N. Korea Nukes

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
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.

He already has several nukes...
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
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.

Me scratches head.... wondering what tommywishbone is really trying to say. :roll:
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Greetings Frackal- It appears you wish to make this personnal. Wow, you're a tough guy on the internet and you're the grammar police. Our hero.

Let's not waste any more vauable forum space. My phone number is 310 392 6004. Give me a call and we'll handle our business.

Tom
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ntdz
So any war without UN approval is illegal?

A war justified by 'Iraq has broken UN sanctions' would have to be seen as a rogue action when the UN itself declined to act militarily. Can You offer a better set of criteria for a 'rogue nation' than engaging in internationally unpopular military action?

Originally posted by: Frackal
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.

How sweetly paternalistic of you.

The world has never come closer to nuclear war than it did when the US and USSR were the two major nuclear powers.

I don't think anyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Heh. This whole pseudo-discussion exemplifies just how successful the whole "Us vs Them" approach to shaping domestic opinion really can be, and just why it's so important for the perception of powerful enemies to be cultivated. Knee-jerk emotionalism is easily exploited as a unifying force, and that unity can easily be diverted to other unrelated purposes.

Basically, the whole argument boils down to "It's teh cwazy, teh ebil NKoreans we're talkin' 'bout!" which is precisely what you're supposed to believe, as that kind of public sentiment allows for a variety of equally insane acts on the part of our own leaders, from before Reagan to the present.

As we've seen in the past, a general reduction of tensions leads to the advancement of freedom. Nixon took the initiative wrt China, and it was Gorbachev who took the initiative wrt the cold war, forcing Reagan to set aside the yearnings of his neocon advisers in favor of disarmament. Basically, we're running out of enemies, so it's important to maintain the ones we have, even to create new ones if possible, and to try to make sure that they're not real threats, but rather imaginary ones...

Under the surface of the Admin's bluster, there are forces at work, undermining their efforts to keep the electorate's attention focused on the boogeyman, forces beyond the control of the current leadership... The two Koreas recently agreed to field a single olympic team, and continue to expand economic ties. The more of that happening, the sooner the NKorean regime will collapse into the waiting arms of the SKoreans, just as the EGerman regime collapsed into the arms of the West. Which doesn't serve the Neocon domestic agenda, at all, and is precisely why those efforts are opposed by our own leaders...
 

ThEFeAR

Member
Aug 31, 2005
135
0
0
Does anyone know what happened to the nuclear non-proliferation (sp?) pact? The one that said 'No other countries will attempt to create nuclear weapons and we (the ppl with nuke's) will disarm ours'.

Is this still in effect and was N. Korea ever a part of this?

Excuse my ignorance but I was under the impression this was still about.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
it was Gorbachev who took the initiative wrt the cold war, forcing Reagan to set aside the yearnings of his neocon advisers in favor of disarmament.

Do you love re-writing history? Got anything else you'd like to change before the next history text goes to press? :roll:

BTW, we've seen more progress in the N. Korea talks under Bush than we ever have, but I'm sure you'll write down your alternate history for that too.
 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
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.


Hahaha, Canada hardly counts as a country.

I really do love you guys.
 

chcarnage

Golden Member
May 11, 2005
1,751
0
0
Originally posted by: ThEFeAR
Does anyone know what happened to the nuclear non-proliferation (sp?) pact? The one that said 'No other countries will attempt to create nuclear weapons and we (the ppl with nuke's) will disarm ours'.

Is this still in effect and was N. Korea ever a part of this?

Excuse my ignorance but I was under the impression this was still about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty

It still exists and was prolongued indefinately in 1995.

North Korea signed and ratified it, but they withdrew in 2003 and claim that they posses nuclear weapons now.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Would you like someone that is known to be mentally disturbed running around your backyard with a load shotgun and a hair trigger?

Gimme a break, the US has nukes.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It was Gorbachev's initiative in Iceland that forced Reagan's hand, Shades- Reagan had to re-evaluate, overrule his own advisers to move on to the agreements that led to our current state of affairs wrt the Former Soviet Union. Those are the same guys who advise Bush today.

I'm sure it's been represented in an entirely different light among sources you'd choose to believe, but that doesn't change what really happened, at all. Reagan scrapped Star Wars to reach accord, which was what Gorbachev demanded. Gorbachev had even gone so far as to propose that both sides abandon nukes entirely, something the US was unwilling to accept...
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: ntdz
So any war without UN approval is illegal?

A war justified by 'Iraq has broken UN sanctions' would have to be seen as a rogue action when the UN itself declined to act militarily. Can You offer a better set of criteria for a 'rogue nation' than engaging in internationally unpopular military action?

Let me get this straight...you are calling the USA a rogue nation? I guess all the countries that supported us are rogue too. There's a lot of rogue nations out there.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Would you like someone that is known to be mentally disturbed running around your backyard with a load shotgun and a hair trigger?

Gimme a break, the US has nukes.


Where is it you're from again Forsythe? The Netherlands?

 

mOeeOm

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2004
2,588
0
0
N.Korea can have nukes as long as America has nukes. you can't be hypocrites and have it both ways.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
LOL


I hope you never lament that your opinions aren't taken seriously.


That's like saying "Hitler should have nukes because America has them."


More examples of liberal moral equivalency that is so out of reality it is legitimately disturbing.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
N.Korea can have nukes as long as America has nukes. you can't be hypocrites and have it both ways.

Yes we can. Unlike N Korea, we can be trusted with nukes and don't testfire missles over Japan and such.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,290
10,792
136
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
N.Korea can have nukes as long as America has nukes. you can't be hypocrites and have it both ways.

Yes we can. Unlike N Korea, we can be trusted with nukes and don't testfire missles over Japan and such.

That missile N Korea fired over Japan is reason number two why they worry me far more the Iran does in terms of a direct threat & while I doubt they will use nuclear weapons either, their regular army is well equiped, well trained, very tough, loyal & worst of all a very short march from the industrial power-house of South Korea... the cost of a second
major conflict in Korea would be very high.
Reason number one btw is their close proximity to China, a country that has professed to stand with us against them at times, but which I believe when pushed might come down on their side just as they did in the Korean war. If Iran openly declares war on Isreal or worse
fires a missle at Europe they'll be on their own with the exception of a few other radical muslim nations however tough they are...N. Korea just might have China directly backing them up.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Captante
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
N.Korea can have nukes as long as America has nukes. you can't be hypocrites and have it both ways.

Yes we can. Unlike N Korea, we can be trusted with nukes and don't testfire missles over Japan and such.

That missile N Korea fired over Japan is reason number two why they worry me far more the Iran does in terms of a direct threat & while I doubt they will use nuclear weapons either, their regular army is well equiped, well trained, very tough, loyal & worst of all a very short march from the industrial power-house of South Korea... the cost of a second
major conflict in Korea would be very high.
Reason number one btw is their close proximity to China, a country that has professed to stand with us against them at times, but which I believe when pushed might come down on their side just as they did in the Korean war. If Iran openly declares war on Isreal or worse
fires a missle at Europe they'll be on their own with the exception of a few other radical muslim nations however tough they are...N. Korea just might have China directly backing them up.

China would never, in a million years, back N Korea if N Korea nuked or attacked Japan or the US.

I do agree that N Korea is more of a threat than Iran, the only thing that worries me about Iran is giving the nukes to terrorists.