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.
They also stated that if the US didnt have nukes then they wouldnt need them!
Why on Earth would the US disarm just because some mad old North Korean (Kim) says they should?
Also the North Koreans have wanted to normalize relations with Washington since 1994. The process of normalizing relations was in motion through the Agreed Framework signed by the Clinton Administration. It should of been normalized but was stymied in congress.
Originally posted by subz
The normalization was part of the agreement for the North Korean's to forgo their sovereign right to withdraw from the NPT.
You forget that just because the United States of America says something or wants something, it doesnt mean countries have to do it. You can demand until you're blue in the face that North Korea refrains from developing nuclear weapons. They do not have to.
What Clinton did was to recognize this fact and to give the North Koreans incentives to cooperate. He offered them normalized relations as well as access to fuel and nuclear powered electrity. In return the North Koreans gave up their access to nuclear weapons capability. The Yongbyon reprocessing plant was sealed by the IAEA and was completely out of action. With this out of action the North Korean's nuclear ambitions, too, were out of action.
When the normalizations and other agreements made by the Clinton administration were blocked, the North Koreans resumed their sovereign right to pursue nuclear weapons. Great move.
How do you prevent nuclear proliferation? By threatening and creating a reason for a country to defend itself with nuclear weapons? Congratulations on a self-fulfilling scenario.
Originally posted by Rasputin13
Actually, I'd say the fuel to the fire of nuclear proliferation is the policies of bribes and appeasement, which you support.
Originally posted by Rasputin13
The fact of the matter is that people like Kim Jong Il, Saddam Huessein, and countless other dictators only respect strength. When we start offering them things and allow their stalling tactics we only end up shooting ourselves in the collective foot.
Originally posted by Rasputin13
I do not necessarily mean an overt military campaign. Action can come in the form of blockades, or "quarantenes"
Originally posted by Rasputin13
With the North willing to return to the table and come to some sort of agreement, it further validates Bush's DPRK policy.
Originally posted by Swivel53
If my history is correct, then it was North Korea that invaded South Korea first, getting us involved and making them an enemy of ours.
And hey this is the same form of government, same regime and everything that originally invaded so to say that we have made them build nukes as a defence is as absurd as saying a kidnapper kidnapped someones family member for protection against them.
Originally posted by Swivel53
Put up the cash for peace or prepare to see lots of people get killed. How much is a life really worth?
I believe thats what France and Britain did with germany. That did a lot ofgood now didn't it?
Originally posted by subz
Originally posted by Swivel53
If my history is correct, then it was North Korea that invaded South Korea first, getting us involved and making them an enemy of ours.
And hey this is the same form of government, same regime and everything that originally invaded so to say that we have made them build nukes as a defence is as absurd as saying a kidnapper kidnapped someones family member for protection against them.
And that changes the fact that the North Koreans would go for nuclear weapons asa detterent how? It doesnt, regardless of what the history was or whether they are an aggressive or peaceful nation: they all require defence and nukes are the best detterent devised.
And saying that they need it as a defence against us is a moot argument when considering they are the ones who started hostilities. I'm not arguing its a great deterrent, i'm arguing they don't NEED it as a defence against us. It's as simple as don't start # with us, and you won't the target of our agressions. Having Nukes as a pretext for defence against someone u already started # with is pretty much saying "Hey I'm gonna keep doing what pisses you off so much, and I'm building nukes so you won't stop me this time!"
Originally posted by Swivel53
Put up the cash for peace or prepare to see lots of people get killed. How much is a life really worth?
I believe thats what France and Britain did with germany. That did a lot ofgood now didn't it?
So we should invade nuclear armed countries eh? Yeah thats an awesome idea. Instead of spending money to avoid millions of deaths we should institigate it ourselves from fear of another Hitler. Thats not really sound logic.