NEWS: IAEA: N. Korea Could Be Opening Pandora's box.

The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said Sunday his agency estimates North Korea could have five or six nuclear weapons and that a North Korean nuclear test could "open a Pandora's box."Mohamed ElBaradei said he is "very concerned" about the possibility of North Korea testing a nuclear device.



This is starting to get crazy. Now they are comparing the situation to Pandora's box. How much longer till something happens? Do we have a chance? What would happen if we went to war with North Korea?

I just heard on my local news at 10 that they are deploying some Army National Gaurd troops to South-East Asia.

the "pandora's box" was opened dureing ww2, by the us i might add. now i will not say that the us was wrong for doing so. in fact the use of two nuclear devices may have saved thousands of soldiers and civilians alike.

the fact that other countries may want to have nukes for themselves is perfectly understandable. why should nukes only be alowed to SOME countries? as far as i can see this makes for a bad balance of power. a country that has nukes can always threaten to use them. a country without nukes has no retalitory response to a country blackmailing them with a nuke attack. any country that wants to have nukes should have no more problem haveing them than those countries that already have them.

to be otherwise is very hypicritical, "do as i say but not as i do". if north korea wants nukes than more power to them (literaly ).they are big boys, and should be treated equily with those that have nukes. if you don't want north korea to have nukes than i sudgest that you get rid of all of yours first. then it will be a realistic request. this non-proiflation treaty is just a way to make some countries better than other countries. this form of PREDUDACE should not be tolerated. i just have to ask what exactly was on the table to get countries to sign this piece of bs? was possible trade/trade sanctions used to blackmail countries into signing their rights away? mabe some loans or finantual incentives? mabe food or other aid?

just the fact that countries are blackmailing war over this should point out how desperate some countries are to stay at the top of the global dominatin chain. oooh crazy kim wants to have nukes, how is this any differant than blasting bush haveing them? this is just another case of the newer us stance of being world bully. do as we say or we'll kick your bleeps in. it seems that some are worried that if others have access to the same weapons that they may have some new compitition. after all it's rather hard to threaten a nuke strike when one has the capeability of fighting back.

nope if nk wants nukes let them have them it is only the best way to have equality on the global scale. no one should be alowed to have such an advantage over others. that can only lead to more wrongs committed by those who hold the power. in fact nukes actualy make for one hell of a deturant to attacks.

[edit on 8-5-2005 by drogo]

Drogo, although I agree, many countries would use nuclear weapons as deterrents for defence, but would North Korea actually use nuclear weapons in an offensive strike without hostile provocation?

I view nuclear weapons as passive defence, and only used when the need arises. Thankfully, they've never had to be used except in Japan, where you already stated why and with good cause. The main question is would North Korea use them in a pre-emptive strike.

Xar, that is precisely why the Japanese are shivering in their booties.

I do not think that all countries should get nukes(specifically totalitarian governments) and I think that all countries with nukes should reduce their numbers.


www.theage.com.au...

I said let NK and Iran have nukes, if they nuke us or anybody else, we just ture their country into a big parking alot afterwards lol

that is part of my point. whiler i tend to agree that there are definatly countries that possibly should not have nukes (includeing those who may already have them), who are we to say no? what gives us the right to make that decision?it probably would have been better had nukes not been invented. but they were and now we are stuck with them.

now there is something else to consider when denying others the RIGHT to have these weapons. lets take a stroll down to the 1930's. you got it, germany.now one of the reasons that hittler was able to use while takeing controll was the fact that gemany was DENIED certain weapons. that and the HARSH reparations that were required of germany from the first world war, actualy paved the way for the second world war. even the japanese had simmler reasons, theirs were more about OIL and other suplies being virtualy cut off but those reasons were what "drove" them to war. if some country believes that they have the right to have something they generaly WILL go to war to gain it.

denying countries of anything can actualy work against peace. countries have egos, just as people do. this only makes sence since a country is realy just a sum of it's people. now considder your neibor owns a gun. but for some reason you are not considdered stable or maby mature enough to own one. now remove the police from responding to threats but if you just try to get a gun they will be there INVADEING your house because you may be hideing a gun. perhapse your neibour is even a cop (i AM NOT ranting about cops here). he can have his gun but you can not. now you can chose that you don't want a gun that is up to you. but should you be excluded from owning one? mabe this neibour is constantly threatening you that if you don't do what he says, he will shoot you. would you not want to be able to protect yourself with your own gun? it might even be discused that if you were to own a gun that you might pre-emptively shoot your neibour or possibly another neibour? still what real reason has there been to stop you from owning that gun? might you infact even considder getting a gun illigaly to protect yourself? this is the same for a country.you know even if not stated a country without nukes can always asume that you may back up a threat with a nuke.

the thing is that nukes ARE the balance of world power. those with nukes are the big boys of the world . those without are the little boys that end up subserviant to those big boys. after all you realy aren't a big boy unless you have the ability to nuke someone. of course you can always go to one of the big boys for protection from another one but then you are realy sub-serviant to him now.

The Choice Is Always There

Any nation which desires nuclear weapons is free to pursue them. However, such a choice is not free of consequences.

That's the way it has always been, and the way it will always be.

North Korea has chosen to pursue nuclear weapons, and is doing so.

What it can no longer choose is to be free of the consequences of pursuing them, unless it abandons its pursuit.

We'll see how it goes.

Originally posted by drogo


the fact that other countries may want to have nukes for themselves is perfectly understandable. why should nukes only be alowed to SOME countries?

It is perfectly understandable for a deranged lunatic like Kim to have nukes? This is as absurd of a statement I have ever heard. Thats like saying convicted felons, such as kidnappers and rapists should be allowed to carry firearms. If you can`t see the difference between a nation like the US holding nukes and N Korea having them you are blinded by the partisan politics that seek to divide sane rational people.

Originally posted by drogo
oooh crazy kim wants to have nukes, how is this any differant than blasting bush haveing them? it seems that some are worried that if others have access to the same weapons that they may have some new compitition. after all it's rather hard to threaten a nuke strike when one has the capeability of fighting back.

First off, Bush did not create the US nuclear program. We had nukes long before Bush was in office. The difference, let`s see, mabe that in the US you are held accountable for your actions and therefore you won`t see our military nuclear striking anyone with the exception of a nuclear launch against us or one of our allies. In N Korea if Kim decides he wants to nuke Japan or California there is no one in that country capable of stopping him. He is a dictator and cares nothing about the world or his own people.

Originally posted by drogo
nope if nk wants nukes let them have them it is only the best way to have equality on the global scale. no one should be alowed to have such an advantage over others. that can only lead to more wrongs committed by those who hold the power. in fact nukes actualy make for one hell of a deturant to attacks.

[edit on 8-5-2005 by drogo]

Right, we will all be equal if everyone is holding nukes. Sorry your irrational thoughts on this subject are just mind-boggling.

Who will stop N Korea from selling these nukes to terrorists who want to do harm to my family and neighbors here in America? Are you as anti-American as Bin Laden? Seriously, do you know the stakes here?


To everyone who hates Americans and or Bush:
I`m sick and tired of being accused of being the world`s bully. I have seen what can be best described as phsycological warfare from so many of the ATS users. I love my country as anyone should love their own, with the exception of some who don`t have it as good. The arrogance that is generated and spewed at the patriotic few on this site is completely sickening.You all know who you are.

It is complete and utter madness to continually try to knock the American people and their president. If you don`t like Bush, thats fine and I respect that, but he will be in office for four more years because the majority of Americans voted for him.Yea, it was close but Kerry lost, GET OVER IT! If you don`t agree with his actions then speak your mind in a manner to express an alternative method of action, don`t just attack if you haven`t an idea of your own. All this negative energy helps no one. It hurts you most as it puts much strain on your health.

When has the US ever threatened anyone with a nuke? To my knowledge this has never happened and I think the only way it would happen would be in an act of self defense.

The US has and will be a strong standard for justice, civil liberties, equality and freedom for a long time to come. We stand up for what we believe and back up our allies whenever needed. Why did so many American soldiers die in Europe during WWII? We were attacked by Japan and that was a seperate front during WWII. But why did we go to fight the Nazis in Europe? Was it for oil? Was it because we were bullies? Its because we do the right thing. We stick up for our fellow human beings when such atrocities are being committed.

Now we are fighting for people`s rights of other nations and my brothers and sisters are dieing and bleeding and getting blown the f up because of the global threat of terrorism. These alqueda bastards took it to MY doorstep on September 11th, they killed people I knew and loved. So my president with the help of many other intelligent people decided to take the fight to their neighborhood. To date no terrorist attacks on American soil. That was the plan.

Lets shrink the equation down a bit and let me ask you like this:
If someone blew up part of your house and God forbid killed members of your family, would you (a) wait for them to come back so you could kill them or (b) go to their neighborhood and kill them?
I would choose (b) because now my family isn`t involved its just me and them. Thats my main priority in life the ultimate safety of my own family. Thats what the US is doing on a much larger scale.

Not to mention liberating the Afgan people and Iraqi people so that they can run their own countries and ultimately our boys will be back home. We as a nation had no choice. We can`t just sit back and wait for them to strike again, we have to beat them yesterday. Time is not on our side.

So now back to N Korea. The major problem with Kim having nukes is HE will sell them to terrorists. This is fact. There is no denying it. If he is allowed to be treated as equal as the rest of the civilized worlds there will be grave reprocussions. He is not to be trusted with this world reforming technology. He will threaten to use them if he has them. When was the last time Great Britain or France or the US has threatened anyone with nukes? You can`t compare nations like N Korea or Iran with the rest of the civilized world.

The US is a very powerful country with resources to change the world whether in the interests of our own people or the innocent civilians of other nations. With great power comes great responsability. We cannot stand idle by when we have the power to make a difference for all of humankind.

Let the hate spewing commence.

My opinion on this subject is that N korea is ruled by an unstable person. N Korea has tried forging US Dollars and passing them around the world to undermine the American economy. I think the people who live there are brainwashed into thinking the US and UK are Evil . I'm all for a full scale attack on them , trouble is were tied up in Iraq.

A Matter Of Strategery

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I'm all for a full scale attack on them , trouble is were tied up in Iraq.

Some targets are best attacked from the inside.

Even the U.S. is limited in what it can achieve by strictly military means.

Thus we must rely on a "new kind of war" which, in reality, isn't all that new.

A change of leadership is much more likely in North Korea than a U.S.-led attack.

Of course, I could be mistaken. Wouldn't be the first time.