[Colonol Dekker]

Well if all goes pear shaped, At least all the Nukes of the Kingdom are off-shore........
(except for big ben, our secret uber-nuke)

[Sandwich]

Oh, ok, so let me get this straight. The US invades Iraq in March 2003. So then North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, decides that he'd better develop weapons of mass destruction to prevent the US from invading his country because he's developed weapons of mass destruction. Right.

But ok, I'll give you that for the deterrent factor; NK was so belligerent that the monstrous Bush regieme would have wanted to invade anyway, so now they have a nuclear deterrent -

Which they developed in 3.5 years.

Right.

[Mefustae]

Having nuclear capability would provide stalwart defense against the prospect of invasion. I never said they developed the bomb specifically to counter the big, bad Bush, but merely that the perceived threat of invasion - which they have seen as a distinct possibility - spurred them to develop it against opposition. Not that it was the only factor at play, but logic dictates that US foreign policy without a doubt has a hand in their recent actions.

Moreover; humourless sarcasm != an argument.

[Unknown Target]

Could we please get off the Bush discussions? This is a real problem whether or not it was Bush's fault. The fact of the matter is, there's a rouge communist/socialist state, with a leader who is absolutely cookoo for cocoa puffs.

[Prophet]

UT is right. Bush is not the problem. Kim Jong Il is the problem. Bush just happens to be an asshole who doesn't know what to do with the problem, but feels that it his responsibility to interfere anyway.

Bottomline: NK hates US of A. Most likely there is a reason why he hates it sooo much. Take out NK, fine. Take out US and we still have NK, bad. So lets focus on how we solve the NK problem. K?

[vyper]

Half the debate in this thread is making no sense.

Anyways, this isn't about who precipitated NK's actions. It's about how the international community reacts to it. We're talking about a leftover from the Cold War, and a conflict of ideologies that has led to brinkmanship in the past.

[aldo_14]

Oh, ok, so let me get this straight. The US invades Iraq in March 2003. So then North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, decides that he'd better develop weapons of mass destruction to prevent the US from invading his country because he's developed weapons of mass destruction. Right.

But ok, I'll give you that for the deterrent factor; NK was so belligerent that the monstrous Bush regieme would have wanted to invade anyway, so now they have a nuclear deterrent -

Which they developed in 3.5 years.

Right.

Technically, there has been a breakdown of US-NK relations (a tenuous concept at best) since October 2002.  However, the question is not whether the US' foreign policy created an NK nuclear programme, but whether it accelerated it; i.e. did the US' pre-emptive warfare strategy encourage NK to plug ahead with nuclear weapons development, rather than (for example) being more amenable to temporary suspension or inspection.  That is, has the Us policy of threatening other nations encouraged or discouraged them from seeking WMD (CBN)?  I think it has, particularly with the US' visibly limited ability to act (evidenced by the struggles in Iraq) in an effective manner against rogue states.

Could we please get off the Bush discussions? This is a real problem whether or not it was Bush's fault. The fact of the matter is, there's a rouge communist/socialist state, with a leader who is absolutely cookoo for cocoa puffs.

Well, it's important to discuss the Bush - or more accurately US foreign policy/diplomacy - aspect as it is the same people who will be at the forefront of attempts to react to this current crisis.  If this is a failure of diplomacy or 'handling' NK, then we have to identify and rectify that failure very quickly (er, not 'we' we, but the international community...).

That said, I do suspect the most important party will turn out to be China, who above all have the capacity to squeeze Kim Jong-Ils' nuts very tight.

(NB: communist/socialist?  Why the 'socialist' part? There's no shortage of 'socialist' governments who are not raving nutbag dictatorships, after all - the UK is nominally a socialist state in the traditions of labour even if not in actual 'New Labour' policy)

[Colonol Dekker]

At the end of the day/world, we can discuss NK =/<USA=<Argument=?!?!<>)!+ randomness all day long, but it wont change the fact that if they feel the need to push a big red button, We wont care when we're boilg at 30'000 degrees will we

[Unknown Target]

Oh wow. They blow up a bomb and everybody is calling for "sanctions". The world community is a bunch of pussies. If sanctions didn't stop them from blowing up a bomb in the first place, what makes you think that it will stop them now? In fact, what makes you think that sanctions against a starving people whose leader doesn't care if they're starving or not, and they accept his every word as law, will do anything?

[Rictor]

Oh, ok, so let me get this straight. The US invades Iraq in March 2003. So then North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, decides that he'd better develop weapons of mass destruction to prevent the US from invading his country because he's developed weapons of mass destruction. Right.

But ok, I'll give you that for the deterrent factor; NK was so belligerent that the monstrous Bush regieme would have wanted to invade anyway, so now they have a nuclear deterrent -

Which they developed in 3.5 years.

Right.

But that's assuming that only in 2003 did NK think to themselves "Oh, wait a  minute, this Uncle Sam guy might not be entirely friendly to our nation", which of course is not true. Technically NK and the US are still at war, and they have the most heavily militarized border on Earth. North Korea has been under sanctions for a while, and the two government's mutual hostility has been known for decades.

So I'm pretty sure that they started thinking of a nuclear detterant long before the invasion of Iraq. Being included on the "Axis of Evil" and seeing Iraq invaded probably sped up their plans (well, wouldn't you, if you were them?) but I think it's safe to say that they've been working on their nuclear program much longer than a few years. Besides, China is aother possible hostile, again a nuclear power and again on their borders.

[aldo_14]

Oh wow. They blow up a bomb and everybody is calling for "sanctions". The world community is a bunch of pussies. If sanctions didn't stop them from blowing up a bomb in the first place, what makes you think that it will stop them now? In fact, what makes you think that sanctions against a starving people whose leader doesn't care if they're starving or not, and they accept his every word as law, will do anything?

Probably because most people regard NKs' sabre rattling as a direct result of the suspension of oil shipments a few years back (itself in response to an allegedly renewed nuclear programme), and a generally collapsing economy.  The leadership may not give a **** about the people, but even a government as despotic as NKs cannot survive without a population to screw over (provide labour, etc; i.e. all the goodies the leaders wish).  After all, why else would NK ask for food aid in its last diplomatic talks with SK?

Besides which, what other option is there?  All a military incursion would do - assuming it removed the current government - is create chaotic and destabilising anarchy and kill thousands of innocent people.

[Rictor]

I still say that the safest way to defuse the North Korean threat is for the US, Japan and South Korea to pump massive development funds into the country, bring up their living standards to the point where re-unification is possible, and merge the ttwo countries. Crazy idealogues can survive sanctions, threats, wars - everything - but the one thing they can not survive, the one thing which destroys them more surely than anything, is prosperity and stability.

[Mefustae]

Crazy idealogues can survive sanctions, threats, wars - everything - but the one thing they can not survive, the one thing which destroys them more surely than anything, is prosperity and stability.

*Makes joke about Bush*

[Turambar]

Crazy idealogues can survive sanctions, threats, wars - everything - but the one thing they can not survive, the one thing which destroys them more surely than anything, is prosperity and stability.

*Makes joke about Bush*

*laughs at joke about bush*

its a real pain living in this country.  all the lies and **** and bad policy that we continue to put up with because the majority of the population is made up of sheep who dont even pay attention.

[BlackDove]

I still say that the safest way to defuse the North Korean threat is for the US, Japan and South Korea to pump massive development funds into the country, bring up their living standards to the point where re-unification is possible, and merge the ttwo countries. Crazy idealogues can survive sanctions, threats, wars - everything - but the one thing they can not survive, the one thing which destroys them more surely than anything, is prosperity and stability.

Yeah, we can see how bad governments can't prosper for eight years in America.

[Rictor]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15175633/site/newsweek/

Oct. 16, 2006 issue - On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

[Unknown Target]

Point being? They were counterfeiting money - are you saying just because they signed a treaty with their fingers crossed behind their back, they shouldn't be punished for something else they did wrong?

[NGTM-1R]

I'm still not convinced there's a real nuke involved. .5 kilotons is an extremely low yield, even for a tactical-use device.

There has to be some method of independantly confirming it beyond just semesic readings.

[aldo_14]

Point being? They were counterfeiting money - are you saying just because they signed a treaty with their fingers crossed behind their back, they shouldn't be punished for something else they did wrong?

The point is that the US may very well have been adopting a brinksmanship tactic against NK, attempting to exacerbate the already perilous economical situation of the country (and the ongoing famine) to destabilise the regime,  which has now blown up (literally) in their faces.  I mean, if it is paramount to prevent NK developing nukes (and with military action impossible, diplomacy and coercian is the only real way), how sensible is it to impose strict sanctions 4 days after a non-proliferation agreement?

In any case, there is no doubt in my mind a nuclear NK is a Very Bad Thing.  Nor do i doubt they've wanted a nuke for quite a while, and doubtless have been planning for it.  My only question is, was the US strategy of confrontation the best one to deter them?  And if not - as I think - will the US react to this in a way that offers a solution, or just a further escalation of the crisis?

I'm still not convinced there's a real nuke involved. .5 kilotons is an extremely low yield, even for a tactical-use device.

There has to be some method of independantly confirming it beyond just semesic readings.

The Russians are estimating 5-15Kt, albeit.  I doubt - unless radiation leaks from the site - we'll have any actual confirmation beyond what comes from NK propaganda.

[Rictor]

All the intel agencies are saying it was a nuclear test. Russia is saying it was between 5 and 15 kilotons.

Point being? They were counterfeiting money - are you saying just because they signed a treaty with their fingers crossed behind their back, they shouldn't be punished for something else they did wrong?

And counter-feiting money is reason enough to force a nuclear showdown?