N.Korea & Nukes

[Impactor returns 2.0]

This looks like a bit of fruity fun for world politics to deal with...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 403572.stm

Anyone worried?

[Obfleur]

[Metal Vendetta]

**** yeah

[Best First]

he's just ronrey

[Aaron Hong]

he's just ronrey

That's 'ronery'.

[Professor Smooth]

They tested the nuclear weapon. It works.

DUCK AND COVER!

[The Last Autobot]

Better if it ends once and for all.

Why is that anyone has a nuke US screams and says its wrong. What about the ones they have?

Its a real question, anyone got an answer?

[Best First]

"er, because, you know, we are the good guys and stuff."

"according to who?"

"er, Jesus? Yeah, Jesus."

[Brendocon]

Frank Burns would never have approved.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

As nuts as Bush is, or the russians or even the UK, were not as isloated or ****** up as NK basicaly.

Ppl will talk about who has what, and why can country A have them over country B etc... but in the back of your mind, NK is a ****** up place and we all know it.

expect to see Nukes on the black market very shortly I guess Irans gutted it didnt get thier first.

Also, I like the way the world is powerless to do anything but say "your very naughty"

[Best First]

As nuts as Bush is, or the russians or even the UK, were not as isloated or ****** up as NK basicaly.

based on what criteria?

and established by whom?

and what gives them the authority to do so?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Tell that to Japan or SK who have been peacefull since the end of WW2 and must be now feeling under a huge threat, from a country led by a single paranoid dictator who rules over his ppl as 'a god';and wants these nieghbouring nations dead because his Dad had an argument with them 50 years ago.

NK is dangerous for obvious reason, I can judge them, the USA could, Japan or even China, everyone knows why the places is dangerous, and I dont think debating who had nukes first and stuff is going to change the fact that NK has them now. and what are they going to do with them?
Does NK just want them because other ppl have them to? or does it have intentions to use them?

the post cold war world we live in is very different to the one of 25 years ago, now im not saying we start a new cold war with NK, or invade or bomb them etc... but it is worrying when we cant actually do anything post Iraq. diplomatic sanctions cleary dont do anything.

[Best First]

Tell that to Japan or SK who have been peacefull since the end of WW2 and must be now feeling under a huge threat, from a country led by a single paranoid dictator who rules over his ppl as 'a god';and wants these nieghbouring nations dead because his Dad had an argument with them 50 years ago.

NK is dangerous for obvious reason, I can judge them, the USA could, Japan or even China, everyone knows why the places is dangerous, and I dont think debating who had nukes first and stuff is going to change the fact that NK has them now. and what are they going to do with them?
Does NK just want them because other ppl have them to? or does it have intentions to use them?

the post cold war world we live in is very different to the one of 25 years ago, now im not saying we start a new cold war with NK, or invade or bomb them etc... but it is worrying when we cant actually do anything post Iraq. diplomatic sanctions cleary dont do anything.

sorry, you don't appear to have answered any of my questions. Also

"everyone knows why the place is dangerous"

enlighten us, please. I'm not saying it neccessarily isn't but i have something of an issue with assumed knowledge and arguements based on an apparent knowldge of what everyone else in the whole world thinks.

"Because its obvious"
"Everyone thinks that"

if that's the case such conversations wouldn't be being had, would they?

[Brendocon]

To be honest, I don't know much about North Korea beyond the fact that they keep themselves to themselves to the point where very few people know what's actually going on.

Which of course equates to TEH MASSIVE EVIL in many peoples eyes. Due to The "Fear of the Unknown" Concept.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

ok,

based on what criteria?

Based on the ideas that Kim.J the 2nd thinks himself as a God and rules over his country in such a way that his ppl are essentially his slaves. that doesnt require debate, it requires a doctor to lock him up.[/quote]

and established by whom?

World History - if you behave in such a way your generally considered to bea crack pot.

and what gives them the authority to do so?

NK gives them the authority
The moment you step up, holding that weapon, then prepare to be judged by the world and what has gone before.

Now, i have read about NK, I have seen docu TV shows on NK, these could indeed be propganda but I doubt it. the information is freely available, you will of course not find any accounts from ppl who live in NK because thats illegal.
I dont feel I should be the one to enlighten everyone here on this message board about NK when the information could be found using Google.
But,
The ppl who are debating this - ie, the UN security council, China, Japan, SK, the USA, the UK and even Russia do know about NK, and thier history, these ppl are in your debate and they are not happy.
And there is not many issues in the world today where all of the above countries are in agreement.

Now debate over who should have them judged on whos standards doesnt matter - because NK does have nukes now, thats a fact. the debate over what happens next and how we deal with change in the world is more important.

Im not to bothered about the UK being under threat, I doubt thats the case but If I was Japanese or from SK i would be very worried now.

[Kaylee]

As nuts as Bush is, or the russians or even the UK, were not as isloated or ****** up as NK basicaly.

based on what criteria?

and established by whom?

and what gives them the authority to do so?

Very interesting questions. I'd be interested in ideas on how to establish such things. If you'll bear with me...

In the end, doesn't any answer to all three of those come down to 'because we said so', since all things are open to interpretation, disagreement and perspective and since rational argument is perfectly capable of making a case equally well for opposing sides?

A few of our options might be:

Democracy? Well it's not always right- nothing dictates in a circumstance that a particular minority may not end up being proven right, however majority rule meant they were ignored/overruled. It also involves issues of popularity- a popular issue will presumably get more votes than an unpopular one, regardless of the merits of either, and the whole tin of worms that opens.

International concensus? Is just that. A bunch of countries all decide to do the same thing for various (often self-serving) reasons.

We can have rational arguments to back up what we do, which can lend a level of credibility and persuasiveness to our perspective naturally but particularly with reference to 'authority' surely in the end authority has to be a matter of 'because we said so', in the absence/silence of any higher authority to take the matter up with?

Regarding the specific issue, it's rather hard to decide any criteria or action against/for North Korea since at least China (and potentially other states) is pretty determined to leave them be (at least for now) and they have power of veto- so regardless of what the rest of the UN may come up with (or their reasons for determining it, selfish or benevolent) unless China fancy it, it will go nowhere.

Similarly various other countries all have their own little/big agendas and schemes, but since we have no way to force compliance with the ethos of the UN over their own plans and since a truly democratically functioning UN would see a massive shift of it's voting base away from the West (which would lead to the West just doing its own thing anyway, thereby rendering the UN even more useless) we seem stuck in a pretty little mess where nothing really seems likely to get done one way or another.

So, how should we go about deriving these criteria for the UN to take action (assuming we take the UN as the default body in this case) in a manner which takes into account the high diversity of nations and people and how would we give the power behind these criteria any meaningful authority which cannot be flouted simply by saying 'No', without resorting to who has the biggest guns or biggest economy?

Very complex, the issue is.

Personally I don't see any way of bringing a nation inline, dangerous or merely misunderstood, which doesn't run to the undercurrent of 'We're the biggest boys in the playground and you play it our way or not at all', regardless of how benevolently it's dressed up or how eloquently argued.

So, from grand designs down to specifics: the US says North Korea is bad and needs dealing with. China disagrees. Both are concerned with their own interests, I'll be bound. The UN is therefore gridlocked (...again) and it still remains to be seen what should be done about the actual problem- is North Korea a threat to neighbouring nations?

So what do we do? And even when we do it, how do we 'prove' (or at least make a good stab at proving) it was a good idea and how do we give our decision authority without just resorting to financial or offensive capabilities, i.e. what the West/US does right now?

Or do we do nothing, and hope North Korea really is just a misunderstood government which has no plans to attack South Korea or Japan (neither being countries China would weep too many tears over)?

Damn, it sure is one big mess and no mistake.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

this a country, led by a man who tells his ppl (and his ppl belive him), that he is a god - now he has a god like weapons. this is why ppl are worried - its like giving a mental patient a gun.

I really think the situation in regards to 'whos in the right' here doesnt exist - NK is run by an utter nutter. end of story, hes not misunderstood, Kim.J is an unstable leader by just about every account outside of NK. even China and russia dont trust him.

How we deal with this tho is going to be a huge a problem, apart from a few sanctions (which seem likely) theres not much more we can do.

[BB Shockwave]

Heck, who DOESN'T have nukes these days?

Way I see the nations that the US constantly threatens HAVE to get nukes. Otherwise, see what happend to Iraq. No wonder Iran, Korea want them. Once they get nukes, the US will do some sanctions but will basically leave them alone. Attacking a country that has nukes would be pretty bad for the health of - if not the Us - but the american's neighbouring allies, Israel and South Korea in the case.

Remember Pakistan? You think Musaraf is any better then the other 'X-istan' president-dictators? But he has a nuke, and so the US won't pick a fight with him. Musaraf was clever anyway and volunteered as an ally against Afghanistan.

Hungary should get nukes. We 'd be kings of central --eastern Europe!

[Shanti418]

this a country, led by a man who tells his ppl (and his ppl belive him), that he is a god - now he has a god like weapons. this is why ppl are worried - its like giving a mental patient a gun.

Jeez dude, people can't worship God, people can't have Gods, now people can't call themselves God? Just exactly when can we use the word God as a noun in an Impy world? :P

I really think the situation in regards to 'whos in the right' here doesnt exist - NK is run by an utter nutter. end of story, hes not misunderstood, Kim.J is an unstable leader by just about every account outside of NK. even China and russia dont trust him.

So basically, the nutters that kill millions WITHOUT atomic weapons should be left alone status quo, but now that this particular nutter has a bomb, we've got to go over there and regulate?

I think the whole problem with it is this, as much as it pains me to say it:

Notions of individual morality don't apply to nation states. It's like asking a corporation to consider social responsibillity (which is only accomplished these days through government regulation). A corporation's only loyalty is to profit. A nation's only loyalty is to it own betterment and protection. Unless you've got angry consumers and/or angry citizens, these institutions apparently work best when they act nothing but their own self interest.

[Yaya]

I really think the situation in regards to 'whos in the right' here doesnt exist - NK is run by an utter nutter. end of story, .

Funny.

They say the very same thing about our president.

They, meaning half the United States population itself. Nevermind Korea.

It's ridiculous to dictate who should have nukes, who shouldn't. It's not the place of the United States to decide. Only one country has ever dropped the bomb, and that's the one crying about others having them.

Heck, who DOESN'T have nukes these days?

Way I see the nations that the US constantly threatens HAVE to get nukes. Otherwise, see what happend to Iraq. No wonder Iran, Korea want them. Once they get nukes, the US will do some sanctions but will basically leave them alone. Attacking a country that has nukes would be pretty bad for the health of - if not the Us - but the american's neighbouring allies, Israel and South Korea in the case.

Remember Pakistan? You think Musaraf is any better then the other 'X-istan' president-dictators? But he has a nuke, and so the US won't pick a fight with him. Musaraf was clever anyway and volunteered as an ally against Afghanistan.

I agree 100%. Why do countries want nukes? So they don't get invaded. This is no longer about creating a safe world. We are beyond that now. Nukes exist, and most countries have them. This is about deterring others from invading your country. Had Pakistan not had nukes, they might have been part of India as we speak. The only reason why Iran does not currently share the same fate as Iraq is because there is a chance they have a nuke, and if provoked, they wouldn't hesitate to use it on Israel.

[Legion]

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

*runs for the hills*

[Best First]

anyone ever think the universe would be better off without the self absorbed bunch of sh*t bags that is the human race anyway?

[Kaylee]

anyone ever think the universe would be better off without the self absorbed bunch of sh*t bags that is the human race anyway?

I think the actual answer is even sadder... nobody would notice. The Universe is so big and our whole planet occupies such a tiny tiny fragment of it that nobody would notice or care if we were here or not.

So we're still a bunch of selfish bastards. We just don't matter.

Eep.

[Yaya]

anyone ever think the universe would be better off without the self absorbed bunch of sh*t bags that is the human race anyway?

I think the majority of the human race, those we call the "common people", are overall good, regardless of where they hail from.

It is the leaders of the world, those who want control, that give the human race a bad name.

[Shanti418]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's quite possible the whole notion of intelligent, sentient life is nothing but an evolutionary backwater, an experiment that's gone horriby wrong and will eventually kill itself.

[The Last Autobot]

anyone ever think the universe would be better off without the self absorbed bunch of sh*t bags that is the human race anyway?

I think the majority of the human race, those we call the "common people", are overall good, regardless of where they hail from.

It is the leaders of the world, those who want control, that give the human race a bad name.

I think the majority of the human race is just indifferent, neither good nor bad, they/we just do what we think suit/s better to their/our own purposes.

[BB Shockwave]

It's not the individuals - it's when you put them in a bunch. 'Masses' did elect Bush, masses started the revolution in Russia, masses elected dictators... generally a charismatic speaker can make the people do whatever they want. We are social creatures (myself excluded... ) and we can be easily manipulated when in large groups. It's purely psychological - listening to an inspiring speech can have different effects if you're watching it on TV or hearing it in the middle of 5000 people.

[Best First]

anyone ever think the universe would be better off without the self absorbed bunch of sh*t bags that is the human race anyway?

I think the majority of the human race, those we call the "common people", are overall good, regardless of where they hail from.

It is the leaders of the world, those who want control, that give the human race a bad name.

the ones's we bear responsibility for you mean?

[Yaya]

the ones's we bear responsibility for you mean?

Though I believe the "comman man" is good at heart, I also believe them to be quite gullible. I would say overall, they avoid being overly cynical and inquisitive, and accept the obvious good a leader might exude as genuine. I think this is where we go wrong.

I wish I could look for the good in leaders. But how can we when there is not a single good example today, at least in my mind, of a leader in any part of this world who places the interest of the "comman man" first? Certainly, every speech and every election is about how he or she will benefit the common people, but does it ever come to fruition?

[Shanti418]

But who's going to, when the SECOND you put the interests of the common man above that of big buisness or even just American buisness, you get labeled a communist? [/hugochavez]