/ours.

Ok, maybe I think that the U.S. is more responsible with our nuclear program than the government of a country like... say Iraq or North Korea... but can't we, for once, wait any see if anyone else in the world has a problem with it? If NK has nukes they'll only use them on countries that are a threat to them. The U.S. will only try to stop NK from having nukes if we believe that they'll use them against us or our allies. At this stage of the game, we are only a threat to NK if we try to stop them from having nukes. Vicious cycle.

Our mean time to failure (or basically our mean time to starting a war that we'll lose) is rapidly running out. WE SHOULD BUTT OUT-- WE WILL LIVE LONGER.


That'sJustWeird,
Ok, technically Bush wouldn't be starting the hypothetical war with North Korea, but I think the point is is that Bush isn't taking the obvious road that will lead us away from probable nuclear war. IF NK has nukes and IF we try to prevent them from having them then we will be much more likely to go to war than IF we just leave them alone whether or not they have nukes.

Though, provided our most recent precedent for pre-emptive war, I don't think that it will be all that unlikely that we WILL be the ones declaring war. It would be almost as if we learned nothing from our war(s) with Iraq. If one doesn't learn, how can one grow?

Ryanp, your idea is both very good and very obvious. I don't think that our government will abide by it, if for no other reason than: that would be too simple/easy/peaceful/mature/intelligent. I realize that my post was too much of a reaction. Sure, I think war can sometimes be used to save lives, but looking at the wider picture, a lack of war can also be used to save lives. Or even choosing WHEN to wage war is the proper time to wage war could save lives. You could call me a liberal with conservative tendancies, or a radically left wing conservative (though the words "left wing American" form a sort of sick oxymoron). The world isn't divided into liberals and conservatives... personally I like to be called "human". I think you like to be called conservative... but what happens if, one day like magic, you happen to disagree with "conservatives" on a certain topic? Would you then not like to be lumped into such a wide category?

-S

[edit on 26-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

More saber rattling from the DPRK. Everytime someone mentions anything related to them it's "a declaration of war" or "a sea of fire will be brought upon the capitalism running dogs to the South." The North has a nuclear program to get concessions out of the West. This is predictable.

ServoHahn, I disagree profoundly. Nuclear weapons are capable of ending entire civilizations. They can literally kill a nation. They're far too powerful to think that their spread is a good thing. Fairness (a thoroughly useless concept in international relations) doesn't justify giving the world nuclear weapons. We owe it to everyone to do our best to keep them as limited as possible.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Deleuze]

Originally posted by Deleuze
ServoHahn, I disagree profoundly. Nuclear weapons are capable of ending entire civilizations. They can literally kill a nation. They're far too powerful to think that their spread is a good thing. Fairness (a thoroughly useless concept in international relations) doesn't justify giving the world nuclear weapons. We owe it to everyone to do our best to keep them as limited as possible.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Deleuze]

I'm am not sure with what you are disagreeing. I'm not justifying giving nukes to anyone. In fact I think I made it perfectly clear that I thought that it is entirely deplorable for any country anywhere to have nuclear weapons, if not only because the technology should never have gotten out of Los Alamos.

Further, I think the more hype we make out of nuclear weapons, the more others will want them. Even further, I doubt very much that nuclear weapons will ever be used in war, though if they are, the country that was getting nuked would "lose", wind up completely destroyed, retaliated with nukes... etc. It simply would not be beneficial for any government (save a religious one, acting in the name of God.... sound familiar?) to ever wage nuclear war on another country.

Going back a few steps, I remind you of my point that it is our fault that anyone has nuclear weapons...

And then forward a few more... The best way to avoid war is to not fight. If NK makes the first move on us, then by all means let's turn them into a parking lot, but until then, we're not doing anything to help the situation by making rediculous demands whether or not they're in the form of sanctions.
-S

I can't say Bush is to blame for NK, on the other hand I don't think he is doing much to improve the situation. Not that there he is much he can do, Kim is certifiable and NK is a sociological basket case.

Clinton tried, he tried to play along with North Korea's little extortion scheme, but like all extortion schemes the extortionist kept wanting bigger payoffs.

My personal belief is that we should let the South Koreans take the lead in dealing with the North. After all, they have far more at stake than we do. The RoK is also no pushover militarily, so they can negotiate from a position of strength. The best thing the US can do is pointedly ignore their tantrums and threats, nothing will emphasize their weakness more effectively than that.

I think NK is likely to collapse from within, perhaps helped along by a China leery of NK's attempts to provoke the US. A troublesome neighbor drawing US forces into the region is not in China's strategic interest.

I don't know where to begin, so I think I'll just keep this really short.

A nuclear bomb is 49 parts science to 1 part technology. Keeping the process of a nuclear detonation secret was not an option once the first one was dropped on Japan. It was an option beforehand, but it would have been a matter of a few short years before a competing country invented it if we hadn't.

America has the historical honour of being the first and only country to drop an atomic bomb on people, yes. While this entitles us to some retrospective speculation, it does not set us apart from any other country in terms of radical war manuevering because the technology was new and at the moment necessary and we were young and ready with it, but we were not Nazis or Japanese imperialists -- real warmongers, as it were.

As such, America does not deserve any special notoriety in the field of nuclear warfare. I think, if anything, we should have rather earned some respect for the judicial nature with which we have historically approached nuclear warfare.

If you care to know, I wasn't born in America and didn't grow up here either, but I still say "we" because this country makes me feel right at home. It's a great damned country, and don't you forget it.

Zip

My response in bold.

Originally posted by Zipdot
I don't know where to begin, so I think I'll just keep this really short.

A nuclear bomb is 49 parts science to 1 part technology. True, but it is also about 50 parts "a ridiculous need to feel superior" Keeping the process of a nuclear detonation secret was not an option once the first one was dropped on Japan Sir (or ma'am), I doubt that keeping it secret was an option LONG before it was even tested on American soil.. It was an option beforehand, but it would have been a matter of a few short years before a competing country invented it if we hadn't. Like who? All of the greatest scientists defected to the U.S. Good thing for that too, or Germany would have had it. Not that I think we used it any more responsibly than they would have... I (and I'm sure you are as well) am a student of physics, philosophy and general science. I'm sure you're well aware of the sheer number of accidents it took to create the weapon. Also of the sheer number of incredibly intelligent scientific minds... and also of the exclusivity of our resources and science. The second favorites to being the first to make a nuclear device (then the U.S.S.R.), actually stole secrets from us before they got it right. Not that they ever had the funding to head up a perfectly legitimate nuclear program anyway. Yes, other countries building the things would have been only a matter of time but without the help of minds like Einstein and Feynman and many MANY others, it would have been a long LONG time... perhaps without the Cold War to fuel the hype about nuclear science, it may have been never... but we'll never know will we?

America has the historical honour of being the first and only country to drop an atomic bomb on people, yes. While this entitles us to some retrospective speculation, it does not set us apart from any other country in terms of radical war manuevering because the technology was new and at the moment necessary I don't know what you mean by necessary... do you mean "One of many options that would have gotten the job done"? Yes we saved a lot of innocent Chinese by ending the war early... but at the cost of how many innocent Japanese? What about the cost? It must have been worth it to SOMEONE in order to risk the destruction of our planet and we were young and ready with it, but we were not Nazis or Japanese imperialists -- real warmongers, as it were. I also am impressed at the amount of genocide that was allowed to go on before we entered the war... but I assume that wasn't your point. Make no mistake the U.S. TOTALLY capitalized on WWII... But I guess you have a different definition of "real warmongers, as it were".

As such, America does not deserve any special notoriety in the field of nuclear warfare. A very valid opinion, but I either do not understand or do not agree as to why I think, if anything, we should have rather earned some respect for the judicial nature with which we have historically approached nuclear warfare. (e.g. inventing it, starting it, letting it grow beyond our control)

If you care to know, I wasn't born in America Go back... and take me with you! j/k and didn't grow up here either, but I still say "we" because this country makes me feel right at home. It's a great damned country, and don't you forget it. Oh believe me, I love America as much as any American and I'm glad that you found your home here and that we are free to disagree on this topic. That doesn't mean that American politicians don't make incredibly wrong decisions. I would rather protect what reputation we have left for being the honest and good counrty that we were meant to be. Perhaps the entire world is wrong in their opinions of America as being a bully with a superiority complex... but I think that we sometimes act as a down right juvenile. Whenever I speak out against an American policy I get a lot of flak from people saying "America is the best GD country this world has ever seen." and "You have more freedoms in America than you will ever have anywhere else!" I don't disagree with those statements. I just don't happen to agree that just because I live in the greatest country in the world (a statement in and of itself which I think to be much of the cause of our bad global opinion), I shouldn't try to make it better... or at least to keep others from running it into the ground. Peace is patriotic and don't you forget it.

Zip

Listen, why should we have to bully when we could lead? Why do we have to make demands instead of setting an example? Why do we have to see the world as a gold mine instead of as a large group of people who, if they could get along as most of them vainly try to, would be much happier? Foreign policy, if ever declared perfect, would be a fallacy... can we agree on that?
-S


[edit on 27-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

You have voted ServoHahn for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month

Excellent post! I agreed with every single point

Just think how police would react in a similar situation whereby an assailant has a pistol at a hostages head.

Should the police:

- Get on the bullhorn and start to call him "evil", "tyrant" and any other insult they can think of until said assailant shoots?

- Get a trainied negotiator in to try and resolve the situation peacefully if possible or buy time till a clear shot can end it with minimal loss of life?

How would America react if it learnt police had goaded a hostage taker into actually firing at hostages instead of calling in hostage negotiators? It would go friggen crazy thats what. But it seems completely acceptable to too many Americans when its carried out on a national level.

Im not for appeasement, see how wonderful Chamberlain did with Hitler, but theres a happy medium between appeasement and instigation which is called diplomacy. Its not hard, Americans have a long tradition of using it until this administration stepped in with its very own policy goals, none of which is global security.

[edit on 27/4/05 by subz]

Originally posted by ServoHahn
True, but it is also about 50 parts "a ridiculous need to feel superior"

I rather think that this is kind of an apples and oranges analogy since I was referring to science and technology and you're relating a diagnosis of amateur psychology.

We didn't need to feel superior to help win World War II, we needed to be superior.

Keeping the process of a nuclear detonation secret was not an option once the first one was dropped on Japan Sir (or ma'am), I doubt that keeping it secret was an option LONG before it was even tested on American soil.

The exact moment at which the invention became too well-known to be kept a secret is indeterminable and irrelevent. It is obvious that you get my drift. Present at the Trinity test (the first nuclear bomb - gadget - ever to be detonated) were a mere 200-some-odd witnesses. After we bombed Japan, well here, I'll just quote WikiPedia: Around 260 personnel were present, none closer than 9 km. At the next test series, Operation Crossroads in 1946, over 40,000 people were present.

It was an option beforehand, but it would have been a matter of a few short years before a competing country invented it if we hadn't. Like who? All of the greatest scientists defected to the U.S. Good thing for that too, or Germany would have had it. Not that I think we used it any more responsibly than they would have... I (and I'm sure you are as well) am a student of physics, philosophy and general science. I'm sure you're well aware of the sheer number of accidents it took to create the weapon. Also of the sheer number of incredibly intelligent scientific minds... and also of the exclusivity of our resources and science. The second favorites to being the first to make a nuclear device (then the U.S.S.R.), actually stole secrets from us before they got it right. Not that they ever had the funding to head up a perfectly legitimate nuclear program anyway. Yes, other countries building the things would have been only a matter of time but without the help of minds like Einstein and Feynman and many MANY others, it would have been a long LONG time... perhaps without the Cold War to fuel the hype about nuclear science, it may have been never... but we'll never know will we?

Germany was working on a nuclear bomb during the war. It would only be a matter of time. It was well known that such a bomb was possible to make since the 1938 publication of the paper concerning nuclear fission.

The only reason that Germany didn't come up with a bomb in time is because they didn't put the financing behind it because they didn't think it would be available in time to use it in the war. Perhaps you are unaware of the 1945 American Project ALSOS, which determined that in 1945, Germany had sustained a nuclear chain reaction and thereby reached the point that America had reached in 1942 with respect to the development of an atomic bomb.

America has the historical honour of being the first and only country to drop an atomic bomb on people, yes. While this entitles us to some retrospective speculation, it does not set us apart from any other country in terms of radical war manuevering because the technology was new and at the moment necessary I don't know what you mean by necessary... do you mean "One of many options that would have gotten the job done"? Yes we saved a lot of innocent Chinese by ending the war early... but at the cost of how many innocent Japanese? What about the cost? It must have been worth it to SOMEONE in order to risk the destruction of our planet

Yes, these decisions can be difficult to make. I agree.

and we were young and ready with it, but we were not Nazis or Japanese imperialists -- real warmongers, as it were. I also am impressed at the amount of genocide that was allowed to go on before we entered the war... but I assume that wasn't your point. Make no mistake the U.S. TOTALLY capitalized on WWII... But I guess you have a different definition of "real warmongers, as it were".

warmonger
n : a person who advocates war or warlike policies

I wasn't speaking about any financial capitalization, I was speaking about militaristic ideologies. As for America's isolationist stance during the genocidal warfare that was taking place, well, that's another huge topic. I'm not ignoring it in this topic, I'm just sidestepping it because I wanted to keep this short. So much for that.

As such, America does not deserve any special notoriety in the field of nuclear warfare. A very valid opinion, but I either do not understand or do not agree as to why I think, if anything, we should have rather earned some respect for the judicial nature with which we have historically approached nuclear warfare. (e.g. inventing it, starting it, letting it grow beyond our control)

Had we used nuclear bombs to their full effect in the days of their genesis, we could have done much worse, but, of course, this is not a good arguement.

Somebody had to invent it.
A debate on whether it was necessary continues to rage.
As for letting it grow beyond our control, well, yes, maybe we should have bombed foreign research laboratories to keep the technology under our "control."

Oh believe me, I love America as much as any American and I'm glad that you found your home here and that we are free to disagree on this topic. That doesn't mean that American politicians don't make incredibly wrong decisions. I would rather protect what reputation we have left for being the honest and good counrty that we were meant to be. Perhaps the entire world is wrong in their opinions of America as being a bully with a superiority complex... but I think that we sometimes act as a down right juvenile. Whenever I speak out against an American policy I get a lot of flak from people saying "America is the best GD country this world has ever seen." and "You have more freedoms in America than you will ever have anywhere else!" I don't disagree with those statements. I just don't happen to agree that just because I live in the greatest country in the world (a statement in and of itself which I think to be much of the cause of our bad global opinion), I shouldn't try to make it better... or at least to keep others from running it into the ground. Peace is patriotic and don't you forget it.

I agree. You seem to be taking a stance against me here, though I can do nothing but categorically agree with what you are saying. Just because I shouted a slogan does not mean that I did it mindlessly or with disregard to reality. Again, I was just trying to keep my post short.

Listen, why should we have to bully when we could lead? Why do we have to make demands instead of setting an example? Why do we have to see the world as a gold mine instead of as a large group of people who, if they could get along as most of them vainly try to, would be much happier? Foreign policy, if ever declared perfect, would be a fallacy... can we agree on that?
-S

I think the phrase "nobody's perfect" sums up what you are saying and as well sums up what I was saying. In essence we agree, though I have differing opinions on some of the finer points of nuclear history and policy.

Subz: When a man has a gun to a hostage's head, we have sharpshooters shoot the man in the head, if possible. How does this fit in with your allegory?

Zip

EDIT: Bah, everything is showing correctly in preview but not in the actual post. I'm taking out the "quotes" so the colors show up.

EDIT: I don't know what's going on with the stupid colors. I give up.


[edit on 27-4-2005 by Zipdot]

I should add that I think it's incredibly stupid that the USA is calling North Korea names. When I first heard the original "Axis of Evil" comment, I just couldn't believe it. I guess they found that Americans weren't really uproarious about that comment so they kept on truckin' with the name-calling.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Subz: When a man has a gun to a hostage's head, we have sharpshooters shoot the man in the head, if possible. How does this fit in with your allegory?

Originally posted by subz
- Get a trainied negotiator in to try and resolve the situation peacefully if possible or buy time till a clear shot can end it with minimal loss of life?

Basically the equivalent in the North Korean problem would be to continue to act diplomatically until you have no other choice but to carry out a surgical strike on their nuclear sites. Either with Spec Ops or guided missiles. I repeat, only when you have no other choice, and with the backing of the UN Security Council. No more unilateral invasions!

EVERYONE HEAR THAT? SUBZ SAYS LETS GO IN WITH GUNS BLAZING!

SUBZ SAYS "LET'S SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER!"



Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
I should add that I think it's incredibly stupid that the USA is calling North Korea names. When I first heard the original "Axis of Evil" comment, I just couldn't believe it. I guess they found that Americans weren't really uproarious about that comment so they kept on truckin' with the name-calling.

Zip

But I'm pretty sure you believe all the names the US has been called is justified somehow right?

ThatsJustWeird, obviously you haven't read a single post I've made in this thread besides that one.

EDIT:

I dunno, this kind of upset me. Just because I think that the USA calling other countries names is BAD, this does not automatically imply some kind of twisted reverse, that I think that other countries calling the USA names is GOOD. I don't think that your conclusion fits under the umbrella of either inductive or deductive reasoning, especially in light of my posts in this thread.

Besides all of that, these words are being hurled "officially" by our government. Foreign leaders badmouth the USA a lot, but usually they use a little more tact or subtlety than what is contained in the phrase... AXIS OF EVIL!!... I like to think that America is a civil nation and should treat other countries with more propriety, civility, respect, and politeness than they to us.

Zip


[edit on 27-4-2005 by Zipdot]