North Korea tests another ICBM, claims all of U.S. in strike range

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

'I knew they should have been left alone...'

I don't see any support for NK here anyway. Comments like Geezer's remind of 'if you're not with us you're against us'. Emotional rhetoric without much thought.

[Stargeezr]

I guess you do not get that this leader is even crazier than his father.  At least the dad killed off people with more secrecy.  Nut Job with the highest job in the country is just too scary.

Geezer

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

I guess you do not get that this leader is even crazier than his father.  At least the dad

killed off people with more secrecy.

Nut Job with the highest job in the country is just too scary.

Geezer

Which confirms rather nicely what stevenl was saying above...

[rijb]

13 hours ago, Naam said:

Grenada

Panama

Kuwait

Japan

Germany

[Naam]

2 hours ago, quadperfect said:

And why does n korea need to be denied nukes. Well if i need to explain this to anyone we have nothing to talk about.

appreciated!

[Morch]

2 hours ago, baboon said:

Now I am willing to stand corrected on this, but I believe that the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty was based on smaller countries being protected by and never threatened with, nuclear weapons. Also the existing nuclear states were supposed to get rid of all their nuclear weapons by the year 2000, which clearly has not happened. Therefore the answer to your question would be 'Yes', and the blame not placed at the DPRK's door...

 

Was NK threatened with nuclear weapons prior to developing nuclear weapons?

And as far as I recall, this bit ("existing nuclear states were supposed to get rid of all their nuclear weapons by the year 2000") did not appear as such in said agreement. May want to read a bit on NK's conduct relating to the NPT, though.

 

[Naam]

2 hours ago, sweatalot said:

may be those others have shown responsibility and are moire trustworthy

 

and btw. do you think because some have them (which is not easily reversible) now everybody should have nukes ?

trustworthy is a matter of perspective. nations which have repeatedly invaded other countries based on blatant lies or false pretense can't be trusted. two generals have asked for permission to use nukes when the tide was against them (McArthur and Westmoreland). fortunately permission was denied.

 

any country that is threatened should have the unfettered right to have any means of defense. North Korea is threatened since the armistice (more than half a century ago) by "joint war games" several times every year (not to mention sanctions). the result should not surprise anybody.

[Naam]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

Was NK threatened with nuclear weapons prior to developing nuclear weapons?

yes! google "McArthur North Korea Nukes".

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Was NK threatened with nuclear weapons prior to developing nuclear weapons?

And as far as I recall, this bit ("existing nuclear states were supposed to get rid of all their nuclear weapons by the year 2000") did not appear as such in said agreement. May want to read a bit on NK's conduct relating to the NPT, though.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Naam said:

yes! google "McArthur North Korea Nukes".

And any day now, the Germans are going to invade France. Because, you know, it happened almost 80 years ago. So there's a good chance it will happen again.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Naam said:

yes! google "McArthur North Korea Nukes".

 

Rather less straightforward than the suggested resounding "yes!".

 

[baboon]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Was NK threatened with nuclear weapons prior to developing nuclear weapons?

And as far as I recall, this bit ("existing nuclear states were supposed to get rid of all their nuclear weapons by the year 2000") did not appear as such in said agreement. May want to read a bit on NK's conduct relating to the NPT, though.

 

The 'by the year 2000...' was something I read in a book. I can't remember for the life of me which one, so feel free to discount it if you wish. What the treaty does say however, is:

Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

The 'by the year 2000...' was something I read in a book. I can't remember for the life of me which one, so feel free to discount it if you wish. What the treaty does say however, is:

Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

 

 

I am discounting it. Something read in "a book" is all very fine. Asserting that the NPT included or includes clear and binding terms with regard to nuclear disarmament is another. The cherry-picked bit doesn't support what you posted earlier.

 

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I am discounting it. Something read in "a book" is all very fine. Asserting that the NPT included or includes clear and binding terms with regard to nuclear disarmament is another. The cherry-picked bit doesn't support what you posted earlier.

 

Yes, that's fair enough. However the nuclear big boys' club clearly have no intention of abiding by Article VI above, so why should any other country, particularly if they are not a signatory to the treaty?

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

Yes, that's fair enough. However the nuclear big boys' club clearly have no intention of abiding by Article VI above, so why should any other country, particularly if they are not a signatory to the treaty?

 

Both the US and Russia (or more to the point, former USSR members) did act on nuclear disarmament. Not to the degree envisaged in the NPT, but not "no intention" either. Many countries who could easily have gone nuclear capable, chose not to go down this path. As for "particularly if they are not a signatory to the treaty" - I'll advice again, read up on NK actions with regard to NPT membership.

 

In general, it would have been best if all notions embodied in the NPT were adopted by everyone. Realistically though, this is not about to happen. It does not imply that a free-for-all nuclear proliferation is the answer. A possibly unhinged dictator bent on political survival having access to nuclear weapons is not a good thing. 

 

[baboon]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Both the US and Russia (or more to the point, former USSR members) did act on nuclear disarmament. Not to the degree envisaged in the NPT, but not "no intention" either. Many countries who could easily have gone nuclear capable, chose not to go down this path. As for "particularly if they are not a signatory to the treaty" - I'll advice again, read up on NK actions with regard to NPT membership.

 

In general, it would have been best if all notions embodied in the NPT were adopted by everyone. Realistically though, this is not about to happen. It does not imply that a free-for-all nuclear proliferation is the answer. A possibly unhinged dictator bent on political survival having access to nuclear weapons is not a good thing. 

 

I am not saying nothing has ever been done, but no way will the big boys' club ever get rid of their nukes, so my point stands.

 

The DPRK withdrew from the NPT in 2003 as it was entitled to do under Article X of the treaty:

    "Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.  It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance.  Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, baboon said:

I am not saying nothing has ever been done, but no way will the big boys' club ever get rid of their nukes, so my point stands.

 

The DPRK withdrew from the NPT in 2003 as it was entitled to do under Article X of the treaty:

    "Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.  It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance.  Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

 

I'm not even sure what is your "point". That the world isn't perfect, so might as well let things get worse? That because some nations do not fully live up to some ideals, nuclear proliferation ought to be free-for-all?  We can't fully put out a major fire, so why don't we let smaller fires spread at the same time?

 

NK withdrew after its compliance with the treaty it signed was challenged. Not a question of "right" or "entitlement".

 

 

[baboon]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not even sure what is your "point". That the world isn't perfect, so might as well let things get worse? That because some nations do not fully live up to some ideals, nuclear proliferation ought to be free-for-all?  We can't fully put out a major fire, so why don't we let smaller fires spread at the same time?

 

NK withdrew after its compliance with the treaty it signed was challenged. Not a question of "right" or "entitlement".

 

 

Well what to do, then? Attack and risk a confligration on the Korean peninsula and the wider North East Asian region?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Well what to do, then? Attack and risk a confligration on the Korean peninsula and the wider North East Asian region?

 

Eh? Where did I advocate an attack? Why is it an either/or thing?

[vogie]

Should be easy enough taking out their Generals, all that's needed is a big magnet!

 

 

[baboon]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Eh? Where did I advocate an attack? Why is it an either/or thing?

Hey, I am not challenging you or looking to score points from you. I am just asking you what you think should be done?

[scubascuba3]

You'd think Kim Jong Un would have better things to do, like make the country more prosperous

[baboon]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

You'd think Kim Jong Un would have better things to do, like make the country more prosperous

The country IS becoming more prosperous.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

Hey, I am not challenging you or looking to score points from you. I am just asking you what you think should be done?

 

Doubt there's a good answer for that, sure I don't have one.

 

Should doesn't figure into it much. The various interests, sometimes conflicting, the personalities of leaders involved...you name it. If should was a factor then a whole lot of the issues would have been non-issues by now. Not how things work.

 

So it's more what shouldn't be done - military strikes are a bad idea, regardless of which country is involved. Same goes for forced regime change fantasies. Relying on the PRC to sort things out or attempting to pressure the PRC into doing so - well, good luck with that.

 

There aren't much prospects as far as "engaging" NK in dialogue. Tightening sanctions without full compliance and participation isn't doing much, perhaps the opposite. The US fully disengaging from this mess is, again, not a real possibility unless one is into an Asian arms race and the US losing whatever is left of its credibility in world affairs.

 

Guess we'll just see more of the same, at least for the foreseeable future. Usual statements, usual poking, usual almost crisis situations.

[scubascuba3]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

The country IS becoming more prosperous.

Are the sanctions helping?

[baboon]

11 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Are the sanctions helping?

What do you mean by "helping"? Us or them?

Edited July 30, 2017 by baboon

[Naam]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And any day now, the Germans are going to invade France. Because, you know, it happened almost 80 years ago. So there's a good chance it will happen again.

the Germans have already invaded France but the French haven't realised it yet

 

joke aside... i answered the question "was North Korea threatened by nukes?" to which the answer is a clear YES.

[Naam]

5 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

I guess you do not get that this leader is even crazier than his father.  At least the dad killed off people with more secrecy.  Nut Job with the highest job in the country is just too scary.

Geezer

are you sure that these reports are not fairy tales? 

[maewang99]

it's never about protecting land, treasure.... or even your civilian population.

it's about keeping the political system intact as it is.

and we are not and never have been any different in those priorities.

it's about being a member of the Big Boy Club.  

if you have nukes.... you have more power. there is nothing crazy about that.

 

[sirineou]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt there's a good answer for that, sure I don't have one.

 

Should doesn't figure into it much. The various interests, sometimes conflicting, the personalities of leaders involved...you name it. If should was a factor then a whole lot of the issues would have been non-issues by now. Not how things work.

 

So it's more what shouldn't be done - military strikes are a bad idea, regardless of which country is involved. Same goes for forced regime change fantasies. Relying on the PRC to sort things out or attempting to pressure the PRC into doing so - well, good luck with that.

 

There aren't much prospects as far as "engaging" NK in dialogue. Tightening sanctions without full compliance and participation isn't doing much, perhaps the opposite. The US fully disengaging from this mess is, again, not a real possibility unless one is into an Asian arms race and the US losing whatever is left of its credibility in world affairs.

 

Guess we'll just see more of the same, at least for the foreseeable future. Usual statements, usual poking, usual almost crisis situations.

I have an answer for you. We tried the stick with obvious results and  to the detriment of the NK people, so why not try the carrot now? And don't tell me we have tried the carrot  in the past. our policy has always being the destruction of any communist system.

Interdependent countries  do not wage war on each other.

  Case and point China.  China needs a healthy west , and the west needs a healthy China. a war between the two would be detrimental to both and the last possible option. 

Open diplomatic relations with NK, develop trade. It would be good for the west , good for NK and good for SK.

But there is a problem , a successful communist system might become attractive to some people in the west

and the 1% that controls the wealth cant have that.

 

 

[tonray]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I have an answer for you. We tried the stick with obvious results and  to the detriment of the NK people, so why not try the carrot now? And don't tell me we have tried the carrot  in the past. our policy has always being the destruction of any communist system.

Interdependent countries  do not wage war on each other.

  Case and point China.  China needs a healthy west , and the west needs a healthy China. a war between the two would be detrimental to both and the last possible option. 

Open diplomatic relations with NK, develop trade. It would be good for the west , good for NK and good for SK.

But there is a problem , a successful communist system might become attractive to some people in the west

and the 1% that controls the wealth cant have that.

 

 

The 1 % doesn't care as long as they can make money from it. Vietnam is a trading partner and American companies sell into that market. Just find a way for the 1% to get richer and ideology means nothing.