Topic: North Korea (Read 7358 times)

Vespertine · « **on:** February 10, 2005, 05:31:28 PM »

Wow, so there's a raging conversation going on /. about North Korea and the nukes. What do you all see happening? AND, I mean what do you all see happening with North Korea, NOT with /. I'm also curious where Bush and Condi are headed with the saber rattling at Iran.

yxorpbp · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2005, 05:38:31 PM »

Seeing as how we're invading countries and the N Koreans have been dubbed part of the axis of evil, I don't blame them for developing such weapons. Also since we can use pre-emptive strikes, why shouldn't they be able to? Where is Rodney King when you need him?

ivan · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2005, 05:45:28 PM »

Quote from: yxorpbp

Also since we can use pre-emptive strikes, why shouldn't they be able to?

Because Kim Jong Il is a fucking lunatic, that's why.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2005, 05:54:04 PM »

He's nucking futs. That's one thing most of the world can agree on, I think.

Reimero and I had an extended discussion on this subject this morning.

Unfortunately, I can't recall any of it at the moment.

ivan · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2005, 06:13:10 PM »

Well, whatever Reimero and you decided, I'm sure you'll agree that the cultural-relativist approach to nuclear proliferation is suicidal. Just because the US has more nukes than anyone else does not mean it's a good idea to arm more nations. It's a bogus argument, anyway. Even if Iran or NK produce a small arsenal, they'll still be wiped off the face of the earth in a nuclear conflict without causing much damage to the US. I'm being completely serious when I say that developing a nuclear arsenal increases, rather than decreases, a nation's chances of being nuked. It does, of course, in the short term, decrease the chances of non-nuclear conflict, but it's not a worthwhile gamble.

The biggest reason, yx... yxp... yxorp... poster who asked the question earlier, why NK and Iran should NOT develop nuclear arms is because it is expensive and they can't afford it. Kim Jong Il produced his nukes by literally starving his own people. Are you aware of the extreme nature of North Korea's economic problems right now? Iran may be a little better off, but the money and resources devoted to armaments would be better spent on improving the lives of the people. However, neither Kim nor the Ayatollahs have true regard for their peoples. They have no problem with seeing millions die or live in abject poverty and ignorance in order to further their own ambitions.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2005, 09:13:22 AM »

Every scenario we ran involving a North Korean use of nuclear weapons ended with North Korea being a flat, featureless plain of radioactive glass.

Unfortunately, almost every scenario we ran also had Seoul and likely Tokyo being heavily damaged if not destroyed in any exchange. North Korea also is not averse to using things like sarin and VX nerve gas, and has the capability to easily deliver both to Seoul without much trouble, and could probably deliver a nuclear warhead to Tokyo without much trouble either.

Anyway, we figured that in the DPRK's final flail before total destruction, they'll try to hit both of those targets before they're greased.

I don't think anyone on the planet right now is willing to engage North Korea's 2,000,000+ ground forces in a conventional war.

Which leads me to believe that any major escalation with them is almost certain to end in severe air and nuclear bombardment, which is unfortunate for the DPRK's civilian population.

Our only hope for ever having any kind of "normal" relations with them is if Kim Jong-Il is deposed or assassinated from within, and replaced with someone who doesn't think he's Elvis.

Sardonicus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2005, 03:13:24 AM »

...or assassinated from without. I'd advocate either method. Sounds like a job for the "shadowy government."

Vespertine · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2005, 06:26:29 PM »

Demo,

While I can completely understand how your scanarios all ended with North Korea being turned into a nuclear wasteland, I'm curious whether you two considered this scenario. What about just leaving them the hell alone? What about not getting involved unless it becomes an absolute necessity, and only then with equal military support from the rest of the world? Do I think Kim Jong Il is a dangerous madman? Hell yes! Do I think it's dangerous for this man to have control of nuclear weapons? Hell yes. However, I have to admit that, while I hold the same opinions about Hussein, I don't think we had any business toppling his regime. I think that I might think the same thing about Kim Jong Il.

Sardonicus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2005, 02:57:08 AM »

My apologies for stepping on Demo's toes on this one, but I can't help but respond to this.

Quote

However, I have to admit that, while I hold the same opinions about Hussein, I don't think we had any business toppling his regime. I think that I might think the same thing about Kim Jong Il.

A non-interference policy is not realistic. While I agree that the US involvement in world affairs should be less militaristic, we cannot ignore the tension and instability in an entire region caused by one nut case. History bears this out.

ivan · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2005, 03:42:14 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Demo,
What about just leaving them the hell alone?

We are leaving them alone. North Korea is sabre-rattling.

Compared to Kim Jong Il, Saddam was a model of benevolence and restraint. Also, unlike Iraq, North Korea really does have WMDs. So the two stated reasons for invading Iraq apply doubly to North Korea. So why are we leaving them alone? Because North Korea has nothing we want.

reimero · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2005, 04:41:44 PM »

Here's how things work with the DPRK:

We ignore them.
They fall deeper into economic quagmire.
We start paying attention to another part of the world (usually the Middle East.)
They see the US spending $billions and want a piece of the pie.
They sabre-rattle and threaten all sorts of dire and nonsensical things in the hopes well give them money and/or goods to go away.
The Clinton administration made a habit of giving in to their demands (I mean, in all honesty, what they want is a drop in the bucket of our annual foreign aid expenditures.) The Bush administration is making a habit of refusing to negotiate.

History has made it pretty clear that when the DPRK threatens dire consequences and draws a line in the sand, it's REALLY just trying to get serious talks going again. I get the impression that the DPRK wants straight-up talks with the US in order to feel like it's the U.S.'s equal or some such. The US won't go along with it because the DPRK is really much more for China, Japan and the ROK to deal with geographically, and probably also to avoid the appearance of back-door dealings, particularly where China is concerned.

I don't believe the DPRK is considered a direct and viable military threat at the moment. They stand to gain little and lose much if they try anything, so they're using the crazy and unstable leader ploy to wring what they can out of the rest of the world.

The real threat from the DPRK is the combination of their dire economic straits and utter lack of ethics with regards to arms deals: they'll sell anything they have to the highest bidder because they need the currency. For the right price, a well-funded terrorist organization could potentially acquire a small nuclear device from Pyongyang, and that risk is utterly unacceptable.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of stable governments, regardless how disposed toward the United States, don't worry me. Everyone knows that a nuclear strike against a nuclear state is effectively suicide, and that's not something governments are willing to risk (except as a last resort in a shooting war.) I'm FAR more concerned about smaller nuclear devices in the hands of non-governmental organizations: they're NOT afraid to use them to get their point across, and that's a real danger.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #11 on:** February 14, 2005, 10:18:31 AM »

Vesp, you know me by now... I'm about as non-interventionist as they come. I won't go so far as to say I'm 100% "isolationist", but pretty damn close.

The big fear I have with DPRK is not so much their capability to deliver nuclear weapons to US soil... but their willingness to trade them with terrorists, which is a very real threat in my opinion.

That said, as ivan mentioned, we pretty much ARE leaving them alone right now. They're using this current tactic to try to get our attention. Personally, I think we are taking the right course of action now, which is to refuse one-on-one talks with them, preferring the multiple party talks with the DPRK and their neighbors.

Kmacnamara · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2005, 02:30:02 PM »

quick intro...I hope I can call this home because the forum at www.animositiomina.com is blah and the other forum I use to visit is gone.

anyways...N. Korea huh?

Kim Jung has the largest collection of Daffy Duck cartoons in the world. He's crazy. All he needs is one nuclear bomb to take out South Korea. We've already given him some things he's wanted such as US troops pushing back 200 miles away from the DMZ. I think this is going to be interesting to watch.

I can see N. Korea longer being Communist sometime during this century.
Do you agree or disagree with this thought?

BizB · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2005, 02:37:34 PM »

Yes.

Do you?

hackess · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2005, 02:43:11 PM »

Kmacnamara, we'd like for you to stick around, so please feel free to introduce yourself in the New Geeks forum. We appreciate it.

Then you may return to your regularly scheduled Political garbage.

Kmacnamara · « **Reply #15 on:** February 15, 2005, 03:48:58 PM »

it's done catwritr....hope I can stay here away, most people in band forums are morons and act like 10 year olds.

Yes I agree that N. Korea will fall.

Did you know that Kym Jung made a law recently that a man's hair cannot exceed 2 inches?

If your bald or elderly this law does not apply...weird

reimero · « **Reply #16 on:** February 15, 2005, 03:53:09 PM »

Insert $Kim_Jong_Il_Fashion_Joke here

Min · « **Reply #17 on:** February 15, 2005, 04:02:47 PM »

Quote from: Kmacnamara

it's done catwritr....hope I can stay here away, most people in band forums are morons and act like 10 year olds.

AHAHAHAHA! MOST OF ETH PEOPLE i BANNED IN FORUMS ARE MORONS AND ACT LIKE 10 YEAR OLDS TOOOOO!!!! ahahaha!

Sardonicus · « **Reply #18 on:** February 15, 2005, 05:25:30 PM »

Biz, you crack me up. It's true, though. Yes, N. Korea will or will not be communist sometime during this century.

ivan · « **Reply #19 on:** February 15, 2005, 05:34:21 PM »

I would like to formally complain about the use of the term "communist" vis a vis the socio-political system currently in place in North Korea. I know everyone does it, but it doesn't make it right.

Sardonicus · « **Reply #20 on:** February 15, 2005, 05:37:30 PM »

Complaint noted, you commie bastard.

Kmacnamara · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2005, 01:39:52 AM »

N. Korea is bad news either way. Communist or Socialist status, they don't know how to run a country or treat their people.

my former room mate is a member of the Communist Party...but yet he donated money to the democratic party in this past election. His wife also joined Democratic Socialists of America....none of this sounds right. Can we say, walking contradictions?...

reimero · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2005, 08:50:52 AM »

Most people (many on this board excepted) don't understand true communism. As envisioned by Marx, it was to be an ideological free state with ideas flowing freely and speech unencumbered, but with a heavily-managed economy and abolition of private property. Marx wanted to make absolutely sure that his Communist ideal was held together by a spirit of brotherhood and the common good, and not by means of terror or authoritarianism.

Not ONE self-proclaimed "Marxist" state has come even close.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2005, 09:12:42 AM »

But that's because the only way that can ever be implemented is through force.

And force leads only to more force.

BizB · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2005, 09:13:46 AM »

Quote

Not ONE self-proclaimed "Marxist" state has come even close.

That's because communism is an end, not a means to an end. Nobody has designed a way to get to communism. But... when they do, FREE BEER FOR EVERYONE!

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: North Korea (Read 7358 times)

ivan

ivan

ivan

ivan