Once again, history cannot be undone. You really aren't capable of understanding this, are you? Or would you prefer the entire planet go up in smoke because you'd prefer we treat North Korea "fairly" even in light of their dictator's idiocy? At minimum, a huge number of North Korean citizens are going to die if they don't handle their "leader."
when you call the leader of the bad guys insane it always means you are living in an ideological delusion.
Wrong. Any leader who allows hundreds of thousands of his own people to die of starvation and related illnesses is insane. Period. There is no debate on this.
I'm well aware that North Korea represents a "real" society. I'm also aware of the factual state of affairs that if they do not step up and deal with the dictator that is their leader, someone else will at massive cost to the people. It's their choice.
This isn't about fairness, and never will be. I don't give two shits about treating Kim Jong Il "fairly." It comes down to this: more nuclear weapons, in the hands of nations who already have unstable dictators, is not an acceptable situation. Either he'll back down or his people will deal with the consequences. It's up to them.
You're having a hard time understanding the concept that more nuclear weapons, in the hands of more countries, makes it all the more likely that somebody will do something stupid.
Funny thing about that all that: I'm 28, married, have proudly served in the US Navy's submarine force, have various hobbies, a diverse set of friends, and read everything I can get my hands on. In other words, I'm almost certain from your tone that I'm considerably more experienced and mature than you're likely to be in the next ten years. Buddy, my issue isn't lack of exposure, it's lack of tolerance for idiocy.
Again, you have no grasp whatsoever of how these things work. Yes, buddy, I am keenly aware of the fact that two bombs were dropped on Japan. It's still one terrible event in my mind.
You seem stuck on the issue of "hypocrisy." Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actually taking their missiles apart would be insanity.
Please tell me you're beginning to get some idea of why the idealistic idea of dismantling the world's stockpiles is utterly doomed to failure.
Glad you admitted you have absolutely no idea what it's like to live in the United States. Yes, we have serious problems in our government. All governments have serious issues. It's the nature of government, period.
If you are seriously attempting to compare everyday life in the U.S. to North Korea, you're completely out of your mind. I can write an opinion piece to the Atlanta Journal & Constitution declaring the President to be a bumbling buffoon, calling every Senator in Washington a bunch of dirty names, and expressing the opinion that Georgia's governor has terrible taste in suits. I run zero risk of being arrested for these acts.
Such behavior would most likely get me tortured to death in North Korea at worst, or locked up for ten years and "made an example of" at best.
Yeah, whatever, mod me troll, I just want to get my point out and I will no matter what.
Funny you should say that, if I had a dime for every time you've been modded troll in the last few days I could probably take a month off work. It must be very tiring to be proven inadequate on such a routine basis. See? I can try to get modded troll, too. The difference being I genuinely don't care, because I'm keenly aware that I have the background and life experience to back up my views. You, on the other hand, have... Slashdot.
Actually, to further your point, the DPRK has a lot more to lose should their iron-clad grip on a starving, crushed population begin to loosen. They're likely to blame such an occurrence on Western influence, and resort to rather irrational acts.
Anyway, lots of countries have nukes and eventually behave badly thanks to the extra insurance they give them.
The funny thing about multiple countries having nukes is the simple fact that it prevents any one country from behaving too badly. The human race is an aggressive, territorial, vengeful species. That's how we evolved, and it's how we're going to be until the term "economic scarcity" no longer has any meaning. Study it. Learn it. Live it.
There is a reason you continue to be modded down to negative numbers... perhaps you should invest some time in actually studying history, and less time in attempting to paint yourself as some sort of learned man on a mission to educate the world.
As for the use of nuclear weapons, all it took was once for the whole world to realize we should avoid such a situation at all costs. You're describing events that took place nearly a century ago and attempting to draw some sort of rational parallel to modern military tactics. That's insane at face value.
Like I told another poster, if you honestly believe North Korea represents a better life for you and your family I'll gladly buy you a one way plane ticket to the capital. Have fun expressing your political beliefs in that climate.
Again with this inane "he did it he did it" crap. Can you not get it through your thick head that we're dealing with a nation with openly expressed nuclear ambitions, the very same nation that operates one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet? If you think life in North Korea even remotely resembles life in the U.S., I'll gladly buy you a one way plane ticket to Pyongyang. Good riddance.
Sure, everyone who isn't a homocidal/genocidal maniac has the right to own a gun. When you're educated enough to join this discussion, please feel free to come back and play.
Until then, let's once again refer to core principles: (1) nuclear proliferation cannot be "undone", (2) unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream, and (3) multiple wrongs DO NOT make a right, especially where maniacal dictators are involved.
Right, the US is running around making sweeping genocidal threats. You're living in a fantasy land. How's the view from there? Whenever you're ready to join the world of the sane, let me know. I'll have your meds ready for you, kid.
You don't seem to get it. We're accelerating toward a situation where massive loss of civilian life is inevitable. There is no good solution when the man in power is insane. It will simply be a question of which side the losses occur on, assuming that a preemptive strike by a nuclear nation is an open option.
I'll support us destroying our nuclear stockpile just as soon as I have 100% assurance that the rest of the nuclear-equipped nations are doing the same, simultaneously.
Obviously, this is never going to work. The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. What's important now is determining the likelihood that an aggressive nation bent on insane policy will use nuclear weapons on their neighbors... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea.
This little thing involving a nation called Kuwait, shitloads of oil (lots of wells set ablaze during the Iraqi retreat, as I recall), the global market for petroleum, and the complete and total destabilization of the balance of military power in the Middle East under the influence of a madman come to mind. Just a few factors, of course... daddy Bush should have finished the job the first time. We wouldn't have even had the opportunity to clean up his mess in recent (and ongoing) history if he'd got it right when he had the chance.
you have the problem that this will cause a massive loss of life in the north that is not limited to, or even primarily, military.
You're right, there's no good answer, and there hasn't been one for a long time (since my grandfather served as a Marine in Korea, in fact). That said, I see the North Korean people as faced with two choices:
Depose their maniacal dictator and deal with the resulting upheaval in their society (considerable misery for their people).
Accept a severe and devastating response from whatever nuclear-capable nation finally gets fed up with the threats and posturing from North Korean leadership.
If I were their citizens, I would elect to pursue #1, regardless of the interim pain involved. I assure you, if North Korea continues on their present path the response will eventually be severe and devastating. The citizens of North Korea have a responsibility to reign in the tyrannical government that presently rules over them, or face the consequences. Should this turn into an "us or them" situation, it most assuredly will be "them," albeit with mass casualties on the South Korean side as well (which will indeed be tragic).
Slashdot Mirror
Did you miss the part where he gassed 10,000 Kurdish men, women, and children to death in the borders of his own country?
Nice one :).
Yeah, maybe the AJC wouldn't be the right choice, given the subject matter :).
Once again, history cannot be undone. You really aren't capable of understanding this, are you? Or would you prefer the entire planet go up in smoke because you'd prefer we treat North Korea "fairly" even in light of their dictator's idiocy? At minimum, a huge number of North Korean citizens are going to die if they don't handle their "leader."
when you call the leader of the bad guys insane it always means you are living in an ideological delusion.
Wrong. Any leader who allows hundreds of thousands of his own people to die of starvation and related illnesses is insane. Period. There is no debate on this.
I'm well aware that North Korea represents a "real" society. I'm also aware of the factual state of affairs that if they do not step up and deal with the dictator that is their leader, someone else will at massive cost to the people. It's their choice.
This isn't about fairness, and never will be. I don't give two shits about treating Kim Jong Il "fairly." It comes down to this: more nuclear weapons, in the hands of nations who already have unstable dictators, is not an acceptable situation. Either he'll back down or his people will deal with the consequences. It's up to them.
You're having a hard time understanding the concept that more nuclear weapons, in the hands of more countries, makes it all the more likely that somebody will do something stupid.
Yeah, there was that attempt, but nothing says "I care" like going back later to do it right.
Funny thing about that all that: I'm 28, married, have proudly served in the US Navy's submarine force, have various hobbies, a diverse set of friends, and read everything I can get my hands on. In other words, I'm almost certain from your tone that I'm considerably more experienced and mature than you're likely to be in the next ten years. Buddy, my issue isn't lack of exposure, it's lack of tolerance for idiocy.
Yes, I was joking.
Again, you have no grasp whatsoever of how these things work. Yes, buddy, I am keenly aware of the fact that two bombs were dropped on Japan. It's still one terrible event in my mind.
You seem stuck on the issue of "hypocrisy." Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actually taking their missiles apart would be insanity.
Please tell me you're beginning to get some idea of why the idealistic idea of dismantling the world's stockpiles is utterly doomed to failure.
Glad you admitted you have absolutely no idea what it's like to live in the United States. Yes, we have serious problems in our government. All governments have serious issues. It's the nature of government, period.
If you are seriously attempting to compare everyday life in the U.S. to North Korea, you're completely out of your mind. I can write an opinion piece to the Atlanta Journal & Constitution declaring the President to be a bumbling buffoon, calling every Senator in Washington a bunch of dirty names, and expressing the opinion that Georgia's governor has terrible taste in suits. I run zero risk of being arrested for these acts.
Such behavior would most likely get me tortured to death in North Korea at worst, or locked up for ten years and "made an example of" at best.
Grow up.
Yeah, whatever, mod me troll, I just want to get my point out and I will no matter what.
Funny you should say that, if I had a dime for every time you've been modded troll in the last few days I could probably take a month off work. It must be very tiring to be proven inadequate on such a routine basis. See? I can try to get modded troll, too. The difference being I genuinely don't care, because I'm keenly aware that I have the background and life experience to back up my views. You, on the other hand, have... Slashdot.
They simply have less to lose.
Actually, to further your point, the DPRK has a lot more to lose should their iron-clad grip on a starving, crushed population begin to loosen. They're likely to blame such an occurrence on Western influence, and resort to rather irrational acts.
Right, they never had any weapons of mass destruction.
Care to start over?
Perhaps the term "dismantle" would be have been more appropriate :).
Anyway, lots of countries have nukes and eventually behave badly thanks to the extra insurance they give them.
The funny thing about multiple countries having nukes is the simple fact that it prevents any one country from behaving too badly. The human race is an aggressive, territorial, vengeful species. That's how we evolved, and it's how we're going to be until the term "economic scarcity" no longer has any meaning. Study it. Learn it. Live it.
There is a reason you continue to be modded down to negative numbers... perhaps you should invest some time in actually studying history, and less time in attempting to paint yourself as some sort of learned man on a mission to educate the world.
As for the use of nuclear weapons, all it took was once for the whole world to realize we should avoid such a situation at all costs. You're describing events that took place nearly a century ago and attempting to draw some sort of rational parallel to modern military tactics. That's insane at face value.
Like I told another poster, if you honestly believe North Korea represents a better life for you and your family I'll gladly buy you a one way plane ticket to the capital. Have fun expressing your political beliefs in that climate.
Again with this inane "he did it he did it" crap. Can you not get it through your thick head that we're dealing with a nation with openly expressed nuclear ambitions, the very same nation that operates one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet? If you think life in North Korea even remotely resembles life in the U.S., I'll gladly buy you a one way plane ticket to Pyongyang. Good riddance.
Sure, everyone who isn't a homocidal/genocidal maniac has the right to own a gun. When you're educated enough to join this discussion, please feel free to come back and play.
Until then, let's once again refer to core principles: (1) nuclear proliferation cannot be "undone", (2) unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream, and (3) multiple wrongs DO NOT make a right, especially where maniacal dictators are involved.
Right, the US is running around making sweeping genocidal threats. You're living in a fantasy land. How's the view from there? Whenever you're ready to join the world of the sane, let me know. I'll have your meds ready for you, kid.
You don't seem to get it. We're accelerating toward a situation where massive loss of civilian life is inevitable. There is no good solution when the man in power is insane. It will simply be a question of which side the losses occur on, assuming that a preemptive strike by a nuclear nation is an open option.
I'll support us destroying our nuclear stockpile just as soon as I have 100% assurance that the rest of the nuclear-equipped nations are doing the same, simultaneously.
Obviously, this is never going to work. The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. What's important now is determining the likelihood that an aggressive nation bent on insane policy will use nuclear weapons on their neighbors... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea.
This little thing involving a nation called Kuwait, shitloads of oil (lots of wells set ablaze during the Iraqi retreat, as I recall), the global market for petroleum, and the complete and total destabilization of the balance of military power in the Middle East under the influence of a madman come to mind. Just a few factors, of course... daddy Bush should have finished the job the first time. We wouldn't have even had the opportunity to clean up his mess in recent (and ongoing) history if he'd got it right when he had the chance.
you have the problem that this will cause a massive loss of life in the north that is not limited to, or even primarily, military.
You're right, there's no good answer, and there hasn't been one for a long time (since my grandfather served as a Marine in Korea, in fact). That said, I see the North Korean people as faced with two choices:
If I were their citizens, I would elect to pursue #1, regardless of the interim pain involved. I assure you, if North Korea continues on their present path the response will eventually be severe and devastating. The citizens of North Korea have a responsibility to reign in the tyrannical government that presently rules over them, or face the consequences. Should this turn into an "us or them" situation, it most assuredly will be "them," albeit with mass casualties on the South Korean side as well (which will indeed be tragic).