North Korea

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Heirtopendragon
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:07 am UTC

North Korea

Postby Heirtopendragon » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:57 am UTC

So, North Korea has nulear weapons

Oh well, humans had a nice run right?

User avatar
davean
Site Ninja
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 am UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea

Postby davean » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:05 am UTC

Heirtopendragon wrote:So, North Korea has nulear weapons

Oh well, humans had a nice run right?


Won't anyone think of the raptors? They'd be bored without us to hunt, they can't let us die.

mewyn
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:25 am UTC
Location: Somewhere near Chi-town

Re: North Korea

Postby mewyn » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:13 am UTC

Heirtopendragon wrote:So, North Korea has nulear weapons

Oh well, humans had a nice run right?


I just love the name of their ICBM, the Type-O Dong.

:giggles:

EM-002.rv-L "Tem Cu
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:30 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Postby EM-002.rv-L "Tem Cu » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:18 am UTC

Given that their equipment is all visible on Google Earth, I'm not too worried. Unless the government had Halliburton build their newest spy satelites, at least...
When you have at your disposal a hammer made of three spacefaring battleships, do you still need to pay taxes?

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Postby Jack Saladin » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:42 am UTC

Erm, they have a couple of most likely faulty, very weak nuclear "weapons" that they can't even currently fire. I'd hardly say goodbye to humanity. The worst that'll happen, the absoloute worst, is a nuclear attack on Seoul. No worries unless you live on the Korean Peninsula when the second Korean War starts.

Unless you've got that "compassion" thing going on.

In other news; it's funny that in one of the only cases I'd actually say military intervention is suitable, the US government sure as hell won't do it. :D

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:45 am UTC

Meh, He would never use them, he needs to have them because Bush refuses to sign a non aggression treaty and he does not want to get invaded.

This conflict could be solved effectively is china was not a dictatorship aswell, and Bush did not try to be the macho macho cowboy.

Also sanctions won't help since the people will just suffer more, go the china route, create a middle class, the revolution will come soon enough
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:47 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:Meh, He would never use them, he needs to have them because Bush refuses to sign a non aggression treaty and he does not want to get invaded.

This conflict could be solved effectively is china was not a dictatorship aswell, and Bush did not try to be the macho macho cowboy.

Also sanctions won't help since the people will just suffer more, go the china route, create a middle class, the revolution will come soon enough


Yup, nuclear weapons are his non-aggression treaty now, well he better hope at least - especially if he is pretending to have them (doubtfull, thats risky).

myoumyouou
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: perth. wa.
Contact:

Postby myoumyouou » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:38 pm UTC

i don't see whats so wrong with north korea having weapons. the US has them, as do France and Britain, and to be honest, i'm more scared about the US having nuclear arms than North Korea, and NK are testing them in their own country, unlike France and Britain, who have tested them in Aus (where i'm from). Also, at the moment, NK isn't at war with anyone, whilst the US is still warring against Iraq (installing democracy?) and Afghanistan.

The only reason i can see the world objecting to NK having nuclear arms is that they're communist, but just because they don't share your ideological views, that doesn't make them any less human does it? maybe i'm completely wrong, and NK are evil, and the US and France and Britain are the good guys, but i think NK are less likely to use weapons of mass destruction than the US who seem to be rather "trigger happy", and seem to need to be constantly fighting a war to keep their capatalist economy happy.

anyway, thats my two cents
everything you've ever thought about has been thought about before. think about it

User avatar
Ephphatha
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:03 am UTC
Location: Bathurst, NSW, Australia

Re: North Korea

Postby Ephphatha » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:42 pm UTC

Heirtopendragon wrote:So, North Korea has nulear weapons

Oh well, humans had a nice run right?
Oh shit. And all this time america didn't have nukes?
I'm not lazy, I'm just getting in early for Christmas is all...

myoumyouou
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: perth. wa.
Contact:

Re: North Korea

Postby myoumyouou » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:15 pm UTC

Ephphatha wrote:
Heirtopendragon wrote:So, North Korea has nulear weapons

Oh well, humans had a nice run right?
Oh shit. And all this time america didn't have nukes?

THANKYOU!
everything you've ever thought about has been thought about before. think about it

User avatar
xhuxus
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:53 am UTC
Location: funkland, usa
Contact:

Postby xhuxus » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:12 pm UTC

i think at this point, especially with all the economic reform within China, the united states government has probably learned that communism isn't the viral, irreversible, world-crippling threat they made it out to be during the cold war -- but Kim Jhong Il isn't what i would call, uh... completely sane. he's basically turned his regime into a cult, with himself (and therefore, his sons, who'll presumably inherit power from him if the world doesn't explode or the governement isn't overthrown from within or without) as the centerpiece, and while the country's economic problems have been caused primarily by external forces, i don't really get the feeling he rules in favor of his people. it's not so much communism as a fascist dictatorship.

i do totally agree that the US is a much bigger threat to the safety of the planet, though.

conclusion: you can't hug your children with nuclear arms :(
whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it

myoumyouou
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: perth. wa.
Contact:

Postby myoumyouou » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:24 pm UTC

so you're saying that Bush is completely sane?
and what is democracy, but a facade anyway.
freedom of speech, just mind what you say.
a perfect example of that is in aus parliament (probably irrelevent to most, but a perfect example)
where the liberal party (party in power) voted on an issue, and many members were decidedly against the liberal party's views, but had they abstained, or worse crossed the floor, they would have lost their jobs.
so is democracy really democratic anymore, or is it just another way of controlling us, telling us we have choice, when we don't really.
everything you've ever thought about has been thought about before. think about it

User avatar
xhuxus
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:53 am UTC
Location: funkland, usa
Contact:

Postby xhuxus » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:33 pm UTC

no... i certainly never meant to imply that bush was completely sane, or sane at all; in addition to being a religious fundamentalist (or a person who pretends to be religious, at least, and does so using fundamentalist ideals to appeal to his target demographic) who believes we are living in the end times, and a power hungry oil tycoon, i recently came across something on youtube, which unfortunately i didn't keep the link for, that compares a tape of his debate while running for governor of texas ten years ago with one of the presidential debates from the last election... the conclusion being that based on the extreme decline of his oratory abilities, apparent logic, and memory, he's either become completely incompetent in ten years or suffering from early onset senility. also the second to last line in my post states my agreement that the US is a much bigger threat to the safety of the planet (or, if you read my post before i edited it, it was the first line that stated such).

you are correct that democracy is a facade, and frankly, while i live in the US, i perceive severe, systemic problems with the method of government, not just the current administration, and frankly, with all governments. unfortunately, there's only so much a body can do.
whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:50 pm UTC

That said, the problems presented by Bush's insanity and those presented by Kim Jhong Il's insanity are in two different ball-parks.

The american system of government at least has some semblance of a check-and-balance system. Even with a completely mad president, the legislative and judicial systems hold him *somewhat* in check, keeping him from just making whatever policies (and launching whatever missles) he might like to if he had *absolute* power.

North Korea has a dictatorship. That's one guy, no checks, no balances, and a big red button that says "launch the terribly shaky and unreliable nukes".

If North Korea ever developed a nuclear bomb that was worth a shit, they would present much more of a threat to the world than the US does, simply because their leader would have more unrestricted use of said weapons. We are severely unlikely to get pissed off one day and just start nuking people. The same cannot be said of Kim Jhong Il

I'm all in favor of criticizing the way the American government works, and certainly in favor of criticizing the people in charge (GOD I hate bush), but saying that America's nuclear program and Korea's are equally dangerous to the world is inaccurate, and inaccuracies and misrepresentations don't help anyone. In fact, they tend to make legitimate points look bad.

As a total tangent, that's precisely the reason I hated "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". Moore is great at taking a legitimate viewpoint ("The american view on guns is flawed" "The Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts are totally fucked") and making them look completely retarded by saying ridiculous, untrue things, and using film tricks and lies, when there are perfectly good *facts* that could have been used instead. I harbour a sneaking suspicion that he's actually employed by the GOP to make liberal ideas look bad.

User avatar
xhuxus
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:53 am UTC
Location: funkland, usa
Contact:

Postby xhuxus » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:18 pm UTC

it's true that the american system of government provides a system of checks and balances, and while both the other branches are dominated by members of the right-wing, congress at least has learned to distance themselves from bush, and to not give him the sort of unquestioning support that came close to severely limiting their own power in the patriot act era... and it's unlikely the US is going to start firing off nukes at random.

on the other hand, currently north korea's nuclear weapons program is pitiful compared to almost every other nuclear-equipped country. even if he does push the big red button to launch the shaky, unstable nukes, they're not nearly at the point where they'll get very far... and yes, this could mean a terrible tragedy in south korea, and any loss of human life, along with the terrible environmental destruction of powerful bombs and radiation, is stupid, stupid, STUPID. however, taking nuclear action would immediately legitimize military action towards north korea by the united states (or really, anyone else who wanted to take a shot)... militant nuclear action is such a clear and present threat for the global community that it would be impossible to deny action against the offending country. this holds true even if he were to develop nukes that could go further or carry a larger payload, especially the 'threat' of north korea attacking the west coast, or hawai'i, or etc... he's crazy, but i don't know that he's stupid enough to actually attack the united states, especially with nuclear force. north korea would be ripped apart... probably civilians and all. and north korea just doesn't have the resources to develop their weapons past a certain point, even with assistance from other countries, who not only require something in return for their service but are reluctant to trust self-serving maniacs like Kim, even if they do have common enemies.

and while it's extremely unlikely the US is going to attack Iraq with nuclear weapons (they don't seem to have a problem sending wave after wave of belatedly-equipped soldiers selected through an increasingly indescriminant selection process in there, and if anything would sooner opt for the completely irresponsible cut-and-run option before using nukes) what if they declare war on iran, and end up attacking with nuclear weapons? there'll be global protests, the UN will make denouncements, but will anyone take military action against the US? will anyone cease trade with the US? it seems very unlikely, and a precedent has already been set with afghanistan and iraq... i don't think it's really as much of a given as people say it is that the US is going to go to war with iran, syria, and lebanon next, in the near future, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me, either.

Kim Jhong Il and Bush are both insane; Kim Jhong Il is in a much better (if that's the word) position to use his arsenal if and when it becomes fully operational; Bush (or whoever comes after him) would only need to present it in such a way as to make it seem like the only viable option, as has been done with two wars now, and the united states could actually get away with it.

also, good call about michael moore, though while it's fun to imagine he's part of the right-wing conspiracy, after watching his first big documentary Roger and Me i feel like he's really just a self-indulgent ass who wants to stylize himself as a champion of the people because it's the only way he's figured out to get people to like him. even if most of them hate him.

(and the information in my previous reply regarding bush's possible incompetence/senility was in no way meant to be evidence that the united states is more dangerous than north korea... just a reactionary counter to the accusation that i think bush is sane. this post represents my 'dangerous US' theory)
whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it

Air Gear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC

Postby Air Gear » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:55 pm UTC

From what I heard from people who WERE keeping track of this, the nuclear weapon tested was likely under 1 kiloton.

1 kiloton?

ONE kiloton?

Hey, you hear that? That's the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa (just due to history, you know) LAUGHING. Seriously, if those of us with access to chem labs ON THIS BOARD got together we could make an explosive bigger than THAT.

ONE freaking KILOton?

Seriously, I'm not worried. The possibility of teaching English in South Korea has not lost any points due of this.

As for the whole discussion on "democracy" as we know it and, in particular, "democracy in America", I'll avoid the discussion since, really, there aren't too many solutions short of going back to the city-state model, which really wouldn't be the worst thing.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Postby Jack Saladin » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:06 pm UTC

Wow, lotta long posts. Can't be bothered reading them. But I'd like to comment on:

The only reason i can see the world objecting to NK having nuclear arms is that they're communist, but just because they don't share your ideological views, that doesn't make them any less human does it?


The DPRK is not Communist. It might claim to be, but it's a dictatorship, nothing more, nothing less. Lenin or Marx would not approve of the country, it is just as far from the ideals of socialism as is any free market capitalist country.

I don't really know what the conversation is up to at this point, but wanted to poin that out. :P

Edit: To the guy above me; yeah it is pathetic. The thing about this bomb, though, is not its physical impact, but its political one. The Korean situation has been extremely tense since the first war, I don't think we need nukes thrown into that situation. Seoul will respond in some manner.

User avatar
Verysillyman
"Do me! Do me!"
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:25 am UTC
Location: Drinks Cabinet.
Contact:

Postby Verysillyman » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:34 pm UTC

Heh. Politics.

User avatar
Epoch
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:51 pm UTC
Location: Nihilism?

Postby Epoch » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:44 pm UTC

Verysillyman wrote:Heh. Politics.


too long; didn't read.

heh politicks.
the mind is an infinite desert in which we may wander, make piles, or dig holes.

User avatar
Verysillyman
"Do me! Do me!"
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:25 am UTC
Location: Drinks Cabinet.
Contact:

Postby Verysillyman » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:58 pm UTC

Politics - may we suck your blood? (get it? no? polite ticks? :'( I apologise)

User avatar
Epoch
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:51 pm UTC
Location: Nihilism?

Postby Epoch » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:23 pm UTC

Verysillyman wrote:Politics - may we suck your blood? (get it? no? polite ticks? :'( I apologise)


just an alternate (but not common, or accepted) spelling...

like Magic>magick

it was essentially patent nonsense masquerading as a joke...sorry.
the mind is an infinite desert in which we may wander, make piles, or dig holes.

User avatar
FrizB
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:24 am UTC
Contact:

Postby FrizB » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:15 am UTC

myoumyouou wrote:i don't see whats so wrong with north korea having weapons. the US has them, as do France and Britain, and to be honest, i'm more scared about the US having nuclear arms than North Korea, and NK are testing them in their own country, unlike France and Britain, who have tested them in Aus (where i'm from). Also, at the moment, NK isn't at war with anyone, whilst the US is still warring against Iraq (installing democracy?) and Afghanistan.

The only reason i can see the world objecting to NK having nuclear arms is that they're communist, but just because they don't share your ideological views, that doesn't make them any less human does it? maybe i'm completely wrong, and NK are evil, and the US and France and Britain are the good guys, but i think NK are less likely to use weapons of mass destruction than the US who seem to be rather "trigger happy", and seem to need to be constantly fighting a war to keep their capatalist economy happy.

anyway, thats my two cents


Well, another reason North Korea made the nuclear weapons is so other nations would take them seriously. That is mostly why they're scaring us. It is like an irresponsible kid pointing a bebe gun at you saying, "Hey, I have a rifle too so listen to me!"
Also, it's stupid if they tested it underground, all of the radiation would sit under the Earth and come back up anyway, right?
"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin

myoumyouou
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: perth. wa.
Contact:

Postby myoumyouou » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:25 am UTC

FrizB wrote:
myoumyouou wrote:i don't see whats so wrong with north korea having weapons. the US has them, as do France and Britain, and to be honest, i'm more scared about the US having nuclear arms than North Korea, and NK are testing them in their own country, unlike France and Britain, who have tested them in Aus (where i'm from). Also, at the moment, NK isn't at war with anyone, whilst the US is still warring against Iraq (installing democracy?) and Afghanistan.

The only reason i can see the world objecting to NK having nuclear arms is that they're communist, but just because they don't share your ideological views, that doesn't make them any less human does it? maybe i'm completely wrong, and NK are evil, and the US and France and Britain are the good guys, but i think NK are less likely to use weapons of mass destruction than the US who seem to be rather "trigger happy", and seem to need to be constantly fighting a war to keep their capatalist economy happy.

anyway, thats my two cents


Well, another reason North Korea made the nuclear weapons is so other nations would take them seriously. That is mostly why they're scaring us. It is like an irresponsible kid pointing a bebe gun at you saying, "Hey, I have a rifle too so listen to me!"
Also, it's stupid if they tested it underground, all of the radiation would sit under the Earth and come back up anyway, right?


in some ways its sad that north korea needs nuclear weapons to be taken seriously. and again, as long as they're testing them in their own country, i don't care that they have them
everything you've ever thought about has been thought about before. think about it

User avatar
Shoofle
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:28 pm UTC
Location: Location, Location.
Contact:

Postby Shoofle » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:43 pm UTC

The biggest problem I see is that for some reason, North Korea is really worried that the US is going to invade. Since we just invaded a country for NOT having nuclear or biological weapons, their fears are understandably fueled higher. Now, they are way more likely to use their nukes. I'm rather glad I'm not on the American West coast right now.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Postby Jack Saladin » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:46 pm UTC

^I think that if NK was to use one of their nukes, it would almost definitely be against South Korea. Using a nuke on the US, even for the NK regime, is pretty damn stupid. So is using one on Seoul, but it's still more likely, especially since conflict is bound to flare up there again soon enough.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Postby Umlaut » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:00 pm UTC

Shoofle wrote:The biggest problem I see is that for some reason, North Korea is really worried that the US is going to invade. Since we just invaded a country for NOT having nuclear or biological weapons, their fears are understandably fueled higher. Now, they are way more likely to use their nukes. I'm rather glad I'm not on the American West coast right now.

Uh-oh, shakey broken missile with a dud bomb incoming! Wait... it's down.

North Korea is less of a threat than Iran, we need to go mess those guys up.

User avatar
Shoofle
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:28 pm UTC
Location: Location, Location.
Contact:

Postby Shoofle » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:35 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:North Korea is less of a threat than Iran, we need to go mess those guys up.
What, so that they fire missiles at us while we are on our way? It's really bad that they have nukes. It's really bad that anyone has nukes, but a regime as unstable, unchecked, and, frankly, insane as North Korea is worse than America, which will change every four years. In general, America's regime is likely to be a sane one.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Postby Umlaut » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:58 pm UTC

I meant we need to mess up Iran, NK will give in to polictical pressures.

User avatar
Shoofle
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:28 pm UTC
Location: Location, Location.
Contact:

Postby Shoofle » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:26 am UTC

Umlaut wrote:I meant we need to mess up Iran, NK will give in to polictical pressures.
Seriously? North Korea is always talking about having nukes so they can defend against an American invasion, which is rather paranoid, which indicates much more instability than I have heard of from Iran.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Postby Umlaut » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:55 am UTC

What about how Iran constantly tells everyone (including the US) that they are developing nuclear weapons for peace and proposing "solutions" that involve us giving them our weapons and then buying them back?

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5130
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:58 am UTC

Also, it's stupid if they tested it underground, all of the radiation would sit under the Earth and come back up anyway, right?


Probably not actually. Most of the gamma etc radiation would just get absorbed by the rock. Some of the neutrons from the explosion would transform some of the rock in radioactive isotopes & you'd have some radioactive uranium left over probably.

However, the radiation from these isotopes wouldn't be able to reach the surface - too much rock. I suppose if it was dirt instead of rock a little bit of gamma might get through? The bext way it could get up here is if some plant had roots that went down there and extracted some minerals and brought them up to the surface... or if there was an underground river, or moles or something

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Postby Jack Saladin » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:51 am UTC

Woah woah WOAH. Did I just see some ignorant fool say that Iran said it was developing nuclear weapons? Iran says it's developing nuclear technology for power only, and they're pissed some don't believe them. The US has accused Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons - but frankly after Iraq, I don't know if the Bush regime should be allowed to use that excuse any more.

Besides, invading Iran would put the US at a far higher risk of attack from NK, and encourage them to develop more nuclear weapons. You don't "scare the nukes" out of a country, that's not how it works at all. American Imperialism is only going to make this situation worse.

User avatar
FrizB
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:24 am UTC
Contact:

Postby FrizB » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:23 am UTC

Hey, guys, funny thing here. U.S. spies have claimed that there actually AREN'T any nuclear weapons in North Korea. They said that they were "probably bluffing." Here's the article: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/72055.html
"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

-Joseph Stalin

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:27 am UTC

i think NK are less likely to use weapons of mass destruction than the US who seem to be rather "trigger happy"
On the contrary, I think the U.S. is entirely rational in its nuclear attacks. When we were the sole owners of them, we used them. When others were able to retaliate, we didn't. Read up on mutually assured destruction.

The problem is when fanatics or people who can't be easily relatiated against, are the ones with the nukes. I've heard (and have some reason to believe) that North Korea has had a history of selling weapons to individuals who desire them- nuclear weapons will soon be on that list, and it is troubling, since we can't retaliate against Al Qaeda (or its equivalent) in nuclear warfare. MAD breaks down, and nuclear detonations happen.

seem to need to be constantly fighting a war to keep their capatalist economy happy.
War tends to be bad for economies, and most capitalists know that. This isn't ancient Rome where the economy runs off plunder captured in distant lands- this is the globalized economy where attacking China destroys your standard of living because you no longer have access to Chinese goods and services.

i certainly never meant to imply that bush was completely sane, or sane at all
The nice thing about this, though, is that if Bush orders a nuclear attack with disastrous results, odds are he will be disobeyed. Not so much so with Kim Jhong Il, as pointed out by Belial.

what if they declare war on iran, and end up attacking with nuclear weapons? there'll be global protests, the UN will make denouncements, but will anyone take military action against the US?
I hope to Asmodeus that not one with such a simplistic view of foreign policy ever gets their hands on nuclear weapons (which is why NK getting them is pretty bad). Dropping a nuclear weapon on an Islamic country for no real provocation (there are easier ways to take out the power plants they are building) will turn every Muslim against us, and probably nearly every American. We can't just nuke them and forget about it.

From what I heard from people who WERE keeping track of this, the nuclear weapon tested was likely under 1 kiloton.
I heard that as well, and from what I know (although I could very possibly be wrong), I don't think it's actually possible to have a critical mass of Uranium make an explosion that small. If they are fissioning uranium to do that... they're not doing it very well.

Also, it's stupid if they tested it underground, all of the radiation would sit under the Earth and come back up anyway, right?
That's not really how radiation works... their claim (which is sorta substantiated) is that the tons and tons of earth above the detonation absorbed the radiation, which it probably would (at least, most of it).

Iran says it's developing nuclear technology for power only, and they're pissed some don't believe them.
That's my take on it as well, although the real problem is the small amount of time this allows them to switch a peaceful process to a militant one. If they wanted to put together a plutonium bomb now, we could stop them. If they wanted to put one together after they had all the plutonium... not so easy. If Iran (or at least, Iranians) didn't have as many ties to terrorist organizations, I wouldn't have a problem with them having nukes (because of MAD). The problem is, it probably wouldn't be that hard for a terrorist to "steal" plutonium from an Iranian power plant.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Postby Jack Saladin » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:34 am UTC

War tends to be bad for economies, and most capitalists know that.


:? War industry pulled America out of a depression and into superpower-hood. The war industries have been an important sector for the US economy since, I fail to see how it's "bad for economies."

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:47 am UTC

Conventional war made the US what it is today. That sort of war required massive manufacturing capabilities - it created jobs and trade faster than any peacetime campaign could have. That wouldn't happen to the same extent now because that sort of resource-heavy war just isn't fought anymore. If it does get to that point, where the US needs all of its manufacturing capabilities to make tanks and aircraft and guns to win the war, something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

User avatar
Ephphatha
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:03 am UTC
Location: Bathurst, NSW, Australia

Postby Ephphatha » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:03 am UTC

Saladin wrote:
War tends to be bad for economies, and most capitalists know that.


:? War industry pulled America out of a depression and into superpower-hood. The war industries have been an important sector for the US economy since, I fail to see how it's "bad for economies."
A war is the best thing to happen for a capitalist economy. That's probably why the US is starting so many. You can sell weapons, food, manpower, it gives the superpower a small country to exploit for natural resources, and as long as you pull out when the UN say you should, no one gets upset. (Except the general population, but no one cares about them).
I'm not lazy, I'm just getting in early for Christmas is all...

User avatar
Pau!
Dutiful Sycophant
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:20 am UTC
Location: Ottawa
Contact:

Postby Pau! » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:28 am UTC

Belial, thank you for beating me to what I was going to say...but I'm going to say it anyway.



I'll begin with saying that I really, really dislike Bush. I disagree with him on just about everything, and hell, I'm Canadian. However... to those of you who are seriously suggesting that Bush is just as bad/dangerous as Kim Jhong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are quite simply insane and/or not actually paying attention.

If you actually believe that the US having nukes is just as bad as N. Korea or Iran having nukes, than you don't understand how these countries work. It wouldn't be difficult for terrorists to 'steal' a nuke to use on another country...and believe me, they won't offer to rebuild. You know what? The government of the United States is not, in fact, pure evil. Can you name any other country that has gone to nearly the same lengths to rebuild the places it has attacked? Let's ignore the reasons they attacked in the first place, to simplify matters. I don't care if they attacked just for the hell of it; the USA is actually trying to improve the standards of living in both Afghanistan and Iraq and set up their own government, with no trace of colonial intent.

Bush, although he may be a lying religious fanatic, does not have the power to launch a nuke on his own. Quite simply, the American people will not accept firing a nuclear weapon unless the US is being attacked. North Korea has no such restrictions, no way to stop Mr. Kim from giving the nuclear power to someone who can use it.

Perspective, people!

User avatar
ryan
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:13 pm UTC

Postby ryan » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:15 am UTC

Belial wrote:I'm all in favor of criticizing the way the American government works, and certainly in favor of criticizing the people in charge (GOD I hate bush), but saying that America's nuclear program and Korea's are equally dangerous to the world is inaccurate, and inaccuracies and misrepresentations don't help anyone. In fact, they tend to make legitimate points look bad.


I think this is precisely what many people need to understand. For some reason, lots of folks tend to take up viewpoints that are completely understandable (e.g., Bush is not a good president) and justify them using a bunch of cockamaimy ideas having no basis in reality (e.g., Bush is worse than Hitler). There are plenty of *real* reasons to believe that Bush is a douchebag - there is no need to make up more reasons.

myoumyouou
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: perth. wa.
Contact:

Postby myoumyouou » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:50 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
i think NK are less likely to use weapons of mass destruction than the US who seem to be rather "trigger happy"
On the contrary, I think the U.S. is entirely rational in its nuclear attacks. When we were the sole owners of them, we used them. When others were able to retaliate, we didn't. Read up on mutually assured destruction.

The problem is when fanatics or people who can't be easily relatiated against, are the ones with the nukes. I've heard (and have some reason to believe) that North Korea has had a history of selling weapons to individuals who desire them- nuclear weapons will soon be on that list, and it is troubling, since we can't retaliate against Al Qaeda (or its equivalent) in nuclear warfare. MAD breaks down, and nuclear detonations happen.

seem to need to be constantly fighting a war to keep their capatalist economy happy.
War tends to be bad for economies, and most capitalists know that. This isn't ancient Rome where the economy runs off plunder captured in distant lands- this is the globalized economy where attacking China destroys your standard of living because you no longer have access to Chinese goods and services.

i certainly never meant to imply that bush was completely sane, or sane at all
The nice thing about this, though, is that if Bush orders a nuclear attack with disastrous results, odds are he will be disobeyed. Not so much so with Kim Jhong Il, as pointed out by Belial.

what if they declare war on iran, and end up attacking with nuclear weapons? there'll be global protests, the UN will make denouncements, but will anyone take military action against the US?
I hope to Asmodeus that not one with such a simplistic view of foreign policy ever gets their hands on nuclear weapons (which is why NK getting them is pretty bad). Dropping a nuclear weapon on an Islamic country for no real provocation (there are easier ways to take out the power plants they are building) will turn every Muslim against us, and probably nearly every American. We can't just nuke them and forget about it.

From what I heard from people who WERE keeping track of this, the nuclear weapon tested was likely under 1 kiloton.
I heard that as well, and from what I know (although I could very possibly be wrong), I don't think it's actually possible to have a critical mass of Uranium make an explosion that small. If they are fissioning uranium to do that... they're not doing it very well.

Also, it's stupid if they tested it underground, all of the radiation would sit under the Earth and come back up anyway, right?
That's not really how radiation works... their claim (which is sorta substantiated) is that the tons and tons of earth above the detonation absorbed the radiation, which it probably would (at least, most of it).

Iran says it's developing nuclear technology for power only, and they're pissed some don't believe them.
That's my take on it as well, although the real problem is the small amount of time this allows them to switch a peaceful process to a militant one. If they wanted to put together a plutonium bomb now, we could stop them. If they wanted to put one together after they had all the plutonium... not so easy. If Iran (or at least, Iranians) didn't have as many ties to terrorist organizations, I wouldn't have a problem with them having nukes (because of MAD). The problem is, it probably wouldn't be that hard for a terrorist to "steal" plutonium from an Iranian power plant.


war? bad for economies?
umm, i don't know what planet you're living on, but economy's boom during wars, due to food, arms, ammunition etc having to be produced
world war two got us out of the depression, as a beautiful example,
everything you've ever thought about has been thought about before. think about it


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests