It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: World Pressure Needed To Stop N. Korea Nuke Test

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:21 AM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I wonder if the French government will be involved in this "international pressure" to be brought to bear on North Korea. That would be amusing after their underwater nuclear explosion tests at Mururoa Atoll in the mid-90's. At least NK has the balls to do it on their own soil.

Yeah I agree there.

I also would expect the United States to keep quiet on the matter as well considering that the United States HAS NOT RATIFIED the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

From Time Magazine Jan 01
On the campaign trail, Bush had dismissed the treaty's provisions as unverifiable and unenforceable, although his defense secretary nominee, Donald Rumsfeld, goes a lot further. Rumsfeld's complaint is that the CTBT would restrain the U.S. from developing a new generation of nuclear weapons — which is, of course, exactly what the treaty is designed to do: stop the arms race

U.S. ponders resumption of nuke-weapons test
"The administration is chipping away at the barriers to a resumption of testing," said Kimball. "They are doing their best to establish a rationale to resume testing, either for reliability problems or for new weapons. The reality is that there is no scientific nor military basis for a resumption of testing, and to do so would be an enormous strategic blunder that would invite a wave of proliferation that could swamp the entire non-proliferation regime."

You cant have your cake and eat it too. You cant block North Korea from testing nuclear devices due to its inherent ecological and strategic dangers whilst pondering doing the exact same thing.

You either denounce nuclear weapons testing or you dont. You either adhere to your own NPT requirements to disarm or you dont preach its enforcement to others.

Is that unfair to say?

CTBTO signatories
Time Magazine: Bush's Nuclear Test Ban Quandary
U.S. ponders resumption of nuke-weapons test
Bush Hints Nuclear Test Moratorium May End

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

NBC television, without citing sources, said the US military has drawn up plans for a possible preemptive strike against North Korea should Pyongyang appear ready to test a nuclear weapon.

Words cannot express how insane that would be. No sources quoted hopefully means that this is complete BS. I'm speechless.

Unfortunately I'll have to be the bearer of bad news, its correct. There was even a thread on ATS about it.

ATS thread 1st May 2005: NEWS: US Prepares Preemptive Nuclear Strike Plan in Asia Region

[edit on 7/5/05 by subz]

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:48 AM
Will the world suddenly stop turning if Nkorea does a test ? I would like to know if that Kimakazi dude has been bluffing all this time or not

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:59 AM
I can only put this down to misunderstanding of the Asian mind on the part of Washington. After all, they don't really have much experience in the field since Asian countries have only recently become forces to be reckoned with. The Korean's and the Chinese don't think the same as Westerners in terms of negotiations. Like a dog bothering a small animal, the more you poke Korea, the more it's going to bristle and bite, no matter how big you are.

Let's hope this is just a lot of chest-puffing between Washington and Pyong Yang. I guess it pales in comparison to the Cuban missile crisis.

Would everyone sit back and clap as Bush nuked North Korea when their is no immediate threat to the U.S., and hence possibly spark a war with China? What's the popular concensus in the States regarding this issue?

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Would everyone sit back and clap as Bush nuked North Korea when their is no immediate threat to the U.S., and hence possibly spark a war with China?

I would say NO.

The tough question regarding North Korea should be.. Are we to believe that North Korea is a major threat to the U.S.A.?

It was not that long ago that Americans and most of the world were lead to believe that Iraq was a far greater threat than they were.

I think it is a bit harder to sell the case for war and military action to the American people these days.

Because of the failures in Iraq.. What are we to believe when it comes to North Korea or even Iran for that matter?

Then again.. There are no more elections in George W. Bush's future.. Perhaps a mandate for war is not needed!

What has he to lose now?

May as well complete his project and rid the world of the "axis of evil"

We can only hope that talks working toward a peaceful resolution are given every possible chance to work.. For as long as they are talking the bombs sit idle and people continue to live.


posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:24 AM

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Then again.. There are no more elections in George W. Bush's future.. Perhaps a mandate for war is not needed!

What has he to lose now?

Thank god congressmen have careers to think of and will be loathed to vote for war a second time.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:23 AM
North Korea has said many, many times a US strike on their Nuclear facilities means "nuclear war" with the United States (one link there are many others). I believe that a U.S. attack will lead to an attack on the U.S. itself -- although almost certainly not with Nuclear Warheads. The Tapeo Dong Missile can hit Alaska and reach Hawaii (how accurately is an open question). Tenet also said in open congressional testimony that the CIA believed NK could reach the continental U.S.

The "Military option" for the U.S> in the 6 way negotiations is an excellent stick and I hope this is saber rattling -- it can be an effective tool. If it is actually used though, I think we all lose.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Samiralfey
I find it a bit funny that at the same breath some people talk about how Kim Il is a child and at the same time talks about how Iran must be turned into glass. Like from a mouth of an angry teenager

Uh, that's great, fey.

But I'm not an angry teenager. I'm an angry adult. I also know a little bit about it.

So rather than post quippy little digs, why don't you tell us all what you actually think might be the situation as you see it, and tell us what you think should be done.

By the way, nice quippy little dig.

[edit on 7-5-2005 by DeltaChaos]

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 12:14 PM
The best response toward Kim Jong Il is for a broad group of regional countries and the United States just to humor him until he dies. He's not going to attack US for certain. He might attack S. Korea, but I use the word might in the loosest sense possible.

Kim Jong Il is not a threat. He's threatening. And I also don't equate the people with the leader. When I say Kim Jong Il, I don't mean N. Korea and vice-versa. Kim Jong Il was scoffed at by the Russians, dropped like a bad habit by the Chinese, and I think he just feels left out.

Like the fat little kid with glasses that never gets picked for dodgeball.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:13 PM
In a ``traditionnal war`` with tanks, planes, all those things, North Korea is able to defeat US. So let them have nukes and stop trying to organize the world like you want it to be.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Vitchilo
In a ``traditionnal war`` with tanks, planes, all those things, North Korea is able to defeat US. So let them have nukes and stop trying to organize the world like you want it to be.

Man, I want some of what you got, 'cause you're WAY high!

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 05:21 PM
let nk have it's toys.untill everyone else gets rid of their nukes there is no realy valid reasons that every country should not be alowed to have nukes. especialy since the big bully on the world stage at this time has plenty of them to lob arround. the very fact that a country that has nuke weapons, is the one doing the threatining is very disconcerting. why are they so afraid that others will have the same capabilities as they have?

this looks like a plain case of keeping other countries down where they belong. how dare a country try to rise above it's currant possition, by getting nukes. they shgould let their BETTERS tell them what they are alowed to have, as well as what they can do. after all unckle sam KNOWS what is best for everyone. north korea is getting too big for their britches and need to be put back into their place. this has NOTHING to do with nukes and everything to do with keeping "inferior" countries down where they belong, to be ruled by those that are better then them.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 06:08 PM

this has NOTHING to do with nukes and everything to do with keeping "inferior" countries down where they belong, to be ruled by those that are better then them.

This blogger seems to share your view. Thought I'd share it.
Let's not have any stupid illusions about the reason for this war. It's not about oil, or terrorism, or liberation.

It's a deliberate attempt to break the UN just as Mussolini broke the League of Nations with his invasion of Abyssinia.

Don't believe me? Fortunately one of the war's leading architects, Wolfowitz's evil twin Richard Perle AKA the Prince of Darkness, then Chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon, actually boasted of it in a Spectator article he wrote just before the invasion.

“Saddam Hussein...will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The ‘good works’ part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions."

He went on..."This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France."

Quite simply, US Republican ultra-nationalists have concluded that the US's declining economic power will eventually leave it a second-rate power in a peaceful world held together by common conceptions of legality.
Thus, they argue, they should seize the "unipolar moment" (their phrase not mine) afforded by the fall of the Soviet Union, when they supposedly have a vast military edge, and remould the world into a reality where weapons count for more and economic power for less. Then they'll attack any country that develops serious weapons - their new stated policy.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:40 PM

South Korea is bright, North Korea is dark. This amazing image is included in the standard US Department of Defense briefings on North Korea. It was mentioned in a news briefing on 23 December 2002 by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who stated that "If you look at a picture from the sky of the Korean Peninsula at night, South Korea is filled with lights and energy and vitality and a booming economy; North Korea is dark." There are a number of versions of this image in circulation, with visible differences that vary according to the conditions at the time the imagery was acquired.

The image was made by the orbiting Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite over regions of the world at night. The DMSP is a Department of Defense (DoD) program run by the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC). The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites carry the Operational Linescan System (OLS) in low-altitude polar orbits. These satellites record nighttime data. The Operational Linescan System has a unique low-light imaging capability developed for the detection of clouds using moonlight. In addition to moonlit clouds, the OLS also detects lights from human settlements,fires, gas flares, heavily lit fishing boats, lightning and the aurora. It is possible to distinguish four primary types of lights present at the earth's surface: human settlements, fires, gas flares, and fishing boats.

<< 1   >>

log in