N. Korea Nukes

deepred98

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2005
1,246
0
0

sortof related to my other thread
i've been thinking about all this news about US, Japan, pushing for N. Korea to disarm and i personally think that they should bakc off

i don't see why america or even japan cares (sure they are communist, abducted some japanese) but it seems to me that america is still living with a paranoid cold-war mentality

 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,766
507
126
Rogue states should not trusted with nukes. What makes them rogue? Those with behavior that is not acceptable. Those with sanctions against them and those with human rights violations. Those with shady governments.

How many millions of North Koreans have died in the past decade or two under slave labor? Concentration camps? Do you trust nukes in the hands of Kim Jung?

The same thing goes for Iran, which is even more dangerous. Basically, letting Iran have nukes is like letting al-qaeda have nukes.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Would you like someone that is known to be mentally disturbed running around your backyard with a load shotgun and a hair trigger?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
N. Korea has nukes. This being the case, the only way to force them to not have them is to invade, topple the government, locate and destroy all the existing nukes, and destroy any means for producing more. The cost of doing this would be rather high.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Put yourself on the Axis of Evil Hitlist- tell me you wouldn't build nukes if you could.

Which is precisely what the Bush Admin wants- they need external enemies to sustain their "Us against Them" domestic agenda- where would they be if there were no boogeyman? They'd have to create him, which is pretty much what they've done with NKorea...
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Put yourself on the Axis of Evil Hitlist- tell me you wouldn't build nukes if you could.

Which is precisely what the Bush Admin wants- they need external enemies to sustain their "Us against Them" domestic agenda- where would they be if there were no boogeyman? They'd have to create him, which is pretty much what they've done with NKorea...

N. Korea doesn't really need nukes. Despite having a pathetic army, they do have a huge amount of artillery pointed at Seoul.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
The following is a list of countrys that should be allowed to have nukes
USA
GB
and canada but they hardly count as a country.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
Originally posted by: deepred98

sortof related to my other thread
i've been thinking about all this news about US, Japan, pushing for N. Korea to disarm and i personally think that they should bakc off

i don't see why america or even japan cares (sure they are communist, abducted some japanese) but it seems to me that america is still living with a paranoid cold-war mentality



You're only saying this because you're safe and comfortable, and don't have to (yet) face the consequences of your opinions.

Your post here is supremely stupid.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Put yourself on the Axis of Evil Hitlist- tell me you wouldn't build nukes if you could.

Which is precisely what the Bush Admin wants- they need external enemies to sustain their "Us against Them" domestic agenda- where would they be if there were no boogeyman? They'd have to create him, which is pretty much what they've done with NKorea...


Blame America First. (TM)
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Put yourself on the Axis of Evil Hitlist- tell me you wouldn't build nukes if you could.

Which is precisely what the Bush Admin wants- they need external enemies to sustain their "Us against Them" domestic agenda- where would they be if there were no boogeyman? They'd have to create him, which is pretty much what they've done with NKorea...

Yeah, that's what Bush has done. N Korea wasn't a problem before Bush became President, was it? Clinton didn't make a deal with them to not make nukes, did he? N Korea never broke the promise, either, right? Yeah, N Korea is just another innocent country that Bush is picking on, thats why no Western country, or asian for that matter, wants them to have nukes.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: raildogg
Rogue states should not trusted with nukes. What makes them rogue? Those with behavior that is not acceptable. Those with sanctions against them and those with human rights violations. Those with shady governments.

How many millions of North Koreans have died in the past decade or two under slave labor? Concentration camps? Do you trust nukes in the hands of Kim Jung?

The same thing goes for Iran, which is even more dangerous. Basically, letting Iran have nukes is like letting al-qaeda have nukes.

By going to Iraq without UN approval, the United States, the UK and a number of other nations are also 'rogue states' by a more reasonable criterion than 'because America says so'.

I think it's unfortunate that nukes exist at all (no BS about the second world war please; it was effectively won before nuclear weapons).

But since they do exist, I fail to see that countries with nuclear weapons should be dictating which other countries can have them.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: raildogg
Rogue states should not trusted with nukes. What makes them rogue? Those with behavior that is not acceptable. Those with sanctions against them and those with human rights violations. Those with shady governments.

How many millions of North Koreans have died in the past decade or two under slave labor? Concentration camps? Do you trust nukes in the hands of Kim Jung?

The same thing goes for Iran, which is even more dangerous. Basically, letting Iran have nukes is like letting al-qaeda have nukes.

By going to Iraq without UN approval, the United States, the UK and a number of other nations are also 'rogue states' by a more reasonable criterion than 'because America says so'.

I think it's unfortunate that nukes exist at all (no BS about the second world war please; it was effectively won before nuclear weapons).

But since they do exist, I fail to see that countries with nuclear weapons should be dictating which other countries can have them.

So any war without UN approval is illegal?
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: raildogg
Rogue states should not trusted with nukes. What makes them rogue? Those with behavior that is not acceptable. Those with sanctions against them and those with human rights violations. Those with shady governments.

How many millions of North Koreans have died in the past decade or two under slave labor? Concentration camps? Do you trust nukes in the hands of Kim Jung?

The same thing goes for Iran, which is even more dangerous. Basically, letting Iran have nukes is like letting al-qaeda have nukes.

By going to Iraq without UN approval, the United States, the UK and a number of other nations are also 'rogue states' by a more reasonable criterion than 'because America says so'.

I think it's unfortunate that nukes exist at all (no BS about the second world war please; it was effectively won before nuclear weapons).

But since they do exist, I fail to see that countries with nuclear weapons should be dictating which other countries can have them.


Again, you can post this because you're comfortable and safe and can theorize about moral equivalency without actually having to face the consequences of what you are proposing. (Becuase not even China is crazy enough to allow nuclear weapons in the hands of a ****** maniac like Kim Jong Il )

Anyone with a half bit of sense can see that NK as a nuclear power is extremely undesirable in every way one can think of.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Who cares if North Korea & K-Jong has nukes? One of the greatest lunatics in history, Stalin, had nukes and he never used them. A madman doesn't use a nuclear bomb, a coward does. Most likely North Korea will just spend themselves out of exsistance anyway if they attempt to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
That is a poorly-reasoned statement. Senseless really.

"Kim Jong Il won't use nukes because he's a Madman, not a Coward. And Stalin didn't use nukes."

WTF


Are you calling Truman a coward by the way?
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Who cares if North Korea & K-Jong has nukes? One of the greatest lunatics in history, Stalin, had nukes and he never used them. A madman doesn't use a nuclear bomb, a coward does. Most likely North Korea will just spend themselves out of exsistance anyway if they attempt to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. A coward would never use a nuclear weapon, because they'd know it'd mean theyd be dead or out of power. Oh, and what will happen to that arsenal once N Korea goes bankrupt? They'll probably get sold to someone else...
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Who cares if North Korea & K-Jong has nukes? One of the greatest lunatics in history, Stalin, had nukes and he never used them. A madman doesn't use a nuclear bomb, a coward does. Most likely North Korea will just spend themselves out of exsistance anyway if they attempt to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. A coward would never use a nuclear weapon, because they'd know it'd mean theyd be dead or out of power. Oh, and what will happen to that arsenal once N Korea goes bankrupt? They'll probably get sold to someone else...

Of course my argument makes no sense. The fact that America is sticking its nose into North Korea's affairs makes no sense. The fact that America insist on being the moral compass for the world (when we make more WMD's than any country in history) makes no sense. The fact that our leader (an admitted drunk & cokehead) who authorized the invasion & destruction of an innocent country, attempts to vilify K-Jong makes no sense.

There are over 50,000 nuclear weapons in exsistance right now and suddenly the arrival of a few more is the end of the world? That's nonsense.

Who has nukes? USA, China, Russia, Israel, France, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Great Britian and perhaps a few others and we should NOW stand up and demand that North Korea can't have a nuke? Absurd. We would actually threaten 'action' if NK builds an A-bomb? Don't make me laugh.

One last point; building a viable nuke would cost NK so much $$$, Goofball K-Jong would most likely never, ever, use that damn thing because it was so F'in expensive.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Who cares if North Korea & K-Jong has nukes? One of the greatest lunatics in history, Stalin, had nukes and he never used them. A madman doesn't use a nuclear bomb, a coward does. Most likely North Korea will just spend themselves out of exsistance anyway if they attempt to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. A coward would never use a nuclear weapon, because they'd know it'd mean theyd be dead or out of power. Oh, and what will happen to that arsenal once N Korea goes bankrupt? They'll probably get sold to someone else...

Of course my argument makes no sense. The fact that America is sticking its nose into North Korea's affairs makes no sense. The fact that America insist on being the moral compass for the world (when we make more WMD's than any country in history) makes no sense. The fact that our leader (an admitted drunk & cokehead) who authorized the invasion & destruction of an innocent country, attempts to vilify K-Jong makes no sense.

There are over 50,000 nuclear weapons in exsistance right now and suddenly the arrival of a few more is the end of the world? That's nonsense.

Who has nukes? USA, China, Russia, Israel, France, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Great Britian and perhaps a few others and we should NOW stand up and demand that North Korea can't have a nuke? Absurd. We would actually threaten 'action' if NK builds an A-bomb? Don't make me laugh.

One last point; building a viable nuke would cost NK so much $$$, Goofball K-Jong would most likely never, ever, use that damn thing because it was so F'in expensive.

You do realize it's exponentially more expensive to build the first one vs. the 100th bomb? All the next ones after the first are cheap compared to the first. He won't be building just one.

Oh, and could you provide a link where Bush admitted using coke please? That would be great.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
Imagine Hitler with nukes. Kim Jong is all that, but more. That's some scary sh!t folks!!BTW, this is not a new issue. I hope the next newest issue isn't that he deployed one of those home wreckers to here or a neighbor. This is a serious concern that the world should be deeply involved in. A maniac with a nuke...that's just great. :(

And those who call us supremists, need to understand, that there are too many countries out there, who do not think in sane terms. Do we have americans running around all day, everyday, blowing themselves up, because that is what we think our God wants us to do? No way. Sure you've got a nut case once in awhile, which every society has.

As I see it, there are only a few countries with a "stable enough" management to possess such weapons as a deterent. N.Korea ain't one of them.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Ya got me on the link where Dum-Dum admits using coke. ;) I guess I just decided to get onboard the most crowded bus on that one.

And absolutely; your 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 104th nuke cost less than your 1st, but that 1st one is still REAL expensive and the ones that follow probably aren't a bargain. But K-Jong doesn't strike me as the type to build a large nuclear inventory. He's more like a mini-gangster that just wants some street respect and doesn't want to look like a runt in front of all the other War Lords. Plus I'm sure a few of his Generals are smart enough to tell him that if he uses one nuke, he most likely won't be around to use the others.

 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
Plus I'm sure a few of his Generals are smart enough to tell him that if he uses one nuke, he most likely won't be around to use the others.

Are we sure he even cares? Really, that's a serious question. People of his ilk think they are doing their duty, in their distorted way of thinking. Once he's done his duty, as he believes, I doubt whether he would care if he lived to do it again.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Who cares if North Korea & K-Jong has nukes? One of the greatest lunatics in history, Stalin, had nukes and he never used them. A madman doesn't use a nuclear bomb, a coward does. Most likely North Korea will just spend themselves out of exsistance anyway if they attempt to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. A coward would never use a nuclear weapon, because they'd know it'd mean theyd be dead or out of power. Oh, and what will happen to that arsenal once N Korea goes bankrupt? They'll probably get sold to someone else...

Of course my argument makes no sense. The fact that America is sticking its nose into North Korea's affairs makes no sense. The fact that America insist on being the moral compass for the world (when we make more WMD's than any country in history) makes no sense. The fact that our leader (an admitted drunk & cokehead) who authorized the invasion & destruction of an innocent country, attempts to vilify K-Jong makes no sense.

There are over 50,000 nuclear weapons in exsistance right now and suddenly the arrival of a few more is the end of the world? That's nonsense.

Who has nukes? USA, China, Russia, Israel, France, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Great Britian and perhaps a few others and we should NOW stand up and demand that North Korea can't have a nuke? Absurd. We would actually threaten 'action' if NK builds an A-bomb? Don't make me laugh.

One last point; building a viable nuke would cost NK so much $$$, Goofball K-Jong would most likely never, ever, use that damn thing because it was so F'in expensive.



You can't even spell at a basic level, have a variety of assumptions and opinions that you attempt to cite as fact, and have such poor reasoning in your posts that at best they are an argument for the side you're arguing against.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Ya got me on the link where Dum-Dum admits using coke. ;) I guess I just decided to get onboard the most crowded bus on that one.

And absolutely; your 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 104th nuke cost less than your 1st, but that 1st one is still REAL expensive and the ones that follow probably aren't a bargain. But K-Jong doesn't strike me as the type to build a large nuclear inventory. He's more like a mini-gangster that just wants some street respect and doesn't want to look like a runt in front of all the other War Lords. Plus I'm sure a few of his Generals are smart enough to tell him that if he uses one nuke, he most likely won't be around to use the others.

How old are you?