North Korea says nuclear test successful
An official at
South Korea's seismic monitoring center confirmed a magnitude-3.6 tremor felt at the time North Korea said it conducted the test was not a natural occurrence.
Hopefully China and Russia take this as seriously as the US and Japan do.
China had seemingly changed their stance recently, and said that they would not condone a nuclear test.I just read that the Japanese and the Chinese governments had issued a join statement saying that a test would be "unacceptable". These two NEVER agree on much of anything. So its good that they are working together but bad that it has to be over this.
12:46:03> RosenOttr: World's largest pot of kimchi explodes. Thousands feared fed.
Has anybody from NORAD or anything confirmed there was an actual nuclear detontation? I'm not going to just take the DPRK's word on this. For all I know they got a few kilotons of conventional crap together and detonated it. Lord knows they've got the ordinance to waste.
Hell, the idea of getting them to waste their bombs in testing isn't all that bad. At the very least it'll get them to kill most of their citizens with the fallout. (And the wind naturally blows north in that part of the world...too bad about China I suppose.)
(And already people start to blame Bush. You guys never cease to amuse me. ;))
Can someone please, please just go ahead and assasinate this small-dicked psycho?
Please?
If this is true (which it might very well be or not be), then I would say: ****, the Bush administration really ****ed this ****ing thing up pretty ****ing badly.
If this is true (which it might very well be or not be), then I would say: ****, the Bush administration really ****ed this ****ing thing up pretty ****ing badly.
You're so cool. Just like all those people who buy iPods because, heck, everybody has them! {/sarcasm}
All joking aside, I admit I could easily have missed some blatantly obvious connection between US President George W. Bush and North Korea's testing of an underground nuclear device. Is that the case, or were you merely jumping on the ever-popular "Bush-bashing bandwagon"?
All joking aside, I admit I could easily have missed some blatantly obvious connection between US President George W. Bush and North Korea's testing of an underground nuclear device."Rouge" nations look at Iraq and think; 'Hmm, if the US can unlawfully invade a sovereign nation and get away with it, what's to stop them invading me? I know! Nukes!!'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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*
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*
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Add your own caption:
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/newt1.korea.mon.10.ap.jpg)
whoo boy, i knew i ate too much of that chili
Add your own caption:Dum dee dum.,................Mmmmmmmmmm.................................AHA !
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/newt1.korea.mon.10.ap.jpg)
...And could someone explain to me what the **** that has to do with a psycho firing off a nuke? Come on, guys. Could we manage to quit the bickering and inanity for ten second.
...And could someone explain to me what the **** that has to do with a psycho firing off a nuke? Come on, guys. Could we manage to quit the bickering and inanity for ten seconds, maybe? This ain't exactly politics as usual.
At any rate, I'm just hoping that the UN actually manages to put some teeth behind whatever they decide, instead of the usual half-hearted "sanctions" attempts. As an international organization, it'd be nice to see them stand up and deal with a threat to international safety in a powerful manner. If they can't manage to pull this one off, then I'll lose whatever respect I did have for them in the first place. Guess there's nothing to do but wait and see.
Add your own caption:
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/newt1.korea.mon.10.ap.jpg)
Just to play devil's advocate for a second, why shouldn't North Korea be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If we take the methapor of selling someone a gun, if one citizen is allowed to posses it than all are. You can't not sell a gun to soemone simply because they look shifty to you. Unless there is concrete proof, prior cevents that confirm that he would use it in an irresponsible manner, one law must apply equally to everyone, no?
All the intel agencies are saying it was a nuclear test. Russia is saying it was between 5 and 15 kilotons.
...And could someone explain to me what the **** that has to do with a psycho firing off a nuke? Come on, guys. Could we manage to quit the bickering and inanity for ten seconds, maybe? This ain't exactly politics as usual.
At any rate, I'm just hoping that the UN actually manages to put some teeth behind whatever they decide, instead of the usual half-hearted "sanctions" attempts. As an international organization, it'd be nice to see them stand up and deal with a threat to international safety in a powerful manner. If they can't manage to pull this one off, then I'll lose whatever respect I did have for them in the first place. Guess there's nothing to do but wait and see.
What do you want? War?
What do you want? War?
is he a conservative?
hint: yes
What do you want? War?No sane person wants war as a first choice, especially when dealing with someone as crazy and irrational as Kim-Jong. But, if push comes to shove, if increased sanctions don't do anything, if he keeps pulling this same sort of crap and trying to provoke the hell out of the rest of the free world...then I say we should do what needs to be done, whatever that may be.
:lol:If thats the case...convince China and South Korea to cut their food and energy supplies. It won't take very long for the regime to fall under its own weight.
Oh, Kazan, Kazan, Kazan...don't you ever go changin', ya hear? ;)What do you want? War?No sane person wants war as a first choice, especially when dealing with someone as crazy and irrational as Kim-Jong. But, if push comes to shove, if increased sanctions don't do anything, if he keeps pulling this same sort of crap and trying to provoke the hell out of the rest of the free world...then I say we should do what needs to be done, whatever that may be.
Edit: Along the lines of what nuclear said, what I meant was that I don't hold out too much hope for talk alone, or even sanctions, no matter how harsh, working in this situation. Like someone said on the last page, I honestly don't think that Kim-Jong has any real clear concept of the consequences of his actions. He's more like a petulant little child than anything else, and a petulant little child armed with nuclear warheads sitting right next to someone he hates is a very dangerous situation indeed. I honestly think that the UN has a chance to shine here, depending on how things proceed; I only hope that they live up to that chance.
Oh, look at the joke at the expense of the conservative!
What do you want? War?No sane person wants war as a first choice, especially when dealing with someone as crazy and irrational as Kim-Jong. But, if push comes to shove, if increased sanctions don't do anything, if he keeps pulling this same sort of crap and trying to provoke the hell out of the rest of the free world...then I say we should do what needs to be done, whatever that may be.
Edit: Along the lines of what nuclear said, what I meant was that I don't hold out too much hope for talk alone, or even sanctions, no matter how harsh, working in this situation. Like someone said on the last page, I honestly don't think that Kim-Jong has any real clear concept of the consequences of his actions. He's more like a petulant little child than anything else, and a petulant little child armed with nuclear warheads sitting right next to someone he hates is a very dangerous situation indeed. I honestly think that the UN has a chance to shine here, depending on how things proceed; I only hope that they live up to that chance.
If a crazy dictator has acquired the means to deliver nuclear ordnance to several of our allies in the region (and perhaps even our own shores, eventually), I think it's well within our rights to nip the issue in the bud before it comes back to haunt us all.
Last time I checked, self-defense is a valid reason for taking physical action, within reasonable boundaries.It's not self defense until they ATTACK US! Are we living in strangeworld now, where somehow preemptive action is self-defense?
Here's the other problem: What exactly are we capable of doing to North Korea, militarily speaking? Even if a huge chunk of our army weren't tied up in the Iraq ****storm, I suspect that a land war in North Korea would basically be the equivalent of putting the U.S. forces in a giant blender.
Here's the other problem: What exactly are we capable of doing to North Korea, militarily speaking? Even if a huge chunk of our army weren't tied up in the Iraq ****storm, I suspect that a land war in North Korea would basically be the equivalent of putting the U.S. forces in a giant blender.Yes, but keep in mind, that the "million man army" of NK is hungry, under equipped and under trained.
What do you mean, "what do I want"? Like I said, I want this threat ended. (In an ideal world, I'd love to see the communist regime be just a distant, unhappy memory for the people of North Korea, but that's an entirely different story.) I honestly don't want things to resort to war, if there's any way to avoid it. If sanctions do the job, if diplomacy (somehow) works, then that's fantastic, and huge international kudos to whoever pulls it off. But one thing I don't want to do is completely rule out the possibility that some sort of military action may be a sad necessity if everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
Let me put it this way: if things come down to the North creating a fully-functioning missile (of whatever yield), pointing it straight at the center of Seoul, and threatening to fire it off in a week's time unless some sort of ridiculous demands were met...would you be opposed to taking out the missile platform? God forbid we come to a scenario like that, but I think it's something that everyone has to keep in the back of their minds.
If a crazy dictator has acquired the means to deliver nuclear ordnance to several of our allies in the region (and perhaps even our own shores, eventually), I think it's well within our rights to nip the issue in the bud before it comes back to haunt us all. Last time I checked, self-defense is a valid reason for taking physical action, within reasonable boundaries.
So, let me get this straight...what you're saying is that we should wait until North Korea actually fires a nuke at the South, or Japan, or China, or wherever, until potentially tens of thousands are people are killed by said nuke, to do anything about it? Is that pretty much the gist of your argument? Just want to make sure.
If saving lives means being the agressor...then, by all means, I want to be called an agressor.
Here's the other problem: What exactly are we capable of doing to North Korea, militarily speaking? Even if a huge chunk of our army weren't tied up in the Iraq ****storm, I suspect that a land war in North Korea would basically be the equivalent of putting the U.S. forces in a giant blender.A ground-based attack really would be the absolute worst-case scenario of all.
If a crazy dictator has acquired the means to deliver nuclear ordnance to several of our allies in the region (and perhaps even our own shores, eventually), I think it's well within our rights to nip the issue in the bud before it comes back to haunt us all.
bull**** it's our right - we don't have any farking right telling another country they cannot have a certain weapon - we don't listen to other countries telling us the same thing, why should we expect them to listen to us
Aldo, did I ever say there was a clear solution? Hell no. This whole thing is one big complicated mess. I don't pretend to have the answers to any of the questions that you asked; I'm certainly no diplomat, foreign affairs worker, or military strategist. I honestly don't know exactly what would have to happen in order for North Korea to be removed as a potential nuclear threat to that region, and the only way we'll all find out is seeing what happens in the coming weeks.
Here's the other problem: What exactly are we capable of doing to North Korea, militarily speaking? Even if a huge chunk of our army weren't tied up in the Iraq ****storm, I suspect that a land war in North Korea would basically be the equivalent of putting the U.S. forces in a giant blender.A ground-based attack really would be the absolute worst-case scenario of all.
Isn't that just a cop out?
Quote from: aldo14Isn't that just a cop out?
All right, so since I really have no clue whatsoever what the hell you're going on about, let me ask you this: just what do you want out of me? Do you want me to draw up a comprehensive, detailed, and cohesive game plan to resolve this situation? Do you want me to sit here and puzzle over exactly what the percentage values of economic sanctions should be, or which officials from which countries should meet together in what cities on what dates? Do you want me to create a 100-point list of criteria that would have to be met for any sort of military action of any scope to be taken? Do you want me to perform a complete psychoanalysis of Kim-Jong Il and figure out every single factor that motivated him to conduct this test in the first place?
Just how exactly am I "copping out" here? All I did in this thread was post a few random thoughts that were rattling around in my brain. No more, no less. I didn't intend to get into some multi-page discussion about the rammifications of potential actions of both sides. I never once claimed to have any idea as to how the nations in question should proceed. I'm sorry if that's the impression you received from me. I've said my piece for now, and if you want to call that a "cop-out," then that's your prerogative.
At any rate, I'm just hoping that the UN actually manages to put some teeth behind whatever they decide, instead of the usual half-hearted "sanctions" attempts. As an international organization, it'd be nice to see them stand up and deal with a threat to international safety in a powerful manner. If they can't manage to pull this one off, then I'll lose whatever respect I did have for them in the first place. Guess there's nothing to do but wait and see.
get NK to give up the bomb?
I suppose it would be fair to fault them for failing at that, wouldn't it?
I suppose it would be fair to fault them for failing at that, wouldn't it?
No, it's America's fault.
If thats the case...convince China and South Korea to cut their food and energy supplies. It won't take very long for the regime to fall under its own weight.
well that is what the North Koreans are saying
Here's the other problem: What exactly are we capable of doing to North Korea, militarily speaking? Even if a huge chunk of our army weren't tied up in the Iraq ****storm, I suspect that a land war in North Korea would basically be the equivalent of putting the U.S. forces in a giant blender.
Quite a bit, actually. Given three months to accomplish it, sufficent aircraft (say three carriers and heavy USAF aircraft flying from Guam), and enough ordinance we could put them back at the Industrial Revolution just via aircraft and cruise missiles.
Maybe even China too for failing to protect him.
My thought was that at the very least you can try and get the loose screws out of the leadership and get a reunification effort with the South. I guess I was using the East/West Germany example...maybe not such a good thought afterall. I'd rather change come from the inside rather than Bush go and try and install a new government. We've seen what thats like. I'm really not sure what us armchair strategists could do now...its sort of a bleak no win situation at this point. Sounds like the whole thing should have been cut off at the pass...as usual.QuoteIf thats the case...convince China and South Korea to cut their food and energy supplies. It won't take very long for the regime to fall under its own weight.
Then what happens? Suddenly you have a bunch of loose Korean nukes that could end up anywhere in the world. In addition to that you would have a massive humanitarian crisis.
For those of you who say invade:
You have probably the most brainwashed group of people in the world in NK. They are willing to fight to the death for their regime. This isn't Iraq: NK is poorer, and the people are much more brainwashed than the Iraqis were.
This was probably the biggest foreign policy failure of the Bush administration. Just looking at everything that they have done, it is blatantly obvious they wanted to push the regime to do stuff like this. The administration is trying to play chicken with NK, and sooner or later they will run into eachother. If a small, improvrished, starving country of 23 million people can outmanuever the American Juggernaught so easily, I really wonder what a much more powerful country can do.
QuoteMaybe even China too for failing to protect him.
I think China would be doing everyone a favor if they decided to invade NK......
GERTZ: U.S. doubts Korean test was nuclear; Readings fall short of atomic explosion... MORE...
U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday, WASHINGTON TIMES star reporter Bill Gertz is set to report in Tuesday editions.
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.
The underground explosion, which Pyongyang dubbed a historic nuclear test, is thought to have been the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, far short of the several thousand tons of TNT, or kilotons, that are signs of a nuclear blast, the official said.
I don't think anyone's ever had one fizzle, at least in that particular manner.
So the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has proved to the world they can't build a working bomb yet. Somehow fitting.
That would be like the US gettin' lairy at the UK :D
Eh? Our takeaways arent that hostile,................................yet :nervous:
Actually, I'm going to say NKorea screwed the pooch with this one. China, their closest (and maybe only) ally, is now royally pissed at them.
Ok so now according to CNN N.Korea sees continued bad feeling toward them "an act of war" :eek2: :wtf:
Oh, great, now they've declared war on you!
North Korea threatens war over sanctions
Eh? Our takeaways arent that hostile,................................yet :nervous:
Japan is to impose tough new sanctions against North Korea in response to its claimed nuclear test.
The new measures will include banning all North Korean imports and stopping its ships entering Japanese waters, a government spokesman said.
So, what does Hugo Chavez have to say about this. lol
VENEZUELAN FOREIGN MINISTER NICOLAS MADURO
"We condemn all nuclear tests because of the immense damage to the planet, to life on the planet.
"We oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons and we are making an effort the world over to have those countries with nuclear weapons gradually disarm."
Oh Kazan oh Kazan, stop antagonizing everyone you talk to :p
Oh Kazan oh Kazan, stop antagonizing everyone you talk to :p
Oh Kazan oh Kazan, stop antagonizing everyone you talk to :p
he trolled
*notes your new post with the "free willy" reference*
LAME! You got something to say on that subject? Do you? Eh? got something to say? bring it *****. Find your testicles and start presenting arguments for your position or STFU you dickless wonder
So where is this North Korea thing going? :shaking:
oh oh pwnd redmenace, take your blind nationalistic trolling elsewhere now :lol:It was meant more of a joke considering Chavez attended a big third world country get together in NK.
If you're going to say that the **** hits the fan, you'd better do it properly by quoting Ransom: "the defecation hits the ventilation....."
So, what does Hugo Chavez have to say about this. lol
Now, however, what I predicted early after the nuclear test looks like it's coming true - North Korea, now that it has the bomb, seems to have decided that it can push other nations around. This, for all of those why not profiliate people, is why you don't want to have small, irresponsible countries like NK with nukes:
Eh, laughing at clinton just as much I suspect. I mean why on earth would you trust NK to begin with. But yes, bush is a general **** up.QuoteSo, what does Hugo Chavez have to say about this. lolProbably laughing his ass off at how stupid Bush was to let this spiral this far out of control. Now lots of countries (namely Iran) are going to start thinking "If North Korea can do it, then we can do it too".
Eh, laughing at clinton just as much I suspect. I mean why on earth would you trust NK to begin with. But yes, bush is a general **** up.QuoteSo, what does Hugo Chavez have to say about this. lolProbably laughing his ass off at how stupid Bush was to let this spiral this far out of control. Now lots of countries (namely Iran) are going to start thinking "If North Korea can do it, then we can do it too".
Here, Bush's advisers have misinformed him. The fact is, Washington got what it most wanted from the 1994 agreement, a freeze of Pyongyang's plutonium program, but it did not live up to its end of the bargain. When Republicans captured control of Congress in elections just days after the Agreed Framework was signed, they denounced the deal as appeasement. Leery of taking them on, the Clinton administration backpedaled on implementation. It did little easing of sanctions until 2000. Reactor construction was slow to start. Although it pledged to provide the two reactors "by a target date of 2003," concrete for the first foundation was not poured until August 2002. It did deliver heavy fuel oil, but seldom on schedule. Above all, the United States did not live up to its pledge in Article II of the Agreed Framework to "move toward full normalization of political and economic relations"--in plain English, to end enmity and lift economic sanctions.
In 1997, when Washington was slow to fulfill the terms of the accord, Pyongyang threatened to break the agreement. The North's acquisition of technology to enrich uranium from Pakistan began soon thereafter--in 1998, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell. It began with a pilot program, not the operational capability the North moved to acquire in 2001 after the Bush administration refused to negotiate and listed the country as a potential target for nuclear attack.
Hmm, I thought we gave them food aid that pretty much keeps their military from starving. Honestly I don't know why anyone would trust them to actually give the aid to where it was intended. It all goes to pretty much preserving the current regime.
The only thing that is forcing their hand is NK. It is a **** hole that has been left in the past by its self. It refuses to modernize. Hell I bet that any aid given to NKs was disguised to prevent them from realizing who it is from. And since when does developing nuclear weapons help their humanitarian crisis? Or their energy crisis? It doesn't. From the start, it has been a giant shakedown of western and asian powers to further the current regime in NK.
This is my problem with Clinton. It is a shabby agreement in that respect.
As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
That would actually be a point in his favor; the whole idea of light-water reactors is that it's harder to weaponize their byproducts. That article is frankly a masterpiece of stupidity, as the whole deal behind those reactors was to help the DPRK meet its energy needs with nuclear power without giving them a leg up in building atomic arms.
Also as I recall those reactors have never gone operational. Construction was only possible with foriegn aid, which was suspended a few years back when they restarted their other reactor.
As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
That would actually be a point in his favor; the whole idea of light-water reactors is that it's harder to weaponize their byproducts. That article is frankly a masterpiece of stupidity, as the whole deal behind those reactors was to help the DPRK meet its energy needs with nuclear power without giving them a leg up in building atomic arms.
Also as I recall those reactors have never gone operational. Construction was only possible with foriegn aid, which was suspended a few years back when they restarted their other reactor.
As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
That would actually be a point in his favor; the whole idea of light-water reactors is that it's harder to weaponize their byproducts. That article is frankly a masterpiece of stupidity, as the whole deal behind those reactors was to help the DPRK meet its energy needs with nuclear power without giving them a leg up in building atomic arms.
Also as I recall those reactors have never gone operational. Construction was only possible with foriegn aid, which was suspended a few years back when they restarted their other reactor.
Was the other reactor not restarted as a consequence of the US suspending fuel-oil shipments?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071200220.html
In his meeting with the North Korean leader, Chung said that the decade-old, $5 billion project to build light-water reactors in North Korea was dead. U.S. officials have welcomed that statement, on grounds that those facilities, if built, would still pose a proliferation risk. Clinton administration officials have privately said that they agreed to the plan in 1994 only because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the project was completed.
Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.
Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.
they do have a right to produce these weapons.
were the fuel oil shipments not suspended because they were in breach of there deal, ie enriching uranium?
Maybe because they have no grounds to be appeased in the first place. Secondly, why should we be supporting an regiem like this?Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.
So what? I mean, what's bad with appeasement? It seems like GOP apologists just throw it around to justify their screw-ups.
NK backed its self into a corner. Have you seen what the communist regiem spends its resources on besides nuclear weapons?QuoteMaybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.
The US has backed NK into a corner, and when an animal is scared and cornered it will always lash out.
So what? I mean, what's bad with appeasement? It seems like GOP apologists just throw it around to justify their screw-ups.Maybe because they have no grounds to be appeased in the first place. Secondly, why should we be supporting an regiem like this?
The US has backed NK into a corner, and when an animal is scared and cornered it will always lash out.NK backed its self into a corner. Have you seen what the communist regiem spends its resources on besides nuclear weapons?
Funny that millions of people living in abject poverty, famine conditions and without such basic comforts as heat or light are duped into thinking that the south is the same way. And yet we wish to keep these people in that situation by effectivly propping up their government.
Which is pure speculation. The effective result of aid we are giving them is only to feed their "military" and thus allow a malignant regiem to continue to exist. I don't support removing their gov't either. I just say let it collapse under its own ineptness and deal with the consequences. The alternative of helping that inept and retarded regiem to exist under the guise of order is foolish and dare I say we would likely grow to regret such actions in the future.
Also, China and Russia are partly responcible for the state of NK. They should be having to deal with this more than the US.
A Korean-Japanese scholar who is considered North Korean leader Kim Jong-il’s unofficial spokesman said yesterday that Pyongyang has a hydrogen bomb it would test as part of a series of actions mentioned in its statement against the United States.
Was that not an allegation, based upon an alleged statement by the NK ambassador (or some other official) to a US representative which the North Koreans denied ever making? (i.e. handy invented pretext)
I'm not sure how millions of people living in abject poverty, famine conditions and without such basic comforts as heat or light can ever be considered funny...Ehhh, it's pretty funny. Granted, that's because I'm not living there, but humor is humor.
WASHINGTON - Results from an initial air sampling after
North Korea's announced nuclear test showed no evidence of radioactive particles that would be expected from a successful nuclear detonation, a U.S. government intelligence official said Friday.
Was that not an allegation, based upon an alleged statement by the NK ambassador (or some other official) to a US representative which the North Koreans denied ever making? (i.e. handy invented pretext)
According to the BBC's timeline, it was more along the line of truckloads of fuel rods being sent to a known centrifuge site after the DPRK removed the seals and monitoring devices the IAEA installed.
Last Updated: Tuesday, 3 October 2006, 10:18 GMT 11:18 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Timeline: N Korea nuclear standoff
Tensions have been building in recent years over North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2002
3-5 October 2002: On a visit to the North Korean capital Pyongyang, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly presses the North on suspicions that it is continuing to pursue a nuclear energy and missiles programme.
Mr Kelly says he has evidence of a secret uranium-enriching programme carried out in defiance of the 1994 Agreed Framework.
Under this deal, North Korea agreed to forsake nuclear ambitions in return for the construction of two safer light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments from the US.
16 October: The US announces that North Korea admitted in their talks to a secret nuclear arms programme.
17 October: Initially the North appears conciliatory. Leader Kim Jong-il says he will allow international weapons inspectors to check that nuclear facilities are out of use.
18 October: Five Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea 25 years before are allowed a brief visit home - but end up staying, provoking more tension in the region.
20 October: North-South Korea talks in Pyongyang are undermined by the North's nuclear programme "admission".
US Secretary of State Colin Powell says further US aid to North Korea is now in doubt.
The North adopts a mercurial stance, at one moment defiantly defending its "right" to weapons development and at the next offering to halt nuclear programmes in return for aid and the signing of a "non-aggression" pact with the US.
It argues that the US has not kept to its side of the Agreed Framework, as the construction of the light water reactors - due to be completed in 2003 - is now years behind schedule.
14 November: US President George W Bush declares November oil shipments to the North will be the last if the North does not agree to put a halt to its weapons ambitions.
18 November: Confusion clouds a statement by North Korea in which it initially appears to acknowledge having nuclear weapons. A key Korean phrase understood to mean the North does have nuclear weapons could have been mistaken for the phrase "entitled to have", Seoul says.
11 December: North Korean-made Scud missiles are found aboard a ship bound for Yemen, provoking American outrage.
The US detains the ship, but is later forced to allow the ship to go, conceding that neither country has broken any law.
12 December: The North threatens to reactivate nuclear facilities for energy generation, saying the Americans' decision to halt oil shipments leaves it with no choice. It blames the US for wrecking the 1994 pact.
13 December: North asks the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to remove seals and surveillance equipment - the IAEA's "eyes and ears" on the North's nuclear status - from its Yongbyon power plant.
22 December: The North begins removing monitoring devices from the Yongbyon plant.
24 December: North Korea begins repairs at the Yongbyon plant.
North-South Korea talks over reopening road and rail border links, which have been struggling on despite the increased tension, finally stall.
25 December: It emerges that North Korea had begun shipping fuel rods to the Yongbyon plant which could be used to produce plutonium.
26 December: The IAEA expresses concern in the light of UN confirmation that 1,000 fuel rods have been moved to the Yongbyon reactor.
27 December: North Korea says it is expelling the two IAEA nuclear inspectors from the country. It also says it is planning to reopen a reprocessing plant, which could start producing weapons grade plutonium within months.
Well they seem pretty serious about this nuclear war thing so probably.
Korea claims a state of war exists between the UN and their country.
Korea claims a state of war exists between the US and their country.
Well, technically, they are correct. It's only a ceasefire, remember?
Korea claims a state of war exists between the US and their country.
Well, technically, they are correct. It's only a ceasefire, remember?
Corrected! :o :D
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061018/3/2rhpp.html
What is wrong with these people.
Korea claims a state of war exists between the UN and their country. British news leads with Madonna. Looks like Apathy has set in already.
This i'm sure is what it was close to:http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061018/3/2rhpp.html
What is wrong with these people.
Well, shucks. I was hoping for a picture or two. That would have been absolutely gold.
This i'm sure is what it was close to:http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061018/3/2rhpp.html
What is wrong with these people.
Well, shucks. I was hoping for a picture or two. That would have been absolutely gold.
(http://www.donparrish.com/NorthKoreaWeb/KimArirang.jpg)
(http://www.donparrish.com/NorthKoreaWeb/KimSubway.jpg)
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061018/3/2rhpp.html
What is wrong with these people.
Mmm, perfect. If this keeps up, I'll totally be able to conquer Switzerland without anyone's notice. :drevil:
This is reassuring
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2585531
Maybe apathy regarding KJI's war declarations has something to do with this (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22declaration+of+war%22+site%3Awww.kcna.co.jp)
EVERYTHING IS WAR