Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons
steelvadi writes "North Korea has now admitted to possessing nuclear weapons. Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington. It was also stated that N. Korea will not be reentering negotiations on disarmament for the foreseeable future. "
In Korea, only old people have nuclear weapons.... Uh, nevermind :)
Iraq was disarmed just in time!
We all knew this already, but I wonder if we should worry more now that they've admitted it.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Replace "admits" with "brags" and then further replace "brags" with "bluffs" and then it might be a little more true.
This is obviously a serious matter, but we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I guess I won't be renewing my sattelite TV subscribtion.
As I understand it WMD:s are only a threat if the dictator doesn't admit to having them!
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
In other news, Darth Vader is Luke's Father.
Politics is so weird. An announcement that tells us something we already knew becomes big news.
This is par for the course with North Korea. 1. Make ridiculous, aggressive statements in the media. 2. Pull out of talks. 3. Demand concessions. 4. Get concessions. 5. Restart talks. 6. Repeat. yawn. nothing to see here.
i saw this post regarding iran's nuclear weapons program yesterday, that is relevant to korea as well: "Ending Iran's WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent. Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world." -James, Newcastle, UK
so the huge explosion in NK (previously on slashdot somewhere)was a neuclear test or what?
Freedom or George Bush
1) Withdraw our troops from SK and clear the area for what comes next. 2) Let China deal with it.
"It was inevitibible..."
"I'm sorry, what?"
"Inevataball..."
"One more time?"
"INEVITABLE! Jesus christ! Why are people so fucking stupid?!"
I'm sure there will be a lot of jokes about WMDs etc but this is a clear and present danger. North Korea, as displayed by their current actions, is unpredictable. While many will say it's common knowledge that North Korea had nuclear weapons, this is a big deal in that they admitted it.
What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it. The 6 party talks only resumed a few weeks ago I believe. This can't be a good thing that they've stop talks.
My nervous level has moved up to Red (sorry had to end with a joke).
-Teiresias
Sorry North Korea but you don't seem to be in the Middle East.. NO WAR FOR YOU! Iran however....
Rice says: "The North Koreans have no reason to believe that anyone wants to attack them. They have been told they can have multilateral security assurances if they will make the important decision to give up their nuclear weapons program. So there is really no reason for this, but we will examine where we go next."
Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe North Korea has no reason to believe anything the Bush administration says? Maybe if Bush builds up some goodwill and trust then the North would be willing to resume negotiations. You don't negotiate with someone you think is lying to you.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
I thought 'why on earth is this article themed with the US flag - are north korean WMD only of interest to usa citizens?' then I realised that was the theme for politics.slashdot.org.
Then I thought 'why on earth is this category themed with the US flag - are politics of interest to usa citizens?'
Don't worry. My toaster was made in North Korea and it sucks.
North Korea:
Dictator: Check
Oppressed people: Check
No legitimate elections: Check
WMDs: Check
Threatening to the West: Check
Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...
...if you were surprised by this admission. Anyone?
*crickets*
Thought not. See, North Korea is a real threat. Probably why Bush is ignoring it. Unlike those massive armed-to-the-teeth maniacs hoarding nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in Iraq. Good thing we went in there. Seems like every man, woman, and child there had a shoulder mounted nuclear missile launcher.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
So what if North Korea has nukes? That's a good thing.
Same thing with Iran. I'm hoping they get nukes within a few years.
Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).
I've been saying this for a long time. Despite what the neocons would have you believe having nukes is a great way to make a country get its act together. In the case of North Korea they are protecting themselves from attack since any country that would attack them knows what to expect.
On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return.
The same with Iran.
To those who say that countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes is a bad thing because they could sell/give the info to terrorists, think again. In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.
On another point, take a look at India and Pakistan. They've had seven major wars since the two countries gained independence from Great Britain. However, as soon as India had their nuclear tests and Pakistan followed close behind, both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another.
I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Let's pretend you are a mid-east country. You say you don't mass destruction weapons. They send watchers who find nothing. Eventually when is clear they have no MDW and cannot harm us, you invade the country.
... yet" is she creating a menace? is she forcing the "axes of evil" to arm themselves "for protection"?
Maybe the solution is playing pretend: "OF COURSE I HAVE THEM AND I'M READY TO USE THEM ON YOU"
Jataimi in Iran is doing the same. What pretends C.Rice saying "we are not invading Iran
sad sad world.
We don't worry about the N. Korea nukes: CNN has
this morning already moved to a more relevant story:
"Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles".
You don't believe that North Korea was all sweetness and light until Washington got belligerent, do you?
Sustainability and energy independence essay
You may or may not remember that part of the UN resolution that stopped Gulf War I was not only that they end their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, but that they also show PROOF that they had done so. Saddam never presented any such proof. Hence, Saddam didn't comply with the UN resoltuions in the first place.
However, now this whole SNAFU is a convenient excuse to ignore UN resolutions, but again, they usually got ignored anyway.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
"The North also **repeated** a claim to have built nuclear weapons for self-defence."
2 52 481.stm
6 04 437.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4
Also:
"28 September: North Korea says it has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon said the weapons were needed for "self-defence" against "US nuclear threat". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2
This is just a repetition of a bargaining trick they've used before, do not listen to them.
They want us to be afraid of them as much as our leaders do....
Joseph Farthing
http://josephfarthing.com
"Israel
perhaps they could do the same and admit they have also illegally aqquired WMD too ?
then we can move on to sanctions and UN inspections"
No, it doesn't quite work like that. Whether you agree with it or not, we don't do that to our allies.... notice that france and england both have nuclear weapons also. (and i just found out today, belgium does too)
So what if he's dead, killed in that explosion, and they've been covering it up? NK is exactly the kind of place to try to do something like that.
Just a thought....
Send in "Team America" http://www.teamamerica.com/
Not that we didn't (or shouldn't have) know(n), but it presented a governing coalition with an agenda and a chip on it's collective shoulder an excuse, a mechanism by which to dupe a credulous population.
I think this particular whack job (Kin Jong Il) wants the sort of respectful, diplomatic (by comparison) treatment Iran is getting, rather than the sabre rattling it gets now. Let's face it, if South Korea weren't completely held hostage and likely to lose 10^6 people in a week should a real war break out, North Korea would have already have been invaded.
Watch the far right go absolutely ape-shit on this one.
Note to any far-right-wingers reading this (by any odd chance): Please, PLEASE don't start a war with the North Koreans. Kim Jong Il is crazy. Please, PLEASE don't threaten a crazy man.
Sad thing is, he's right when he claims that they need the weapons as a defense against the US. Our current President thinks he's a cowboy, and treats every encounter with a nation that doesn't agree with us as a showdown in front of the OK Corral. He thinks he's the guy wearing the badge and they're the evil felon in all black... Well, it ain't that simple. North Korea might be evil, but the US is evil too. Just less evil (arguably) and evil in different ways.
North Korea doesn't, for instance, operate a huge network of sweatshops all around the world to supply its uncaring citizens with cheap clothing. It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV that attempts to turn the whole country into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry. The US (specifically, its businesses, with the tacit approval-- or at least complete lack of viable disapproval-- of its government) does those things, however.
American businesses are just slightly less corrupt than North Korean politicians. And have a whole boatload more power over the world at large.
The US vs. North Korea is not white vs. black. It's gray vs. slightly darker gray.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
for pulling Gen. MacArthur off the Korean war instead of letting him finish the job with more resources, at risk of War with China.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
...South Park creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, have been moved to an "undisclosed location."
sig not found
Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.
I can't say I agree with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but perhaps it will keep the US from invading another country.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack.
Rogue states always believed that a mixture of diplomatic stalling (cf. Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlements) and, most importantly, the relatively high cost of ground invasion and the reluctance to do so in a post-Vietnam world, is what protected them.
I also don't believe that posession of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to any U.S. military action, either, since these states seldom have the means to produce more than a handful of low-yield weapons and lack the ability to deliver them outside their own theater.
They're not defensive weapons unless they can be delivered against their adversary's homeland. You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg..
Furthermore these states (with the possible exception of North Korea) are rational actors and realize that the use of any nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies would result in a nucleare retaliation that would end their governments and quite possibly close the book on their nations.
Nuclear tests are now conducted underground. Above ground testing was banned by the UN decades ago and any country who has nuclear weapons has always tested them below ground. The exception being Israel who was testing its nuclear weapons with South Africa when sanctions were on South Africa for its apartheid policies.
No known large-scale tests were evidenced but there is some evidence to support small tests as seismic data indicated unusual earthquake-like motion.
As far as seismic data is concerned with North Korea, since they gave their info to Pakistan, who successfully set off at least one nuclear device, it would be reasonable to assume that North Korea knows its design will work.
Here are some links which show the before and after photos of Pakistans underground nuclear tests:
Link 1
Link 2
This link has a very nice and detailed story, with pics, about Indias nuclear tests as does this link.
In the case of Indias tests, there were some clouds thrown up but nothing near like one is used to seeing from the nuclear tests the U.S. performed in the Nevada desert.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Let's see, we already had direct negotiations with North Korea over nuclear proliferation.
Turns out that after agreeing to everything and getting their huge bribes (errr, international aid) they still went ahead and built the nukes.
You know there's supposed to be something used besides a carrot to make a carrot work.
Right now, the ONLY way to break the dead-lock with North Korea is to get China involved. China is the single largest supplier of aid to North Korea. If they agree to clamp down then something can be done, otherwise we're just sending more bribe money to a liar and a cheat.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Is that what you meant?
I can see how some people might find that "annoy[ing]".
It's just now officially policy.
The BIG question isn't the intentions of N. Korea but what the US will do.
The Sad part is, living in the US i don't even know what we will do. Isn't it great when the foreign policy of a nation is scretive to its own people that government is supposed to serve and protect?
I certainly hope it won't be war, i certainly hope our government can get back to civil politics and i hope that we learn from the past so we aren't doomed to repeat it.
Iraq never 'kicked out' the weapons inspectors in 1998, Clinton pulled them out. They were never asked to leave, they were never threatened, they were never forced out of the country.
Iraq may have been in non compliance with inspection requirements, but thats not to say that the UK/US invasion was legitimate or legal. There was a reason this wasnt a UN led operation, the lack of convincing evidence presented to the UN security council. Those who voted against military action in the security council based on the evidence presented were ultimately proved right - so far theres been nothing of any substance discovered.
Hans Blix is also quoted as saying Iraq did not possess the weapons or materials that the US and the UK said they did - but I see most people overlook this little matter. Face it, Iraqs invasion was Bushes way of tying up loose ends rather than anything legitimate and good. The arguement that 'Saddam was a bad man' doesnt hold up. Yes, its good hes gone, yes, he was evil. Unfortunately, when you dispose of governments in that way, you face a very real risk of becoming that which you are dealing with.
I'm So Ronery
I'm so ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone
There's no one
Just me onry
Sitting on my rittle throne
I work very hard and make up great prans
But nobody ristens, no one understands
Seems that no one takes me serirousry
And so I'm ronery
A little ronery
Poor rittre me
There's nobody
I can rerate to
Feer rike a bird in a cage
It's kinda sihry
But not rearry
Because it's fihring my body with rage
I work rearry hard and I'm physicarry fit
But nobody here seems to rearize that
When I rure the world maybe they'rr notice me
But untir then I'rr just be ronery
Rittre ronery, poor rittre me
I'm so ronery
I'm so ronery
For a better albeit incomplete analysis of the rest, like the "help", see here. For a timeline, see this.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
...how is the oil situation in North Korea?
North Korea got its nuclear technology from China and Russia. The proliferation-resistant pressurized water reactors (primarily financed and built by S. Korea) which were part of the Clinton deal are not even partially completed.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Nope. Pakistan and North Korea has traded missiles and nuclear device to each other. North Korean nuclear weapons are from Pakistan and they are tested indeed.
#include std_disclaimer.h
Except that the US accused Iraq of driving around their labs on trucks (nice made up pictures btw.) and even lied to the UN about baby massacres. As you might remember, Iraq did give a shitload of paper and CDs with "Proof", but unfortunately "too late" for the Bush-administration. IMHO, that "too late" smells a lot like "we don't care what you say, we will invade you anyway....". Oh, and the UN inspectors were making great progress when they were taken out of the country to prepare the attack. (And please no more "they didn't follow the UN resolution", there are plenty of other resolutions not followed but you don't see the US enforcing them....)
Move Sig. For great justice.
Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly December 8, 2001
Pakistan spy service 'aiding Bin Laden' 30 December, 2001
Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead 23 December, 2001
Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden dead January 18, 2002
Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admits December 6, 2004
A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin Laden December 13, 2004
Protest at Musharraf's army role 19 December, 2004 So much for us supporting democracy and "freedom"
Musharraf Scorns Nuclear Probe
Home of the unqualified opinion!
Well, here's mine. It hasn't been brought up yet, so let's see if anyone considers it insightful...
The Chinese are not our enemies in this issue. They actually fear a totally destabilized N. Korea as well. That they came to the rescue in the Korean War belies a much more complicated truth about the relationship between Koreans and Chinese. China, on the verge of becoming the 2nd superpower economically, is really not all tha keen on seeing Kim Il Jong do things like test fire intermediate range missiles into the Sea of Japan. They know that quite a few U.S. boomers are riding the coast of Korea, and will have Trident IIs arriving on target in minutes if we think a nuke had been actually launched, at either the West Coast (which we know they cannot yet reach) or Japan. And they know that the Chinese would not respond.
The worst case scenario really is, that NK's increasing starving and helpless population is thrust under some stupid pretext into an attack on S. Korea and a nuclear weapon is moved to the front and detonated and then denied. Again, I think the U.S. would go nuclear if that happened.
Prosperity of S. Korea combined with an internal assassination campaign is probably Washington's strategy. It's best to fight this one using spies and satellites, a conventional invasion would be pointless and unlike Iraq, we don't want to assert control over the region.
"...all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough."
That's absolute bullshit. We NEVER ignored North Korea. North Korea was second only to Iraq in terms of rogue nations we were concerned with. Not even Iran ranked that high until now. Have you ever actually LISTENED to Bush's speeches on national security? Hello Axis of Evil!
And this begs the question, what would you have the President do about NK? Hmmm? Diplomacy? We've been doing that intensley. Sanctions? They're starving already, and I doubt you would have supported that option anyway. Invasion? I KNOW you wouldn't have supported that. So other than just criticizing Bush, what would you have had him do? Throw money at North Korea? We've BEEN doing that for over a decade. Hell, Clinton GAVE them reactor technology if they'd promise pretty please not to use it for military applications. Unhhh huhhhh. THAT was bright, eh?
So do you actually have any solutions to the NK problem? Or are you just going to bash Bush for it?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It's been known, or at least very strongly suspected, that North Korea has had a nuclear weapons programme for 10 years. In terms of their position of strength against SK "admission" makes very little difference.
The US government's standard line is that countries must permit inspection and monitoring and 'come clean' about their weapons. Iraq's failure to do so was the legal justification for the US invasion.
It may be that in admitting that they have a programme North Korea is aiming to be recognised as a state making moves to defend itself, rather than a danger to international security.
There appears to be a movement to reduce the personality cult and begin to behave as a less totalitarian regime, although probably still a hereditary dictatorship, this may be evidence thereof.
So let me get this straight. They protest that the US government is hypocritical because it doesn't support human rights and you offer as defense that something about American nuclear policy?
How about this:
Bush in his State of the Union address said that it was the goal of the US to promote freedom thoughout the world, for all people everywhere.
Meanwhile, he appointed one of the masterminds of the American human rights abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as the chief law enforcement officer in the US.
It sure doesn't sound like he's very sincere.
So what does the Doomsday clock say about this? I'll put my money on five minutes to (it's currently at seven minutes to, and i think the closest we've ever been was two minutes to in 1953).
An excerpt from Joe Vialls : Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam
... intelligence reports that the Russians have already moved three deep-drilling rigs into impoverished North Korea, where they intend to repeat the Vietnamese production cycle by drilling thought solid granite and basalt, with not a single trace of the 'decaying marine life' so essential to blinkered western geologists for the 'accepted' production of crude oil. It may take a while, but ultimately the North Koreans will be able to go about their sovereign business without the Zionist Cabal in New York being able to blackmail them over a few ship loads of food-aid rice. Yes indeed, Korea will eventually have an oil surplus of its own, allowing it to tell the latest in a long line of terminally insane "New World Orders" to go to hell."
"After more than 60 years of being enslaved, pillaged, and raped by the French and then by the Americans, the poor Vietnamese were told officially by American oil multinationals that their country was barren; that western 'cutting edge' technology had failed to find anything to help them recover financially from the mess left behind by American bombs, Agent Orange, and a host of other delightful gifts from Uncle Sam. This of course was exactly where America wanted the Vietnamese to be: desperately poor and unable to take action against their former invaders.
The Russians had other ideas and a very different approach. After telling the Vietnamese that the Americans had lied to them, oil experts were flown in from Moscow to prove this startling claim in a no-risk joint venture, meaning the Russians would provide all of the equipment and expertise free of charge, and only then take a percentage of the profits if oil was actually found and put into production. Vietnam had absolutely nothing to lose, and swiftly gave Russia the green light.
The Vietnamese White Tiger oil field was and is a raging success, currently producing high quality crude oil from basalt rock more than 17,000 feet below the surface of the earth, at 6,000 barrels per day per well. Through White Tiger, the Russians have assisted the Vietnamese to regain part of their self respect, while at the same time making them far less dependent on brutal western nations for food-aid handouts.
All of a sudden in a very small way, Vietnam has joined the exclusive club of oil producing nations, and a stream of cynical U.S. Senators and Congressmen have started making the long pilgrimage to Ho Chi Minh City in order to 'mend fences'. Predictably perhaps, the Vietnamese are very cool, and try hard to ignore their new American admirers.
Welcome to the White Tiger oil field in Vietnam. Observe the truly amazing oil flares, in an area the Americans officially declared 'barren' of oil reserves !
It is truly amazing how quickly good news travels [outside of CNN], and in a very short space of time China was also engaged in a joint super deep venture with Russia. Nor did it end there.
The reality is that the US is the largest holder of nuclear weapons in the world right now. The US is then the one telling everyone else to disarm their weapons? Not only that, but the US has just invaded TWO (read: TWO) countries in the past TWO YEARS, with eyes set on a third (Iran)- each of the two invaded showed no evidence of having nuclear weapons of any kind, and really posed a minimal threat overall towards the US (in comparison to the retailiation).
So can you blame them for hanging on to some weapons? Either the whole world disarms at once (creating well... peace) or nobody's going to do it... especially with a president who lies to his entire country to further his personal agenda.
N. Korea is its own country governed by its own laws and operating its own military. Until it uses these weapons against another country, we can't say a thing.
We all know the power of nukes- nobody will blindly send a nuke unless the US is dumb enough to go in there- oh crap- we're screwed!
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
According to the text of their statement, reported on the BBC, they listened to Bush's Coronation, er, Inaugural speech, and his State of the Union, and what adminitstration officials are saying to Congress, and concluded that Bush wants to overthrow the regime.
Why on *earth* would they be afraid that the US might bomb them, or even invade them? I just *can't* Iraq, er, imagine why they'd think this of the US.
So, who here is enlisting so that they can fight in a nuclear war agasist North Korea, which of course will result in a few casualties...like fallout all over the west coast of the US and Canada? Who here, that's in the US, is offering to pay more taxes for this?
Right, just as I thought.
mark
The only nukes they have are in StarCraft.
name one big nation with nukes, sarin, a big army, a hostile attitude and a moron as president.
the influence of that nation, at the moment, is bigger than that of NK...
Privacy is terrorism.
Let's see a test, otherwise NK is just blustering.
Depends on your version of innocent. If having nuclear weapons makes a state inherently evil, then that'd make USA, France, UK and Russia all evil. I think perhaps that being told not to develop nukes by a nation loaded with nukes is a little hypocritical. Sure, the stakes just got higher, we're really gonna have to learn to play nicely now. And that means everyone.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
We invade the guy who doesn't have 'em, but who killed some of his people. In the process we kill a few hundred thousand.
We let the guy who DOES have them and lets his people starve to death sit around in his palace while we throw money and food at them.
I like how this works.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I think it also might have to do with some VERY high up people in the UN, France and others making tons of illegal money off the "Oil for Food" fiasco...Saddam was paying them off, and they didn't want the gravy train to end, nor have it revealed what they were doing...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Whatever the ulterior motives, the REASON stated for voting against military action was ultimately proved correct.
If more people had nukes, the US wouldn't be so prone to bully around.
Plus it's about time we stop being hypocritical. We have nukes for the same reasons.
My sig is as boring as you...
The question of whether or not the DPRK deserves nuclear weapons begs this question: Does the DPRK government have a right to exist?
The answer: no.
The DPRK is a brutish, thuggish, criminal (in the literal sense) despotic regime. A tiny elite minority of sycophants surrounding Kim tyrannize and starve millions of Koreans.
No such regime has any political, moral or ethical right to exist.
The deliberately ignorant naivete of those who argue that the DPRK is threatened by the U.S., using the war the north launched more than 50 years ago and refuses to settle as an excuse, is toadyism in exterme form.
If organizations like the UN, ASEAN, etc., are so dead set on helping people, why haven't they done anything to get rid of these people? All they do is beg aid money from the West to feed and support the victims of these criminals. But, without eliminating the victimizers, this aid is reminiscent of medieval Europeans dancing and singing to stop the plagque, while the rats feasted on their waste in the streets.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I remember Hans Blix being quoted as saying that Iraq had failed to account for a large quantity of declared WMD stock piles.
Many people seem to have gotten the whole burden of proof thing ass-end-to. It was Iraq's responsibility to live up to the agreements it made when the cease-fire was negotiated. Iraq singularly failed in that matter and despite numerous warnings, second, third, and fourth chances they continued to play cat and mouse over it.
Sometimes the mouse gets eaten.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
This reminds me very much of an interview with a violent gang member, about 6 years ago. He claimed gang members had to have guns, to defend themselves against the police.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Not really true. The deal struck by Albright in 2000 was that the NK nuclear weapon program would be shut down and the US would build a nuclear power generating station. Then the US welched on the deal and did not build a plant (under direction from the new administration in the White House; Bush. They also took a much more hardline stance on NK. So the North Koreans resumed their actions.
The USA has had NORAD and the DEW line for about 50 years, Space Command and the KH-nn satellite system for nearly 40 years. The DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) will not be launching nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles at the USA without the threat of total destruction.
Missiles that the DPRK currently has can travel nearly 7,000 miles, which puts more than 1/3 of the USA within their range - think Boulder CO and Cheyenne Mountain, and not just Hawaii.
The DPRK also has submarines sold to them by our friends the Russians - they aren't nuke powered
but they are quiet. The best-guess scenario would be that the DPRK delivers a few nukes by submarine to the USA's west coast, or smuggles them across the nearly wide-open borders. Hand-delivered nukes can be shielded much better against
radioactive emmissions than any missile-borne WMD, which would thwart the USA's highlysecretive NEST teams. Without the tell-tale trace of a ballistic launch, which would pinpiont the country of origin, the USA would have a hard time determining whether a nuclear explosion onUS soil was a result of hostile action by Al-Queda, the DPRK, or any other member of the nuclear "club" (or some combination thereof).
"Dubya's" entire "justification" for a preemptive
war in Iraq is nonsense, since even Dr. Rice admitted before cameras (check out the M.Moore
Fahrenheit 9-11 DVD) that Saddam did not have WMD capabilities, well before initiating war. But what this war has done is to draw down USA defense forces in the homeland, leaving our borders and seaports insecure, and our nation's financial
health at risk. The DPRK does not have oil - if they did, "Dubya" would have gone there first. OTOH, the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) does have oil and is trying to become a member of the nuclear club. But they also have a population of 75 million, which could make a USA invasion very risky (as opposed to Iraq's population of 25 million). Of the three members of "Dubya's Axis of Evil", Iraq posed as the weakest and most tempting target - beaten in one war, strangled by UN sanctions, AND with nearly 1/2 of all known oil reserves. The Bush team did the math, figured the odds, and THEN tried to build the justification for war with Iraq.
The Bush administration has been counting on pressure from the PRC on the DPRK to halt their nuclear program. 80 percent of all foreign aid
flowing into the DPRK comes from the Chinese, not the RoK or the West. Let's just call that a big bad judgement call, because the DPRK is a client state of (and proxy for) the PRC. The PRC's rapid industrialization has made it the fastest growing importer of oil, which they recognized as an economic weakness for a long time. That is why they have been so deeply involved in the Middle East for as long as they have - both as an ally to these OPEC countries and as a "spoiler" to the West. Before Gulf War (I), it was Chinese "silkworm" missiles that threatened oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, deployed along the IRI coastline. And the PRC was the "hidden hand" behind the DPRK's nuclear and missile trade with Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan that brought Pakistan into the nuclear club.
You don't really thing that it was just a mistake
that the CIA made when the USA targeted the PRC
embassy in Iraq during Gulf War (I), "mistaking"
it for the Iraqi military intelligence building?
The DPRK presents the biggest threat to its regional neighbors, as it has been for 25 years.
Japan would do well to become a member of the
nuclear club, and quickly, as a counter to both
the DPRK's and the PRC's ambitions of regional hegenomy. They might have to re-write their
constitution to do so, but so be it.
Well, because it's news for everyone (including nerds) and stuff that definitely matters..
Whenever the Americans stir up the terrorists, we wind up with fallout. In the case of North Korea, that'd be nuclear fallout.
you're one of the hurd. (ask Stallman for more info)
1)WMDs *were* an excuse, I think by now everyone (not being a sheep) can agree on that.
2)The oil, aside from geopolitical reasons, has always been an important consideration; to claim differently is naive (at best). If the war in Iraq had gone the way the USA government had forseen it, oil would have spiced the USA economy already. And more then it ever could with the sanctions in place, as another poster already explained.
3)Yes, Saddam commited terrible crimes to his own people, however, this was never mentionned as the prime cause for going to war. In fact, international law does not allow to invade a sovereign country because it has a dictator commiting crimes. Besides, the USA has held (and helped) dictators in power that commited terrible acts against the populace, as long as the dictator was cooperative. The argument that they invaded Iraq for that reason (as only is argumented now, afterwards) would be more convincing if the USA didn't show they were perfectly prepared to help dicators, as long as it suited them.
3)There was a majority? Must have misread about pretty much all of the world-opinion, then. That US politicians were in support says more about the majority of them (linked with sheep) then anything else. But then, a pretty much biased media and the developed national-zealot-reflex of pretty much all americans goes a long way in explaining it.
4)"There is a difference between a threat to the country and a threat to human life. North Korea doesn't pose a direct threat to the US..." Indeed. Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA. And while you claim there is no mass-murder (how would you know that?) also in N.Korea people are being tortured and killed; so where does that leave you, with your justified reason to go to war? And btw, if anything, since N.Korea has nukes AND rockets, it poses a far greater threat to the USA then Iraq ever did. And they aren't predicatable at all, which has been proven by the numeous times they reacted on the 6-countries talk. Predicatble and knowing his intentions...geez. You are completely inventing this, aren't you?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Iraq has oil, therefore we invest in invading and occupying.
North Korea does not, therefore we save money by pursuing diplomacy.
I don't understand how any of those goddamn Right-wing nut-jobs out there can possibly not see how much bullshit there is in the Bush Administration's policy. We go after the non-threat while the threat is sitting there bragging at us all the while about how they are actively developing WMD.
I am so sick of these stupid fuckers making big mistakes for which we will all have to pay dearly.
Join Tor today!
Good for them.
It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.
Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.
They are busy starving, and not menacing us.
They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.
They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.
Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.
The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like.
With all the talk about Iraq, this is what I have to say.
Saddam Hussein gased HIS OWN people with Tabun and VX poison gas.
sarcasm {
nooo...He never had WMDs
}
ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
So, basically, instead of having to rattle sabres with conventional arms to get food and infrastructure aid from the US, South Korea, Japan, and China, North Korea now has a nuclear saber to rattle and extort food and infrastructure aid from the same. Don't forget that Korea also has the No Dong missile (that is not a joke, No Dong means "long march" in Chinese, and is not a reference to asian phallic dimensions) that was developed with Chinese assistance. So now the sabre rattling isn't just a threat of regional instability, but one of direct first strike: A No Dong tipped with a small nuke can reach Alaska, South Korea, Northern Hokkaido, and parts of China.
Incidentally, Bush called out North Korea in his infamous Axis of Evil speech. It's worth pointing out that Pyongyang sold parts and expertise on the No Dong to Iran which has resulted in an Iranian long range missile capable of hitting large swaths of the middle east. While Iran is a bit more stable and diplomatically minded, do not underestimate the radical hard line elements in the Iranian government. And do not think for one second that Iran's recent rapid progress in nuclear arms development is all home grown; its no coincidence that their program is running slightly behind, if not parallel to, North Koreas.
With America's nuclear stockpiles aging and in need of redesign/refit, don't be surprised if the next decade sees an East/West nuclear arms race. If ever there was a time to push ballistic missile defense, now is it.
"Note that some European nations have been complicit, particulary France, in aiding these rogue nations developing these weapons."
Not like the USA, who merely sold tons of chemicals to Saddam, even well aware they were going to be used as chemical weapons against his people. Even after he massacred a whole village with those chemicals, the USA happily supplied him with more.
"Nice try blaming the U.S., but unless North Korea travelled in time, going to the future, to see the 2nd Iraq war, you can hardly say they accelerated their Nuke program because of it. Iran had a nuke program long before the U.S. invasion. Libya had a nuke program before the invasion."
Ofcourse, there was also the 1st Iraq war, and besides that, your argumentation lacks coherency. In what way does it exclude that the nations, even if they already had nuclear programs as you claim, accelaerated that program after the Iraq-wars? I fail to see any logic in this particular reasoning of you.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Bushy plan:
(1) Find a country that disagrees with you.
(2) Economically and politically sideline them, till it becomes a tough place to live for the citizens, and blame the govt
(3) Call them terrorists for owning ANY weapons (OMG! they have knives!!!)
(4) Lie to link them with some bomb that went off somewhere in USA regardless of why
(5) Invade regardless of the lives lost
(6) Give the govt to ANY group of people but sideline the other groups, so the imbalance keeps the country divided and makes it a timebomb rather than some economic power
(6) Put in a puppet govt by holding elections with only the possible puppets as candidates and siphon off any possible natural resources
(7) Profit!!!!!
This works well for Afghanistan and Iraq, and seems to be working on Iran and N Korea currently.
But what I find quite funny is the extraordinary lack of symmetry. The US has nuclear weapons. Why? Because of rogue countries like N Korea which might use them. N Korea has Nuclear weapons, why? Because rogue nations like USA might attack. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why? Because India might attack.
Whats worse is that the use of Biological and Chemical weapons by the Americans on civilians anywhere has been more extensive than by Saddam on Kurds. USA has been the only country in history to drop nuclear weapons on civilian cities. Now it is attacking another country for owning nuclear weapons, which it does in case the USA attacks.
So the big bully in the playground first beats up the kid. Then the bully says dont defend yourself at all, or I'll beat you up. Then he tries to get support from his friends saying the kid is trying to defend himself, therefore he must be beaten up.
N Korea is a shithole. So was Afghanistan, so was Iraq. Thats because of the economic sidelining of Uncle Sam, which has full control over the global economy. N Korea in many ways is trying to kick start their economy with a free economy zone, attract tourists etc. Sure theyre not doing a good job of it, but thats because they also have to defend themselves of American infiltration. But economy is in their sights, and the people are still dying of hunger. Is it because they are completely incapable of manufacturing exportable goods? China is not a democracy, but they are exporting goods and a far smaller percentage is dying of starvation.
Interesting is also the case of Zimbabwe's president Mugabe. He was elected in an election. But since he disagrees with Britain, has the guts to flip em the bird, suddenly Zimbabwe is a terrorist country, with a dictator, and if their natural resources were sufficient, it would warrant an invasion by the white knights of the west. Rule: Never EVER disagree with the USA.
I think the USA turning into such a bully is a very natural part of any empire in history. As soon as they become the undisputed global leader, they use excessive political and military forces for their personal benefits, until they become the global villain enough to be toppled by another global regeime. Think of the Chinese empires, the Roman empire, Greek empire, Mongolian empire etc. Couple that with the fact that you cannot suppress any people for too long, the future does not bode well for the Americans
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
What are you basing your assertion that the gas was VX on? The DIA investigation determined that the Kurds had been killed by a cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time.
You bringing up the Geneva Convention is interesting given the large number of violations of that same convention committed by America and the UK since the invasion of Iraq. In fact, this is yet another form of what I was trying to convey with the comment about battlefields: war is wrong. As Donald Rumsfeld has reminded us over and over again, bad things happen in war. Whether Saddam actually ordered those Kurds gassed is questionable, but regardless of the truth using Saddam's violations and the killing of 5,000 civilians to justify our own violations, killing 100,000+ and counting just makes no sense. Two wrongs do not make a right. What does continuing the misdeeds of a tyrant at a larger scale make us?
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
1) Establish your currency as the only currency with which to purchase oil.
2) Print off money whenever you need, trade it with foreign nations for goods and services, knowing that it won't be redeemed for goods from your own country but rather hoarded and traded by other nations, and that your country will thus grow rich
3) Profit!
4) Notice that some scumbag in Iraq is trading oil for euros instead of dollars
5) Realize that if you can buy oil with euros instead of dollars all those dollars you printed are going to come home like so many bad cheques
6) Invade Iraq and establish a puppet government
7) Profit!
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
History is propaganda, the type of propaganda is determained by who is writing the history.
But if you make an effort to read and compare a wide enough range of historians and primary sources, you can sort out a much better approximation for the truth. My own efforts on this front have completely changed my understanding of politics and economics.
This is not how schools teach history, unfortunately. What you learn in school is indeed saturated with propganda.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
To quote an old saying: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."
Or in other words, adventures like Iraq and tough talk from Bush, Rice and others leads to the proliferation of weapons and increased likelihood of conflict. Less freedom, less security - double plus good?
What's that old adage about catching more flies?
;) This is also not unlike relations down at the person-to-person level. History will hopefully show that this whole Iraq thing, for example, wasn't a mistake, just a "short-term cost to achieve long-term gain" decision.
It took Europe (and the rest of the world) YEARS to realize that toothless agreements made with a certain German tyrant were ineffective and diplomacy had to give way to the use of force.
This is why there will always come a time when force becomes necessary (same as with human-human interactions), although we would obviously try to keep this to a minimum.
There will also come times when a country that believes that it is in the right (even to the disagreement of others), and has the bravery and might to make things right, does so
In any event, I wish that idealists would please give up their pipe dreams of world peace through diplomatic means only. It won't happen. As long as there will be violence in our society (bar fights, spouse abuse, child abuse, violent crime), there will be idiots in power that must be stopped with the use of force.
Excuse me, but your primary "source" of information regarding death tolls is an article without any citations from a propagana website. It also happens to be highly exaggerated.
I agree with the following statement from wikipedia:
"How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
When comparing death tolls, its important to keep in mind that the 8 to 20 million of people "killed" by Stalin for the most part are not people who were deliberately killed in the purges between 1936 and 1938. The 8 to 20 million is overwhelmingly people who incidentally died in famines that were partially the result of Stalin's economic policies.
I think including the famine numbers in the "death toll" figure is legitimate, even if those deaths were unintentional. If you don't think that's its reasonable to compare Hitler's Holocaust to Stalin's unintended economic blunders, then Hitler's death toll is far, far greater.
If you do think its perfectly fair to attribute deaths that are a direct if unintentional result of their actions to somebody's death toll, then I contend that nearly all fatalities of WWII (excepting China, Japan, and other Pacific casualties) are on Hitler's shoulder's. That would bring Hitler's death toll to about 70 million.
Either way, Hitler was the worse of the monsters.
Indeed, we might be closer. It is reasonable to limit any threat to yourself or your country, provided the measures taken are reasonable on themselves. A pre-emptive strike is not. But I think we agree on this.
Ofcourse, this is true for other countries as well.
Unfortunatly, the recent history shows us that the USA is:
1)Able AND willing to invade another country (even when not directly a threat), in a 'pre-emptive' manner.
2)The USA does not do the same (even when the same arguments/reasons apply) when it could seriously get hurt in the process.
Following those observations, and seen the fact that a country actually having nukes poses too great a risk for the USA to invade, the only logical conclusion for those countries (especially those on bad terms with the US) is that they *have* to have nukes, to be sure they will not get invaded.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This is an exaggeration, but there is some truth to it. This is one of the ways that our increasingly polarized society expresses itself. There are also many people who *never* acknowledge that the US has been a poor public citizen in the world. Not always, but we have had our bad moments.
As with any conflict it is no one's fault entirely. There are always things that both sides of a conflict could do to make things better. An honest discussion of current radical muslim terrorism (for example) would take into account the repressive and nihilist fundamentalism of the "terrorists" but would also recognize that the US has been overthrowing governments, exploiting local populations, and generally fscking with the Middle East region for half a century at least. This is bound to piss people off. Like the Merovingian said, it's all cause and effect.
"Brutal dictators that murder their own people? Blame us."
Again, this is one side of the issue. You may not like it (I sure don't) but we have, and continue to, arm brutal dictators around the world for our own purposes. It does not absolve the dictators of being brutal, but it is dishonest to pretend we had nothing to do with it. When Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds, or the Iranians, he was doing it with the knowledge and implicit consent of the United States government. Hell, we gave him sattelite pictures of Iranian troop movements so he could better target them with chemical weapons! But this is never discussed in public. Why is it unpatriotic to point out when my country is behaving badly? But as to why I am so hard on the US, it's because it's my country. I care more about how my country acts on the world stage (and domestically too of course). When George Bush says you are with us or against us, he is speaking for me. When he says the US won't join the world court because it won't give us immunity, he makes me look like a hypocrite.
I am hard on the US because I love the US. It is still the best country to live in IMHO. I cherish the rights and freedoms we have, and I am upset when I see them threatened. Not by an invading army, but by my own government.
"Maybe they should start acting a bit more rational and patriotic - and a bit less like homo pinko commie politcally correct appeaser pacifist traitors."
This type of language undermines whatever point you were making. The motto "My country, right or wrong" is not patriotic, it is nationalistic. There's a difference.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
America did not invent it, but it's the only country which _actively_ practices it in this generation.
It's a little more complicated than that, of course, but that is the general outline of the justification.
It is not in China's interest to see a neighboring country possess nuclear weapons. More generally, no country would ever like to see any other political force to possess nuclear weaposn, no matter how strong the alliance between the country and the political force would be. That is why Soviet Union did not want to help China develop nuclear weapon even when they were still in honey-moon in 1950's (hence Chinese had to do it on their own). That is why U.S. forced Taiwan to stop nuclear weapon development in 1970's.
Yep, nuke weapons are scary. Provided:
you can deliver them on target and on time.
That leaves N. Korea off the Threat Board.
"What to do? Sounds a little like a catch-22, but there is an answer. Don't build the nukes."
No, I just explained why: even when they won't, there is a chance they'll get invaded. That's what happend with Iraq, after all. So, are they going for that option? That's wishful thinking, not the obvious step of countries capable of creating nukes and on bad terms with the USA. As I said, seen that they feel threatened by the USA, those will create nukes. Exactly what N.Korea and Iran is doing.
It only looks like a catch 22 on first sight; in reality, even the USA can't permit to invade one country after another. It would be political and military suicide. I think it's all too obvious the USA has more then it bargened for in Iraq, and I don't think anyone would seriously believe the USA would invade another country, before they settled with Iraq first. Even the roman empire tried to avoid battling on two fronts at the same time.
So, in effect, the invasion of Iraq created at the same time the obvious pressure/threat of the USA *and* provided a period where it will rather bark then bite to other countries.
So, what they *really* think is: let's build nukes as fast as we can, so we're safe by the time the USA would feel arrogant enough to pre-emptively attack again.
As an european, I can relativate that to the current USA government, but I doubt those countries can or will.
And it must be said, while under Clinton relations over the big dipper were pretty good, I think most USA-citizens fail to realise how much sympathy the US has lost even among europeans. 'Our' politicians, being diplomatic, only show the top of the iceberg, really. The opinion about the USA among the people is hugely negative these days, and that sentiment is reflected by all layers of the populace.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I don't care anymore what North Korea has. As an American, I have no intention of paying a dime in extortion money to that psycho-midget. The psycho has starved, suppressed, and brutalized his own people in order to obtain nuclear weapons. I'm tired of playing 'who blinks first' games with the world, and I'm even more tired of some moron overseas making light of 9/11, and making statements about how Bush is 'evil'. Frankly I'm pretty damn happy we went after Afghanistan, and even more so that we went into Iraq. To hell with you people who said that Iraq would be like Vietnam -- what a load of crap; they just voted for the first time in over half a century. To hell with you people who indicate that Bush is making things worse... for the first time there's real potential for Palestinian/Israeli talks working out. To hell with the nay-sayers who are more pissed off that the world is actually being pushed into cleaning itself up. Personally I'm just tired of paying for the rest of the worlds incompetence. The US doesn't OWE the world a DAMN thing. We don't OWE foreign nations money to assist with banking, or monetary woes. We don't OWE the world foreign aid. We don't owe the damn world a thing and yet we still take on the worlds problems. We're still the first place the world turns whenever there's a major problem that needs to be cleaned up. I mean honestly... why the HELL do we need to be sitting at a table with North Korea?? OH that's right... because North Korea doesn't give a damn about China, South Korea, Japan, or any other nation in the area. They know the only nation worth a damn is the US. If europeans who're content to sit on their butts watching the US work think they can do it better... please, by all means go ahead and pay that psycho midget for more of his lies.
Look at Iraq today: Does it have elections? Yes Is it a working and stable democracy? Definitely not Are dozens of people dying every day, because the country is in a state of half a civil war? Yes Also, don't mistake voter turnout for a sign of a healthy democracy. Dictatorships usually have the highest turnouts in their fake votes than any real democracy and by some standards, the USA have the lowest voter turnout worldwide, yet it seems to be working well, doesn't it? No I'm not saying NK is good for the people, but Bush isn't likely going to attack NK anytime soon anyway. Look at Cuba for example. They have a regime that is non-democratic and in Bush's opinion would have to be replaced. Yet Cuba isn't that bad off and they have a health-care system that is splendid, particularly in rural regions. That system would collapse faster than you could say "splat", if the regime was overturned and the country emerged in a classical capitalist market. I seriously doubt they'd be better off without Castro, even if he has his faults. Iran is similar, only that their regime is founded on religion. Overturning their regime is like going into the Amazon and try to mission some indians that catholicism is the way to go. We stopped doing that 100 years ago, why start over now?
Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA
US intellegence agents, and Russian Intellgence agents, and Vladimir Putin all disagree with you and think that Saddam's regime was preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.
Now, do we have to wait for more American civilians to die (ala 9/11) before you are willing to let our president take action?
The anti-US propaganda surrounding this war has been disgusting.
There is all this talk of foreign aid to North Korea? South Korea has been trying to help with economics based initiatives.
US gives $1 billion to Israel each year mostly military stuff.
I just wanted to call bull shit on the size of North Koreas foreign aid.
Just another leftie [except when boxing]
Be Free: Free Software Tuition