-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
AP: N. Korea Says It Is Making Nuclear Bombs
- Thread starter MonstaThrilla
- Start date
HAHAHA
the thing is - if we know NK is a threat and has nuclear weapons - we don't just invade them.
this isn't a video game - if they were to attack us back - we couldn't restart the game
see with iraq - WE KNEW THEY DIDN"T HAVE SH!T (well some of us did - the rest of us are gullible idiots) - so it wasn't very difficult instigating an attack on a defenseless iraq. North korea is another issue tho.
the bush administration isn't as brave (or stupid - let's hope) to just go and knock down countries w/ nucleur weapons. We only fight them if not doing so would result in some sort of economic disaster at home.
Zebo
Elite Member
They are not a threat until we attack them. Poor little USA and it's boogymen republican scardy cats afraid of everyone. They just want to eat, live and love but we always need to start some sh1t. Anyone that thinks any nation is a threat to USA needs thier head checked. Other than asymetrical warfare we are feared thoughout the world and can annihilate them instantly.
um...how's iraq going?
i don't completely disagree w/ you. But the problem with america is that attitude you seem to have. This illusion that america is indestructible. Sure we could use Nuclear weapons and annihilate iraq in a matter of days (there goes the oil - lol) - but believe it or not - public opinion is vital. We must fight wars in such a manner whereas the countries we're not fighting don't resent our behaivor. And using an aggressive onslaught method to collapse regimes that make us nervous would be ridiculous diplomatically. of course this is all just mho
Zebo
Elite Member
My point was is no nation has ambitions of taking on the US period. We need to get out of this thinking mode which has been lingering since the cold war for progress and peace. The only time our boys are dying and our tax dollars are being thrown away is when we decide, we attack. (afghanistan is the exception) We create the threat in our minds.
xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Banned
🙂
sandorski
No Lifer
True enough, but the same attitude existed towards Germany before the onslaught of WW2. Basically, if the US oversteps its' bounds, those who support it or fear it may very well act against it. Many of those who "fear" it have already acted against it, for "fear" is a poor manipulator that often makes people desparate enough to turn them fearless. The USs' strength is not in its' military might, it's in its' "Moral Enlightenment" as stated in its' Constitution.
xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Banned
The U.N. hasn't passed 17 resolutions yet, thus it would be an illegal war....we have to wait until the launch a warhead at CA before we take action; you know that.
phillyTIM
Golden Member
Two reasons:
1. Bush is a hypocrite and plays nations on a "matter of convenience" policy. If they can further his goals then he will do whatever he needs to. Iraq was a toy for Bush, and a revenge mechanism because Saddam sponsered an assasination attempt upon Bush Sr. Plus, Iraq was Bush Sr.'s "unfinished business" and "dirty laundry", so it was an obvious target.
2. Bush is a wimp. Because Iraq was minnoes compared to the NK shark. Iraq was a militarily & economically handicapped country. Bush wouldn't dare strike a country that could actually defend itself.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
So NK made outrageous public claims that it was building a nuke program to protect itself from "evil" America when Clinton was in office? Under which US President has NK escalated its nuke program more under? I would venture to guess it be the current one. According to them, they made this decision thanks to the current President's pre-emptive doctrine. I thought a conservative ideal was taking personal responsibility, not shifting the blame to one's predecessor or subordinates.
But as has been displayed here countless times, bringing up the C-word is the last desperate action of those who are on the losing side of the argument...
OH, I see they just started the program in March of 2003 in response to Iraq, and they already have 3-6 nukes. Pretty good. They were abiding by the Non-poliferation treaty all along weren't they. They were able to develop nukes in record time...what, 6 months?
And yes, we need to take responsibility for the inevitable acceleration of their program (although I doubt if it really sped up any) through diplomatic, and if required, military means. I've commented thoroughly on this before. I've yet to see any semblance of a non-conservative viewpoint that solves the problem. They all just point fingers.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
Originally posted by: alchemize
OH, I see they just started the program in March of 2003 in response to Iraq, and they already have 3-6 nukes. Pretty good. They were abiding by the Non-poliferation treaty all along weren't they. They were able to develop nukes in record time...what, 6 months?
And yes, we need to take responsibility for the inevitable acceleration of their program (although I doubt if it really sped up any) through diplomatic, and if required, military means. I've commented thoroughly on this before. I've yet to see any semblance of a non-conservative viewpoint that solves the problem. They all just point fingers.
I'm sure they were starting their program while Clinton was in office. And yes, he should take the blame for letting it happen. But here's a newsflash: He's been out of office since January 2001.
If memory serves me correctly, didn't NK expel UN Nuclear inspectors about a year ago and then declare they were actively going to start up their program? Sure, they could have been hiding it for a while. But would the same inspecting organization that was able to keep Iraq from EVER developing nuclear weapons be so woefully inept in a similar situation in NK? Doubtful. And only recently, after almost a year of knowing that NK was being overtly aggressive, were we able to put a summit together. Now look at the result from today.
So what solution is there left after they've been called a member of the "Axis of Evil" by our President? There is an enormous humanitarian crisis in NK right now, bigger than Iraq ever was. Its similar to Rwanda or Somalia, maybe worse. People who have witnessed it first hand liken it to the Holocaust in the fact that the world is turning a blind eye to it. The conservative viewpoint is just to let millions starve to death and to not negotiate with the regime. They're not even being "contained", because they're being allowed to freely develop weapons for use against our allies and maybe even ourselves. The policy is obviously already a failure.
The only solution I can see is if we remove our current Administration from office and replace it with a moderate one. Unfortunately that opportunity won't happen for more than a year, when countless more Koreans will have starved to death and more nuclear weapons will have been made.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
I assume that since you'd like to hear my moderate solution, then you have accepted the fact that the current policy has failed.
Its basically following the lead of all recent (with the exception of Iraq) international efforts to dispose of tyrannical regimes and to help oppressed people. Get the whole civilized world against the regime, which places enormous pressure on it. Tell the regime that it's country will reap the economic rewards of cooperation with Western countries if the regime disposes of their nukes and opens their doors to foreign trade. Kim Jong Il isn't crazy as he seems, and he'll probably bite. He knows he can't go to war against the world and actually win. He just wants to better his economy so he can stay in power and not be removed by military coup. The people of NK won't ever be able to stand up to him if he has the military on his side.
So is it giving in a little to the Kim Jong Il? Sure it is. But it averts nuclear war, and helps the innocent civilians of NK. Furthermore, it will most likely create a slow but inevitable shift away from communism in that country. Then democratic politics will start creeping in, and before you know it those damn liberals were right all along again... 😉
Sure there are a million cogs that can be thrown into the wheel, but its a better and saner policy then what we have now.
Originally posted by: alchemize
OH, I see they just started the program in March of 2003 in response to Iraq, and they already have 3-6 nukes. Pretty good. They were abiding by the Non-poliferation treaty all along weren't they. They were able to develop nukes in record time...what, 6 months?
And yes, we need to take responsibility for the inevitable acceleration of their program (although I doubt if it really sped up any) through diplomatic, and if required, military means. I've commented thoroughly on this before. I've yet to see any semblance of a non-conservative viewpoint that solves the problem. They all just point fingers.
Actually, in a country with an established civilian nuclear program, it can be done relatively quickly. The biggest hold up is building the facilities for weapons grade enrichment. The thing is that while NK was advancing their theoretical nuke program, they weren't actually processing weapons grade material. They developed the facilities that could be used for those purposes (which can't really be hidden, despite what some people think), but the actual processing was never started up. They did so to keep an ace up their sleeve, which isn't totally unreasonable. What the fuss is about is that they actually started enriching material, which they had held back from doing until our beloved leader got aggressive. The reason that having unused facilities isn't a big deal is that it would take even those facilities several months to process enough material for a couple of bombs. That would give us plenty of lead time to shut it down either diplomatically or militarily once the lights were turned on. Because it was more or less ignored on both fronts, it has become a very serious situation.
As far as non-conservative solutions, who said they had to be? Ofc, we will never know whether or not they would have actually started enrichment if they hadn't been labeled a member of the "axis of evil", but its a moot point now. Sitting back and saying we won't deal with them at all is no solution, its inaction at its finest. Because of our force distribution, a full-scale military operation is not very convenient. And because of the time we've sat on our asses, a cruise missile strike on the facility is not even an option, as they have already finished processing too much material. And since the current administration doesn't know what diplomacy is, we will continue to sit on our asses and do nothing.
Yes and no 😉. I believe they are actually going the plutonium route instead of uranium, but yes, they do have more than enough weapons grade material for a couple of bombs. However, it does take some time to actually build one. Not to mention that NK has never tested one to confirm their design (though that isn't really as big of an issue now-days). However, these weapons are more than likely fairly crude, it will take them more time to refine their designs, boost them, etc. But I guess it matters little from a political pov whether these weapons are 10kT or 10MT.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
