north korea's 'pre emptive' strike against US

[Stellar]

How do you "cancel" a ceasefire? Think about it. you can't "cancel a ceasefire" unless they start hostilities once again. You can't "cancel" it and then sit there *not* firing.

[ExpandMyMind]

Expanded..........I agree with you completely. Its atrocious. But do we wait for him to shoot a scud or worse a targeted nuke into Seoul SK before we react.

You don't really have much of a choice now. First, a war with NK would be massive in scale and would likely see half of the South destroyed in the process, and this was before they had a nuke. So pre-emptive, apart from being illegal under international law, would not have the desired effect.

Second, they now have nukes, a nuke, a few nukes, whatever. The point is that they could probably wipe out South Korea if they wanted to. So doing something now isn't really an option either.

Personally I think diplomacy is the only way forward, but none of the three actors seems interested in this avenue. And also, I don't believe the NK leadership is as crazy or as stupid as they are made out to be - or make themselves out to be. They gain nothing but their own destruction from war, and from using a nuke they would probably not even exist as a country afterwards. They must be fully aware of this, and in fact this is probably why they haven't attacked in all this time since the war. They would prefer MAD, with an end to sanctions and the like. But as long as the U.S. holds all those nukes pointed at the country, I don't think they would ever use one.

(Famous last words)

[AsteroidX]

You don't really have much of a choice now

Your correct. I have no say in the matter. Nor do you or anyone on this board for that matter.

Sanctions are just stupid though. Ive always said that in the Iran thread and Ill say it here. Its a hollow word.

[shrooma]

How do you "cancel" a ceasefire? Think about it. you can't "cancel a ceasefire" unless they start hostilities once again. You can't "cancel" it and then sit there *not* firing.

.

do you REALLY think north korea are developing long range missiles and nuclear weaponry so they DON'T use them??

seriously?

[AsteroidX]

NK doesnt even claim there trying to develop nuclear energy power plants from what Ive read. All there talk is about building missiles and using them.

[shrooma]

NK doesnt even claim there trying to develop nuclear energy power plants from what Ive read. All there talk is about building missiles and using them.

.

I started a thread about using thorium in reactors instead of uranium because of this very subject X, it's incredibly difficult to make weapons from thorium byproducts, so any country willing to undertake a new atomic power programme that DOESN'T use thorium,

has another agenda.....

[ExpandMyMind]

.

I started a thread about using thorium in reactors instead of uranium because of this very subject X, it's incredibly difficult to make weapons from thorium byproducts, so any country willing to undertake a new atomic power programme that DOESN'T use thorium,

has another agenda.....

I don't think there was any doubt about their ambitions when it came to their nuclear plants. I mean, they didn't sign the NPT, which is basically like shouting 'We're building nukes. Nana, nana, na-na!'.

Just look at India, Israel and Pakistan.

(Edit - sorry for the caps, changed now).

Edited March 7, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[Stellar]

.

do you REALLY think north korea are developing long range missiles and nuclear weaponry so they DON'T use them??

seriously?

I did not say any such thing, so don't be so quick to put words in my mouth. What I said is that you cant cancel a ceasefire, and then sit there not firing. If they're currently "developing" long range missiles and plan to use them next year, then how is the cease fire "canceled" between now and then?

[shrooma]

Just look at India, Israel and Pakistan.

.

I don't understand ex,-

india is just about the only country committed to thorium development, so that pretty much makes their intentions clear when it comes to the difference between power and arms...??

[ExpandMyMind]

.

I don't understand ex,-

india is just about the only country committed to thorium development, so that pretty much makes their intentions clear when it comes to the difference between power and arms...??

The three countries I mentioned built nuclear reactors without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They were all obviously after nukes because, if you're not, you don't have a problem signing it and allowing the IAEA in for inspections. We now know that all three (four including NK) have nukes.

Edited March 7, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[shrooma]

I did not say any such thing, so don't be so quick to put words in my mouth.

.

yes, you did.

.

What I said is that you cant cancel a ceasefire, and then sit there not firing. If they're currently "developing" long range missiles and plan to use them next year, then how is the cease fire "canceled" between now and then?

.

do you not understand the meaning of the word 'intent'....?

[shrooma]

The three countries I mentioned built nuclear reactors without signing the Non-Proliferation treaty

.

that's a bit of a false opposition dude.

we signed the non-proliferation pact AFTER we'd developed nuclear weapons, but we've still kept building bigger and better ones (trident replacement anybody....), so just because india has nukes, it doesn't mean that they're not commited to building thorium reactors for power.....

[Himawari69]

My economics teacher showed us a film about North Korea, they really hate us Americans. And their dictatorship economy is like a prison, it's pretty sad for the innocent ones living there

[shrooma]

Now how about you remove the stick that's lodged up your ass and drop the attitude?

.

hahahahahahahaha!

dummy.

you want to see 'attitude', then please, just give me a reason.

if you can't reason with a differing viewpoint, then maybe you'd be better off on twitter, answering justin beiber's tweets, instead of a discussion forum, clungedrip.

[ExpandMyMind]

.

that's a bit of a false opposition dude.

we signed the non-proliferation pact AFTER we'd developed nuclear weapons, but we've still kept building bigger and better ones (trident replacement anybody....), so just because india has nukes, it doesn't mean that they're not commited to building thorium reactors for power.....

I wasn't suggesting that they weren't building reactors for power. I think you're misunderstanding my meaning.

I was stating that when a state first goes nuclear and they are not signatories of the NPT, then it is usually safe to assume that they are building nukes - otherwise they would allow inspectors in. I didn't mention anything about India's thorium production. They may well be concentrating on thorium, but they still have nuclear weapons and they still do not allow the IAEA in to inspect their installations. I then used the three above countries as examples.

Not allowing the IAEA in and not signing the NPT when you are building nuclear reactors is a tell-tale sign that a country is looking to build nuclear weapons. This is how we knew that Korea was doing so (which was the original point being made that you replied to).

Edited March 7, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[shrooma]

My economics teacher showed us a film about North Korea, they really hate us Americans. And their dictatorship economy is like a prison, it's pretty sad for the innocent ones living there

.

hima, you can't base an opinon on just one source, you have to hear the tale from every perspective, and then decide how you feel.....

My economics teacher showed us a film about North Korea, they really hate us Americans. And their dictatorship economy is like a prison, it's pretty sad for the innocent ones living there

.

hima, you can't base an opinon on just one source, you have to hear the tale from every perspective, and then decide how you feel.....

[pallidin]

Let's just "glass" NK and get it over with before they become even more of a threat. Wait, that would involve innocent civilians too.

At least take-out the leadership with one good bomb while they're congregated at some function.

[Stellar]

.

hahahahahahahaha!

dummy.

you want to see 'attitude', then please, just give me a reason.

if you can't reason with a differing viewpoint, then maybe you'd be better off on twitter, answering justin beiber's tweets, instead of a discussion forum, clungedrip.

Clungedrip? Cute.

It's not your viewpoint I have a problem with, it's you strolling around here quoting something you clearly don't understand and acting as if you're the authority on the issue. No where did I state that I think NK is developing weapons without the intent of using them. My beliefs on their intent regarding their weapons development programs is completely irrelevant to what I said.

Now let me rephrase my post in a way that the simpleminded may understand: it is nonsensical for them to say they cancel the ceasefire, yet sit there and not conduct hostilities. Why is it nonsensical? Because there's been no change in the situation. If they're not firing still, then it's still a ceasefire and the "cancellation" of it was completely meaningless. The only way to "cancel" a ceasefire is to resume hostilities. I thought that was self evident. Do you understand now? Good.

If you need any further help understanding my "complex" and "confusing" posts, feel free to simply ask me for clarification next time instead of ranting and raving like a degenerate lunatic looking for a fight.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Stellar

[Corp]

First, I wasn't blaming the U.S. for the current hostilities - I personally believe that both parties hold equal blame for the state of North Korea. All I was doing was explaining to Lib why the North Korean leadership is so paranoid towards the U.S., and I thought I had made that clear.

Second, that is not the 'way war was fought'. After WW2 the World brought about international treaties and laws to prevent the sort of massacre of that war; the sort of massacre that happened in Korea. The UN Charter was signed, the Geneva Convention, and the Declaration of Human Rights, all of which the U.S. were great advocates and signatories of. So the old, 'it was just the way things were' argument really doesn't hold up. Would you use the same argument for atrocities carried out during the Vietnam War, also? Of course the North were also guilty of crimes, but they were nowhere near the scale of devastation of the U.S. crimes, and more often than not, carried out against other soldiers, not entire towns and villages.

Third, the embargoes and sanctions have been a direct cause of North Korea's communism model. As soon as the Soviet Union fell - their greatest ally, along with China - they were punished for their communist model, then in the mid 90s the punishment had its greatest effect, with the mass famine they experienced. These two things are directly related and all part of documented record.

Fourth, I was not absolving North Korea's leaders of any responsibility for the way they have treated their civilians (again, I thought I had made this clear). I was simply explaining the reasons for their paranoia, and that it was directly related to the U.S. treatment of the country. This is not even controversial, Corp. Now, while I do believe that there is an element of 1984 in their policies, I do not believe it is so for the same reasons as Orwell put forward. Theirs is a totalitarian state born through paranoia and fear of the South and U.S.. The fear and paranoia is probably warranted, their actions are not.

I'm sorry Expand but it does sound like you're blaming the current situation on the US. How I read your argument was that the North Korean leaders are bad, but it's only because the US was mean to them. That somehow America is to blame for North Korea being nuke happy. It shifts the blame and give the North Korean leaders an out, and I feel that this is wrong to do. Yes America did nasty things during the war, just like all sides did, but that does not warrant the level of paranoia they've kept up over the past sixty years.

Your position about the bombings, which I want to make clear that I believe were horrible, is that this is why North Korea is crazy and paranoid. That their aggressive actions are only a result of the Korean War. However as I pointed out both Japan and Germany suffered similar bombing campaigns and you yourself have noted that during the Vietnam War other nations suffered under American military strikes. However none of them have reached the level of paranoia and international hostility that the North Koreans have. Japan and Germany are allies of the US and even Vietnam is willing to work with them. So I don't see how you can directly link the American bombing campaign with the current North Korean outlook. Plus during the war the South suffered almost as many civilian loses, 850,000 compared to 1.13 million, and they seem willing to accept the status quo. A far more reasonable explaination is that they're just mad the US won't let them conquer South Korea.

The sanctions were not a result of communism. If they were China and Vietnam and other countries who followed a communist model would have been hit would the same sanctions. They weren't. Thus communism didn't have a damn thing to do with the sanctions. Instead it was a result of North Korea starting up their nuclear program with the aim of creating weapons. The US even gave them a few nuclear reactors in the 90s in an effort to get them to stop their program. Hell the Sunshine Policy tried to breakdown some of the sanctions without asking the North to change their government. Plus these sanctions started coming into play while North Korea started getting rid of mentions to communism and moved more towards a military dictatorship. Communism didn't have thing one to do with the sanctions.

The famine was not the result of sanctions but rather the collapse of the Soviet Union (their main aid supplier), widespread flooding, and poor government policy. In 1993 China was proving them with 68% of their food imports, but then suffered their own shortage which resulted in a cut to aid. Of course the government didn't to much to help, trying to use propaganda instead of actual solutions. Then there was the flooding that not only destroyed crops but also destroyed emergency food reserves that were stored underground. A few years into the famine the North Koreans were being provided food aid from the UN, South Korea, the US, China, and other nations. So to pin blame for the famine on American sanctions is plain wrong. National disasters, the loss of key allies, and the North Korean government are to blame.

I agree that the North is massively paranoid of the US and the South. But claiming that paranoia is justifed? No, not at all. Both the US and South Korea have shown time and time again that they're willing to leave the North on its own and have made several attempts to improve relations. Plus with China watching over them North Korea has always had a strong ally to protect them. Yet despite this North Korea continues to make threats and has come close to restarting the war several times. They started the Korean War. They built tunnels under the DMZ to provide them with invasion routes. They have opened fire on South Korean forces several times. They are the aggressors in this case. They build up the paranoia against the US not because the Korean War left them deep cultural scars but because it suits their needs. It provides them with a big bad enemy that they use to justify their military spending. As a target for all their problems. As someone for their people to hate instead questioning why blind women are forced to work in the mines. Because thanks to the US they weren't able to conquer South Korea.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Corp

[shrooma]

I wasn't suggesting that they weren't building reactors for power. I think you're misunderstanding my meaning.

I didn't mention anything about India's thorium production. They may well be concentrating on thorium

(which was the original point being made that you replied to).

.

my mistake ex, sorry.

(it IS my birthday, and the brandy has been flowing like.. erm.... wine, since dinnertime.....

[Himawari69]

.

hima, you can't base an opinon on just one source, you have to hear the tale from every perspective, and then decide how you feel.....

.

hima, you can't base an opinon on just one source, you have to hear the tale from every perspective, and then decide how you feel.....

I did hear the tale from every perspective, there was a soldier that had to leave North Korea because he accidentally broadcasted the wrong news and they were going to kill him ( stupid reason to kill someone for) he managed to escape to the south but his friend got electrocuted from the fence bordering the north( poor guy never made it) anyway they asked him what became of his family and he just cried and said "I'd rather not talk about it" anyway the camera people managed to interview a few people and they're not allowed to talk ill about the governor or they will be killed, they're also not allowed to leave the place or have contact with other countries-sounds like a prison to me

[shrooma]

At least take-out the leadership with one good bomb while they're congregated at some function.

.

(and then the oscars.

and parliament.

x-factor auditions.

-insert country- got talent.

congress.

justin beiber's next studio session.

justin beiber.

for a start....)

;-)

[shrooma]

Now let me rephrase my post in a way that the simpleminded may understand:

.

which part of the word 'intent' are you having trouble with, god?

would you like me to post a link to the OED, or would that just be me 'strolling around' talking sh!t about something I 'know nothing about'?

wind your neck in, boy.

i'm p!ssed, and can still see both sides of an argument, whereas you don't seem to be able to see the side you're on.

and please, condescend to me some more, as i'm not done with tonight's 'meh' quota.

[Stellar]

Are you thick or are you just slow? My whole point is that you can't just "cancel" a ceasefire. You are either not engaged on hostilities, or you are engaged in hostilities. It doesn't make sense to say that you're "canceling" a ceasefire yet won't engage in hostilities as that is nothing more than a contradiction---meaning that they're either trying to look completely stupid if they do that, or this "cancelation" is synonymous to "were going to attack you"

[CrimsonKing]

.

my mistake ex, sorry.

(it IS my birthday, and the brandy has been flowing like.. erm.... wine, since dinnertime.....

Happy B-day shrooma!

I actually could add a bit to this discussion as far as the history of it,my grandfather was a marine during the Korean war and i have been taught a great deal on it.From what i have read so far though this subject can bring about some arguing and im sick so i dont feel like arguing lol

One of the more interesting subjects about this war look up the "The Frozen Chosin"