N. Korea Nukes

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,290
10,792
136
Originally posted by: ntdz
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.

I agree that if N Korea nuked sombody China wouldn't back them, its a conventional war in Korea that concerns me far more ... China said some strange things when maximum pressure was being applied to NK awhile back & I don't exactly trust their motives.

 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ntdz
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.

Well, your list should include Syria, Iran, NK, as well as many of the similar nations that joined the 'coalition of the willing'.

Could you please provide a definition of 'rogue nation' that doesn't apply to the nations which invaded Iraq? All I'm asking for is something more useful than 'because America says so'.

Edit for clarity.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: raildogg
The same thing goes for Iran, which is even more dangerous. Basically, letting Iran have nukes is like letting al-qaeda have nukes.

And the alternative is to let your country be open for attack by the US should Bush cook the right intelligence?

I think this country needs protection from itself. If Iran goes nuclear, we might actually QUESTION our motives for invading yet another Middle Eastern country for no good reason.
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
Sure they can have them.

Just prohibit them from owning a delivery system that can bring landfall beyond their borders.

It's like having guns with no ammunition.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: C6FT7
Sure they can have them.

Just prohibit them from owning a delivery system that can bring landfall beyond their borders.

It's like having guns with no ammunition.

Since when can one nation prohibit another soveriegn entity from doing anything?

China and Russia would be happy to supply delivery systems if the pipelines remain open.
 

Chinadefender

Member
Dec 1, 2004
161
0
0
Go back to the table and continue negotiation.

Those who quarrel here cannot replace those officials.

Just make it a chat issue.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,365
33,762
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: C6FT7
Sure they can have them.

Just prohibit them from owning a delivery system that can bring landfall beyond their borders.

It's like having guns with no ammunition.

Since when can one nation prohibit another soveriegn entity from doing anything?

China and Russia would be happy to supply delivery systems if the pipelines remain open.

Russia dosen't require the oil, as they have their own.

Mostly they are after constuction, technical, and military contracts.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
While Captante's observation that another war on the Korean penninsula would be very costly, his evaluation of NKorean forces is bogus. They have zip for airpower, 70's and 80's vintage armor and C&C systems, extreme fuel shortages, and wouldn't have a prayer against combined US and ROK forces if they were to expose themselves in any attack maneuver. The ROK has the most thoroughly developed defense in depth system ever devised and a well armed well trained military of their own, with thoroughly modern hardware and methodology. Yeh, Seoul would be a mess, but NKorean forces would simply be annihilated en masse.... obliterated, and the NKoreans know it.

The ruling clique in NKorea may be a lot of things, things we neither like nor understand, but they're neither crazy nor stupid.

At this point, I'm not always sure that applies very well to those running my own govt.
 

envy me

Golden Member
Nov 5, 2005
1,000
0
0

America has already proven to the world it cannot be trusted by creating the mess they have in Iraq. And I recall reading somewhere that the US is willing to use pre-emtive nuclear strikes. (not sure of accuracy or source however) I personally beleive that if a nuclear bomb will go off in the future, it will be a bomb from America and not from any of these so called "rouge nations"

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,365
33,762
136
Originally posted by: envy me

America has already proven to the world it cannot be trusted by creating the mess they have in Iraq. And I recall reading somewhere that the US is willing to use pre-emtive nuclear strikes. (not sure of accuracy or source however) I personally beleive that if a nuclear bomb will go off in the future, it will be a bomb from America and not from any of these so called "rouge nations"

There was a proposal to look at adding procedures for military commanders to request nuclear strikes in certain extreme circumstances. Nothing ever came of it.

With so many conventional options at our disposal it is unlikely in the extreme that the US would opt to use nuclear weapons in any circmustance outside of a retaliation to a nuclear/chemical/biological attack with a clear origin.

 

deepred98

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2005
1,246
0
0
wow thanks for the many different points of views
some good arguments too
this should make my paper alot easier to write

thanks
 

deepred98

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2005
1,246
0
0
uh but one thing

why should only the US, Britain, and canada be the only country with nukes
i think that if everyone had nukes than noone would dare go to war hence createing a everlasting peace
 

Remy XO

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2005
1,008
0
0
First of all, comparing Kim Jung to Hitler, WOW. You guys do relize that the only reason N. Korea reopened its nuclear program in 2003 was because Bush labeled N. Korea as the "Axis of Evil" and a Tyrant state. The only reason they would build nukes is because they are being threatened and using it for defense, not because they want to go out an Nuke people just for the hell of it. After seeing the US take over Iraq without a sweat how can you possibly blame N. Korea to claim to have nukes. I bet they dont even have nukes and is just bluffing just for their own protection.

And to those people thinking S. Korea should be scared... are you freaking kidding me, you guys act like modern day S. Korea is some sort of third world country that can defend itself from a torn up country that is on its knees. Im korean and I can tell you for sure that S. Korea has no fear in N. Korea and im sure they know exactly why N. Korea would build nukes. Theyre not scared of a N. Korean attack or do they think N. Korea would even do any pre-emptive attacks. N. Korea and S. Korea has been trying to unify and reform N. Korea for years and ever since the Bush Administration it's now harder than it was before with all this choose sides BS.
 

musicman87

Banned
Nov 7, 2005
197
0
0
The problem with the argument is that all the countries that have nuclear are actually decent by American definition. And since America is the standard (whether you'll admit it or not, the US and China are world powers, economically and militarily), our right to say who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't is completely within our power.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,365
33,762
136
Originally posted by: Remy XO
First of all, comparing Kim Jung to Hitler, WOW. You guys do relize that the only reason N. Korea reopened its nuclear program in 2003 was because Bush labeled N. Korea as the "Axis of Evil" and a Tyrant state. The only reason they would build nukes is because they are being threatened and using it for defense, not because they want to go out an Nuke people just for the hell of it. After seeing the US take over Iraq without a sweat how can you possibly blame N. Korea to claim to have nukes. I bet they dont even have nukes and is just bluffing just for their own protection.

And to those people thinking S. Korea should be scared... are you freaking kidding me, you guys act like modern day S. Korea is some sort of third world country that can defend itself from a torn up country that is on its knees. Im korean and I can tell you for sure that S. Korea has no fear in N. Korea and im sure they know exactly why N. Korea would build nukes. Theyre not scared of a N. Korean attack or do they think N. Korea would even do any pre-emptive attacks. N. Korea and S. Korea has been trying to unify and reform N. Korea for years and ever since the Bush Administration it's now harder than it was before with all this choose sides BS.

North Korea's nuclear program long predates GWB's presidency. It was commonly suspected that NK had assembled a weapon or to prior to or even subsequent to the implementation of the Agreed Framework. The charge that NK was involved in a parallel Uranium program during has been debated, though it seemes likely.

Do I think NK would use a nuclear weapon as a first strike? No, since the available targets fall under US strategic protection and they would be subject to severe nuclear retaliation. One of the key concerns is that NK might be willing to furnish others with nuclear materials, technology, or even possibly the weapons themselves in exchange for enough cold hard cash. Mostly though I suspect it is just another scheme by their rulers to extort more money/resources from the international community.

As far a reunification goes, that is a pipe dream for the forseeable future. Unless I missed a memo NK is still a brutal totalitarian regeime with a ruling class that is only interested in maintaining their power at any cost.
 

Remy XO

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2005
1,008
0
0
Originally posted by: musicman87
The problem with the argument is that all the countries that have nuclear are actually decent by American definition. And since America is the standard (whether you'll admit it or not, the US and China are world powers, economically and militarily), our right to say who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't is completely within our power.

the argument here is discussing why N. Korea can't have nukes.