It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Nuclear N Korea is 'grave threat'

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Nuclear N Korea is 'grave threat'


news.bbc.co.uk

Barack Obama has warned that a nuclear-armed North Korea poses a "grave threat" to the world.

At a news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Mr Obama said the US would "vigorously" pursue an end to the country's nuclear programme.

Mr Obama said that [they] had agreed that a new UN resolution designed to halt North Korea's nuclear ambitions should be fully enforced.

And he pledged to end a cycle of letting North Korea create a crisis in order to be rewarded with concessions...

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
North Korea pre-emptive strikes on "key sites" in United States




posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
In contrast to President Obama's more conciliatory approach to Iran - emphasizing the role of negotiation - his new stance on North Korea is positively hawkish.

I have to give him credit here. Diplomacy and negotiation were arguably grossly neglected through much of the Bush presidency, and a preparedness to seek a peaceful way through where possible comes as a refreshing change. But where partners in 'negotiation' have consistently made a mockery of the process by failing to provide evidence they are acting in good faith they should indeed be called on it, and a much firmer stance should be taken.

Nonetheless this does not necessarily make things any easier. North Korea is increasingly becoming a thorn in the flesh of the international community, acting with outright impunity.

The question is: how far is the US (or indeed the United Nations) prepared to go?




news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
well congratulations Obama glad your aware there are actually threats in this world...

Not much of a shocker, a single older man too short to get laid, even though he runs a country he still has to kidnap women to get a bit... major Napoleonic complex... in personal possession of a few dozen nuclear missiles...

yeah, I guess that qualifies as a grave threat...

Most of us they feel can't even be trusted with a gun... so go figure this might be considered "an issue"



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The fact that most, if not all, of those countries agreeing that it was a threat have nuclear weapons themselves is supposed to be conveniently ignored?

Sounds like more of a case of 'you can't have what I have'.

Yeah, a threat. To those who already have and stockpile such weapons.

"We don't like being on an equal footing." would have been more believable.

"We will make you scapegoats so we can make more money" would be more truthful.

Expect reasons to go to war with these countries to be ramped up in the very near future.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
When two Men are on an Island with a Woman..

They work out a mutual arrangement to keep the peace....

But when a THIRD man appears.....

Both the two Men AND the Woman will jump on and kill him, because there is no room for him...

it doesn't matter what his intentions were...

I think that has a lot to do with why N. Koreans, or anyone else, are not allowed Nukes.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by manbird12000
 


I dont agree with your theory there. About the whole island bit.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
North Korea is a great threat to itself. To a lesser degree it is a threat to South Korea. To no degree is it a threat to US, or all the happy freedom loving rich white people or whoever it is the concern is about.


The North Korean threat is what the world makes of it. Proclaim it and shout about it to the entire world and soon enough you make a threat of out of nothing. Ignore it while remaining passively observant, and the nonexistant threat will remain as such. Vigilance has it's time and place, but this is certainly not the time (what with the economy), and North Korea is certainly not the place.


If North Korea wanted to invade the South or to wreck some evil terror upon the above mentioned freedom loving hordes, it would have done so a month ago. Guess what North Korea is going to do now? It is going to sit on its few precious nukes and pretend that it matters to the world. And by paying a lot of attention to it and magnifying its threat, the US is doing exactly what NK wants it to do.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by maloy]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
"Grave Threat" - Oh My! I'm sure the North Koreans are shaking in their boots. Words, words, words. In a few more months we will be up to a stern letter in all CAPS.

Seriously, how long is it going to take for people to understand that North Korea doesn't care in the least what is said about them. There needs to some kind of action taken that is serious enough to get their attention. It doesn't need to necessarily be military action but it has got to be more than words and resolutions. Everyone constantly talks about all of the things we can't do - we need to find some things we CAN do.

It amazes me that some people think that once North Korea attains a nice arsenal of nuclear weapons they will suddenly become a mature and responsible member of the "nuclear club." That is a fantasy. They will continue to demand, intimidate and extort until somebody stops them.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itguysrule
Seriously, how long is it going to take for people to understand that North Korea doesn't care in the least what is said about them.


On the contrary, I think their leadership wants and thrives on the attention, even if its negative attention.



Originally posted by itguysrule
There needs to some kind of action taken that is serious enough to get their attention. It doesn't need to necessarily be military action but it has got to be more than words and resolutions.


How about ignoring them. That's an action isn't it? There can be no greater harm done to the North Korean leadership than simply being ignored by the global community. Given the alternative - the US trying to liberate the living crap out of them - it is a pretty safe bet.



Originally posted by itguysrule
Everyone constantly talks about all of the things we can't do - we need to find some things we CAN do.


The US can try to fix the economy, fix Social Security, fix healthcare, fix federal budget. When that is done the US should start concerning itself with what it can do with North Korea.



Originally posted by itguysrule
It amazes me that some people think that once North Korea attains a nice arsenal of nuclear weapons they will suddenly become a mature and responsible member of the "nuclear club."


What do mature and responsible members of the nuclear club do? Test their own nukes while frowning upon other members doing the same, and actively preventing outsiders from joining the club? And what do the immature members do then?



Originally posted by itguysrule
They will continue to demand, intimidate and extort until somebody stops them.


Demanding, intimidating, and extorting pretty much sums up international politics. Hugging, holding hands, and singing happy songs is optional.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by manbird12000
 


Who works out a mutual arrangement?

The woman or the men?

Who objects to the third man being introduced?

What if the woman doesn't like the third man but only man no. 2?

What if she prefers man no. 3?

So many flaws. So little time!

Edit: I might say that this is another example of if a man can't # it he'll kill it, but I am not so crude. (apologies mods, delete edit if you wish.)

[edit on 16/6/09 by AngelInterceptor]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


I agree that North Korea thrives on attention. My point is that words alone won’t convince them to change their course or attitude in any way. As for ignoring them, that seems to be a dangerous course of action to me. As much as North Korea craves attention I think they will just become more and more outrageous until they get the attention they want.

A “responsible member” of the nuclear club would keep their weapons safe and secure. They would use them for defense only rather than offence or extortion. And, most important of all, they would not sell nuclear weapons to other countries or extremist groups that will use them regardless of the consequences. I don’t trust North Korea to do any of these things.

Hugging, holding hands, and singing happy songs seems to be the official foreign policy for this administration. Acting like a little girl with pig tails and a My Pony lunch box is going to alienate our friends and empower our enemies.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Good, I'm actually glad to hear it, I just hope that a lot of innocent oppressed people don't suffer for it. Obama's stance on diplomacy is rather clear, but unfortunately negotiation has been a joke with North Korea, and has started, as he says, a cycle of threats to receive concessions. It's like breaking a puppy of a bad habit, you just have to smack em and say NO!



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngelInterceptor
reply to post by manbird12000
 


Who works out a mutual arrangement?

The woman or the men?

Who objects to the third man being introduced?

What if the woman doesn't like the third man but only man no. 2?

What if she prefers man no. 3?

So many flaws. So little time!

Edit: I might say that this is another example of if a man can't # it he'll kill it, but I am not so crude. (apologies mods, delete edit if you wish.)

[edit on 16/6/09 by AngelInterceptor]


The point that I am trying to make is that the super powers don't want other countries to have nuclear technology, because they do not want any other players in the field. So they create a regulatory system that prevents the development of nuclear technology, even if it was for peaceful means.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Since I can't resist being baited...


Originally posted by AngelInterceptor
Who works out a mutual arrangement?


The two men.


Originally posted by AngelInterceptorThe woman or the men?


The two men.


Originally posted by AngelInterceptorWho objects to the third man being introduced?


The two men.



Originally posted by AngelInterceptorWhat if the woman doesn't like the third man but only man no. 2?


That is irrelevant.


Originally posted by AngelInterceptorWhat if she prefers man no. 3?


Man #3 still dies.


Originally posted by AngelInterceptorSo many flaws. So little time!


No, you're just trying to be an annoying armchair feminist. When civilization breaks down, the people with the physical strength take control.

So when two men and a woman are trapped on an island, the woman's only chance is to cooperate and attempt to influence things with pillow talk. I know you don't like it, but then I don't like a lot of things that I have to face the facts on, like chocolate cake increasing the size of my belly and not my penis, so sometimes you just have to lump it when life is like that.


Originally posted by AngelInterceptorEdit: I might say that this is another example of if a man can't # it he'll kill it, but I am not so crude. (apologies mods, delete edit if you wish.)

[edit on 16/6/09 by AngelInterceptor]


And your post was a clear example of your issues on the subject.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join