Korea want to test their nuclear bombs. (News today)
America says it may well attack Korea if it goes ahead...

We all know what that means don't we?

I'll say goodbye now.

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=korea+nuclear

:wave: It's been fun.

"Last weekend North Korea called Bush a ``hooligan'' after the president called North Korean leader Kim Jong Il a ``tyrant.''

that's plainly fighting talk!

and a case of , Pot , kettle, me thinks.

and just think, Tony Blair (Bushs bumchum) has just got back into no. 10. Does everyone who voted for Labour want us to die or something.

I maybe to young to vote but still hate the fact that a complete idiot rules the land I live on wants it to be blown apart. Arghhhh. It gets me mad!

Originally posted by bonny


and a case of , Pot , kettle, me thinks.

I think you'll find that was Cambodia not Korea.

Originally posted by max
I think you'll find that was Cambodia not Korea.

shall we take a "pol" on that?
:D

Hmmmm nuclear winter and the end of all life on earth - so THATS the governments answer to global warming and the pensions crisis!

Right then, I'm off to curry's to buy a Huuuuuuuge Freezer! Just like the ones they have in Canada.

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Korea want to test their nuclear bombs. (News today)
America says it may well attack Korea if it goes ahead...



I cant see where america says it will attack korea on the link? Can you be more specific?

You don't need a link, just take it as given with thier track record!

Does that mean we can all look forward to the lesbians gathering at Greenham Common? And Fylingdales too, hopefully!!

I don't know, I always said that Blair fella was a Thatcherite. I'm sure he's trying to recreate the glorious eighties.

Just think, "Frankie Says 'No War'" T-shirts, George Michael in his luminous green mittens and Alison Moyet looking enormous on Top of The Pops.

Can't wait - bring on the nuclear power.

Originally posted by nightrider
I cant see where america says it will attack korea on the link? Can you be more specific?
America will probably press China to enforce trade sanctions on North Korea.

To those of us in the Zimmer Frame Society , N. Korea and its problems seems like child's play.
I doubt whether today's Drama Queens would have made it right through from 1945 to 1990.
For most of that time we had two Super-powers glowering at each other and the ability to blow most of us to smithereens.
We had regular tense , hot spots-----Korea , Malaya , "Red" China and Formosa , spies and diplomats constantly being arrested , exposed and used as pawns to heat up the rows. Always there was Berlin----the airlift , the Wall, any incident in Germany during those 45 years could have triggered off the unthinkable.
Then , perhaps most dangerous of all we had Cuba---that was probably the scariest of the lot. There was Vietnam. Any of the foregoing could have spiralled out of control.
We had to live with it because the main political parties wanted the bomb and we had no control over whether America , Russia , China or anyone else had them or not.If you think Pres. Bush is aggressive , you should read Gen McArthur's biography and Stalin and even Krushchov[?] weren't exactly teddy-bears either.[ "We will bury you "]
I can't imagine N.Korea being a threat to anyone. By the time they were ready to use the bomb, that is if they wished to do so , the Americans would have prevented them doing so.The problem in the Cold War era was that both sides had such huge stock-piles that we all thought , "Well some of it will hit the target ".
So , not to worry. Don't panic , dear---it's only a scare story .

End of the world -cool! I'vw not finished paying off my loan!:D Every cloud.......:clap:

Originally posted by Fareast
To those of us in the Zimmer Frame Society , N. Korea and its problems seems like child's play.
I doubt whether today's Drama Queens would have made it right through from 1945 to 1990.
So , not to worry. Don't panic , dear---it's only a scare story .

Thats a little patronising isn't it? I don't get your point - 'the cold war's over so we're all safe now', or perhaps, 'you youngsters don't know what a real war looks like'?

Originally posted by Fareast
To those of us in the Zimmer Frame Society , N. Korea and its problems seems like child's play.
I doubt whether today's Drama Queens would have made it right through from 1945 to 1990.
For most of that time we had two Super-powers glowering at each other and the ability to blow most of us to smithereens.
We had regular tense , hot spots-----Korea , Malaya , "Red" China and Formosa , spies and diplomats constantly being arrested , exposed and used as pawns to heat up the rows. Always there was Berlin----the airlift , the Wall, any incident in Germany during those 45 years could have triggered off the unthinkable.
Then , perhaps most dangerous of all we had Cuba---that was probably the scariest of the lot. There was Vietnam. Any of the foregoing could have spiralled out of control.
We had to live with it because the main political parties wanted the bomb and we had no control over whether America , Russia , China or anyone else had them or not.If you think Pres. Bush is aggressive , you should read Gen McArthur's biography and Stalin and even Krushchov[?] weren't exactly teddy-bears either.[ "We will bury you "]
I can't imagine N.Korea being a threat to anyone. By the time they were ready to use the bomb, that is if they wished to do so , the Americans would have prevented them doing so.The problem in the Cold War era was that both sides had such huge stock-piles that we all thought , "Well some of it will hit the target ".
So , not to worry. Don't panic , dear---it's only a scare story .

[SIZE=3] I agree with you and I also have lived through it !!! - Red

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Korea want to test their nuclear bombs. (News today)
America says it may well attack Korea if it goes ahead...

We all know what that means don't we?

I'll say goodbye now.

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=korea+nuclear

:wave: It's been fun.

North Korea has managed to starve quite a bit of it's population whilst developing a tactical nuclear capability that's basically aimed at either the more prosperous South Korea or nearby Japan. It has a missile based delivery system - which it exports (along with the technology) and from it earns an estimated $100 to $500 billion a year. Still can't actually feed it's people, though.

NK is believed to be able to produce up to about a dozen 20 kiloton fission bombs (equivalent to Hiroshima size weapons) and has an untested ballistic missile system that could throw one of these as far as Alaska or Hawaii. Hence the reason why the US is very peeved. Given that the US has had nuclear weapons in S. Korea for 50 years and hasn't yet attacked NK, the NK 'self defence' argument is pathetic. Also, you don't need ballistic missiles of that range to retaliate against 'local' countries who might attack them, like China, Japan or South Korea.

I believe that the US would be more likely to launch a 'shock and awe' type attack on N. Korea to stop them getting further. A worst case situation is that North Korea launches a cnventional attack on South Korea whilst using it's nuclear weapons to threaten Japan and parts of the US to keep US and UN assistance away from the South.

I honestly think that the sooner North Korea's bomb and missile programme is scuppered, the better.

Joe

Originally posted by bonny
You don't need a link, just take it as given with thier track record!

bonny,

could you at least wait until the US actually DOES something, before starting with the blame? Please?


Originally posted by JoePritchard
North Korea has managed to starve quite a bit of it's population whilst developing a tactical nuclear capability that's basically aimed at either the more prosperous South Korea or nearby Japan. It has a missile based delivery system - which it exports (along with the technology) and from it earns an estimated $100 to $500 billion a year. Still can't actually feed it's people, though.

NK is believed to be able to produce up to about a dozen 20 kiloton fission bombs (equivalent to Hiroshima size weapons) and has an untested ballistic missile system that could throw one of these as far as Alaska or Hawaii. Hence the reason why the US is very peeved. Given that the US has had nuclear weapons in S. Korea for 50 years and hasn't yet attacked NK, the NK 'self defence' argument is pathetic. Also, you don't need ballistic missiles of that range to retaliate against 'local' countries who might attack them, like China, Japan or South Korea.

I believe that the US would be more likely to launch a 'shock and awe' type attack on N. Korea to stop them getting further. A worst case situation is that North Korea launches a cnventional attack on South Korea whilst using it's nuclear weapons to threaten Japan and parts of the US to keep US and UN assistance away from the South.

I honestly think that the sooner North Korea's bomb and missile programme is scuppered, the better.

Joe

And thank you, Joe.

Once again, you are the voice of sanity and reason. Your objectivity is refreshing, and you explained things far better than I ever could have!

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Fareast
To those of us in the Zimmer Frame Society , N. Korea and its problems seems like child's play.
I doubt whether today's Drama Queens would have made it right through from 1945 to 1990.
For most of that time we had two Super-powers glowering at each other and the ability to blow most of us to smithereens.
We had regular tense , hot spots-----Korea , Malaya , "Red" China and Formosa , spies and diplomats constantly being arrested , exposed and used as pawns to heat up the rows. Always there was Berlin----the airlift , the Wall, any incident in Germany during those 45 years could have triggered off the unthinkable.
Then , perhaps most dangerous of all we had Cuba---that was probably the scariest of the lot. There was Vietnam. Any of the foregoing could have spiralled out of control.
We had to live with it because the main political parties wanted the bomb and we had no control over whether America , Russia , China or anyone else had them or not.If you think Pres. Bush is aggressive , you should read Gen McArthur's biography and Stalin and even Krushchov[?] weren't exactly teddy-bears either.[ "We will bury you "]
I can't imagine N.Korea being a threat to anyone. By the time they were ready to use the bomb, that is if they wished to do so , the Americans would have prevented them doing so.The problem in the Cold War era was that both sides had such huge stock-piles that we all thought , "Well some of it will hit the target ".
So , not to worry. Don't panic , dear---it's only a scare story .

Fareast, I salute you.

Thank you , Lord Snooty for your humble salutations. Nice to see that even a gent knows his place.

Report on the Parade Ground , tomorrow , 5 a. m. sharp , with your boots polished and tin hat. You are now part of Britain's Super Fighting Force!
You will be issued with a ticket [ one way] to Somewhere In The East and "Good luck and God's speed" , as our Spiritual Mentor , Captain Hoon , used to say.

Originally posted by nightrider
I cant see where america says it will attack korea on the link? Can you be more specific?
The links I found fromGoogle News.
The 'kiddickised' quote was from Classic FM news on the radio playing in the background... :(

Originally posted by Sierra

could you at least wait until the US actually DOES something, before starting with the blame? Please?



Sierra, please don't feel that the USA is unfairly criticised on SheffieldForum just because we're a bunch of flag-burning freedom-haters.

I feel where the criticism is justified is due to the US' foreign policy, which is happy to sell weapons and military technology to the most brutal and oppressive regimes for financial (and perhaps political) gain.

You share JoePritchard's concern over North Korea's nuclear capability, and rightly so. However, it was only a few years ago that Donald Rumsfeld (yes, that Donald Rumsfeld, the one-time supporter of Saddam Hussein) was happy to sell North Korea that very same technology.

The two faces of Rumsfeld (http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html)

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea

2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

Sierra,

It wasn't a personal attack on U.S citizens. Just my opinion on the U.S government which I know a lot of U.S citizens share.

Originally posted by Abdul
However, it was only a few years ago that Donald Rumsfeld (yes, that Donald Rumsfeld, the one-time supporter of Saddam Hussein) was happy to sell North Korea that very same technology.

But has this not gone on for a while now, the US training people to fight against their so-called enemies, then to leave these people to their deaths, or just to declare war against them because they don’t agree with democracy.

At end of the day I doubt the US will do anything about NK, they will not gain anything by invading and unlike Iraq there is not a score to settle

No offense taken bonny, I know it was nothing against me personally. I just don't think it's fair to assign blame until, you know, something actually happens.

Abdul, I know for a fact that not all SF members are a bunch of flag-burning freedom-haters (your sarcasm is wasted on me, sir :rolleyes: ) as I have received e-mails amd pm's from other forum members. All of which have been supportive and very nice.

And those of you, you know who you are, and I am grateful to you for your thoughtfulness.

And even if I hadn't, I wouldn't tar all forum members with the same anti-American brush. I prefer to take people as individuals. And it is my sincere hope that others would give me the same consideration.

What would YOU suggest be done with that maniac Kim Jong Il? Shall we all sit idly by and do nothing? Ignore him? Maybe he'll go away, or blow himself up? Should we try to be his friend? Perhaps he's just misguided. Probably had a bad childhood. His father was a dictator too, you know.

And I am sick, sick, SICK of this whole America is evil, Dubya is the devil, lets dredge up every past transgression we can find from the spread of McDonald's and Starbucks to Abu Ghraib. Of course you feel the criticism is justified. There is nothing on this earth that would convince you otherwise.

And I would like to add that I am positively horrified at how Americanised some foreign countries have allowed themselves to become. What is going on? Why do they allow this to happen? Why don't they stand up for themselves if they don't like it?!

And since we're way off track, and you're talking about Donald Rumsfeld. Who, by the way, I also don't especially like, and yes, you are right, what the guy did STINKS ON ICE, BUT THAT'S BUSINESS. THAT'S HOW DEALS ARE MADE AND COUNTRIES ARE RUN. He was employed in the private sector, not in government at the time he did these things, Clinton was president at the time, HE let it happen, not Bush, but there's sh*t all anyone can do about it NOW.

All we can do is handle this nutzoid with kid gloves and hope his itchy finger is not pressed too tightly to the button.

I'd like to bring up the tsunami in Sri Lanka last December. This below pretty much sums up how I feel at times like these. It was not written by me. I wish I knew who the author was, as I would like to give him or her credit.

Today, I was "Unprofessional"...
Over the past 6 weeks, I've been deeply enmeshed in one of those "go live at the end of the year" projects that we in the IT industry have learned to love. The kind where managers assume that since no one is working, why that would be the perfect time to go live!

Of course, it means that your doing complex work at the point of maximum distraction with many many holidays and no staff.
This year we had a major distraction, and I'm bothered that I described it that way.

On Christmas Day, a disaster visited the human race. Hundreds of thousands of people, quietly living their lives on the edge of the sea were killed. They were killed, not by suicide bombers or suitcase nukes or crazed men hijacking planes into buildings. They were killed with simple seawater. Those that were killed werent just simple minded fools who wandered lemming like out into the unusually low tide, only to be mowed down by the sudden flood. They were people enjoying the sights from the second story of a hotel when the ocean rose up to engulf them. The horror of it all hasnt even begun to sink in to most of us.

There is a tendancy in the western world to overlook the disasters of the third world. Unless it involves us "white folks", the press of the western world does not seem to care or think that we do. In this disaster, one example of disgusting western depravity could be found in the many press outlets that made big news out of a "supermodel" who was (gasp!!!) harmed in the disaster. Imagine if someone on September 12th had published a report that Zsa Zsa Gabor and her poodle were put out by the lack of cabs in Manhattan. It made me sick to my stomach to see this item on the news.

Today, The Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that 5,000 Americans could not be accounted for, Sweden also announced roughly the same figure for their citizens.

Now we care. And shame on us all.

Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro collegues tossed this little turd out to no one in particular:

"See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, theres a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."

After which he and many of my Euro collegues laughed out loud.

and then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster.

I'm afraid I was "unprofessional", I let it loose -

"Hmmm, let's see, what would be the ideal ship to send to a disaster, now what kind of ship would we want?

Something with its own inexhuastible power supply?

Something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water?

Something with its own airfield? So that after producing the fresh water, it could help distribute it?

Something with 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies?

Something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier?

Well "Franz", us peasants in America call that kind of ship an "Aircraft Carrier". We have 12 of them. How many do you have? Oh that's right, NONE. Lucky for you and the rest of the world, we are the kind of people who share. Even with people we dont like. In fact, if memory serves,once upon a time we peasants spent a ton of money and lives rescuing people who we had once tried to kill and who tried to kill us.

Do you know who those people were? that's right Franz, Europeans.

There is a French Aircraft carrier? Where is it? Right where it belongs! In France of course! Oh why should the French Navy dirty their uniforms helping people on the other side of the globe. How Simplesse...

The day an American has to move a European out of the way to help in some part of the world it will be a great day in the world, you sniggering little f**knob..."

The room fell silent. My hindi friend then said quietly to the Euros:

"Can you let your hatred of George Bush end for just one minute? There are people dying! And what are your countries doing? Amazon.com has helped more than France has. You all have a role to play in the world, why can't you see that? Thank God for the US Navy, they dont have to come and help, but they are. They helped you once and you should all thank God they did. They didnt have to, and no one but them would have done so. I'm ashamed of you all..."

He left the room, shaking and in tears. The frustration of being on the other side of the globe, unable to do anything to assist and faced with people who could not set aside their asininity long enough to reach out and help was too much for him to bear. I just shook my head and left. The Euros stood speechless.

Later in the breakroom, one of the laughing Euros caught me and extended his hand in an apology. I asked him where he was from, he said "a town outside of Berlin". He is a young man, in his early 20's.

I asked him if he knew of a man named Gail Halvorsen.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/halvorsen/

He said no.

I said "that's a shame" and walked away to find my Hindi friend.

Posted @ January 03, 2005 08:25 PM

And I would like to add,

Inevitably, there was criticism that we Americans didn't give enough money. And if we gave enough money, then it most likely wasn't given fast enough. Better yet, I bet that Americans were purposely bumbling the relief efforts and causing more death. Hell, we could go one step further. I bet the US has some new secret weapon that caused the Tsunami. George Bush tried to kill all those people because a majority of them were muslims.

My country does things I don't approve of. I am not happy with George Bush. I don't like the war. But it is still my country, and I feel damn fortunate to be born an American.

And I must say Abdul, I really would like to hear what can be done about this now, rather than the old hindsight has 20/20 vision, your country is to blame for all this, it's bad, it's evil, George Bush, blah, blah, blah. Really nothing constructive, just America bashing. Does nothing to help the situation at all. Unless it makes you feel better. ;)

Sierra

A nuclear test by North Korea would be a very worrying
development.

It was in 1998 that the Noth Koreans launched a long-range missle over Japan. This dramatic action demonstrated that virtually all major Japanese cities, and US bases are within striking distance.

Since 1998, Pyongyang has played upon this threat by intermittently test-firing short-range missiles. The lastest such test firing was only last week.

It seems likely that NK have already tested their plutonium based weapon in Pakistan. in return for which they have supplied missile technology.

Pakistan is, of course, well known for its nuclear proliferation in the region, and when Pakistani A-Bombs first needed testing they went to the Chinese, who obliged. The cosy karma of continental nuclear collaboration...

Sierra

Unfortunately, your response is exactly what I feared. This was the first time I'd ever responded to one of your posts regarding the foreign policy of the USA, because I honestly didn't want you to feel that by criticising the sale of miltary technology to third-world despots, I would be seen as an 'America basher'. I tried to make this clear in the first sentence of my reply, but sadly you misread that as sarcasm :(

I have family in the Middle East; I'm perhaps more aware of the destruction and instability that the interference of other nations causes to an entire region, so I may be more suspicious than most other regulars on the SheffieldForum.

I also have sympathy with your feelings about how your nation is an easy target for criticism. Imagine the flak I get on the SheffieldForum whenever anything happens in the Middle and Far East. Or Page Hall ;)

Anyway, to answer your question about what can be done about the present situation in North Korea:

Kim Jong-II obviously enjoys all the attention he's receiving at the moment (calling Bush a 'hooligan' and a 'philistine' whom it could not deal with) so why not give him his 15 minutes of fame and engage in high profile peace talks? It happened with Libya a few months ago. After being a pariah state for several years, British companies are now falling over themselves to do business with Libya.

Diplomacy may not go down well with Pentagon Hawks who will deem this negotiation with a terrorist state, but until North Korea test their bomb, or perhaps threaten another state with it, there is a window of opportunity to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. I know European states are trying a similar line with Iran (something those Hawks aren't too pleased at either).

India and Pakistan are now engaging in peace talks after quickly realising that dropping the bomb would be then end of both of them.

It's unlikely that Kim Jong-Il would ever use the bomb in anger, as they have little to gain except complete annihalation. And given Jong-IIs' reputation as a plutocract living in luxury, I doubt he'd wish to risk a nuclear war for the sake of his ego.

I fear a pre-emptive strike on North Korea would galvanise the North Korean people behind their leader and encourage Jong-II in his belief that the USA is a bully boy state who is not prepared to negogiate in order to pursue its own interests (such as when France performed a series of nuclear tests on the other side of the world many years ago).

And finally, governments can stop selling miltary technology to despots and states that have terrible human rights records - yes, and I include many Middle East governments. As my dentist said, prevention is better than the cure. :D

Sierra

I have strong sympathies with your points of view.
I dislike a lot of what goes on in America , particularly on the cultural scene but as the dominant world power , I don't think America in general has behaved half as badly as previous world powers have done. Yet , to hear some of America's critics , you'd think America was the most evil place that had ever existed.
The problem is that a lot of them have no sense of history ----or even of fairly recent events , historically. Most of their fathers , grandfathers and great-grandfathers were very glad to have the Americans around during a large part of the last century. Or would they have preferred the Red Army marching down The Mall and the K.G.B. arresting you for listening to the wrong radio station ? Maybe they would.
All Super-Powers tend to misuse their power in some way or other. The Romans ? The Greeks ? The Egyptians ? The Ottomans? The Soviet Russians ? The French ? The British ? The Germans [!] , and many , many others. Were they all models of sweetness and light ? Were they worse or better than the Americans , given the difference in time and culture ? Difficult to say but it seems to me grotesque to think that America is amongst the worst or the worst.

whilst limiting profliferation is undoubtedly a good thing. I don't think we can take any sort of moral highground.

It's like we as a group were first past the finish post, and then quickly declared that no one else should actually carry on racing and that we might give them an ass wupping if they had the temerity to continue to run.

Whilst i would be quite happy if Kim Il Jong were to fall over dead right now, I don't think we can moralise our dislike of his weapons program. Call a spade a spade and call him a dangerous madman who needs to be stopped, but don't try and make us look all goodness and light, we aren't.

It always makes me laugh when the US start saying how dangerous a country will be with a nuclear weapon , when they are the only country that has actually ever used an atom bomb to blow people up.

Perhaps we should all have nukes, except the US ?

So what is your solution, cyclone?

For every country to give up the bomb?

Originally posted by Abdul
So what is your solution, cyclone?

For every country to give up the bomb?

no, that's unrealistic.

I don't have an answer unfortunately.

Originally posted by Abdul
So what is your solution, cyclone?

For every country to give up the bomb?

THat is what every signatory to the NPT has agreed to.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm


The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties to the Treaty",

Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war,

In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,

Undertaking to cooperate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,

Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points,

Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon States,

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

i'm surprised to find NK on there to be honest. But they could simply withdraw from the treaty, in fact hasn't the USA withdrawn from it???

Actually it looks like NK was never part of the treaty, yet it's listed on the link you posted....

from here (http://www.student-pugwash.org/halifax2003/papers/Riede.pdf)


However it has been falling short of the goal of universality, i.e.
being signed by all states. Currently the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK),
as North Korea is officially known, India, Israel and Pakistan are outside the treaty.

and it was the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty that the US was considering withdrawing from, I can't work out whether it did or didn't though.

I think North Korea was originally part of the non-proliferation treaty, but withdrew.

Personally, I blame Hollywood and the F.A.G. for the state we're in at the moment.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I think North Korea was originally part of the non-proliferation treaty, but withdrew.

Personally, I blame Hollywood and the F.A.G. for the state we're in at the moment.

Yeah, that Alec Baldwin Guy is a major menace. And as for Susan Sarandon....

I dont know how the yanks have the cheek. They still have over 15,000 deployed nuclear weapons and are actually contemplating a return to full scale nuclear testing themselves. At the moment they, and Russia are continuing to conduct non fissile testing but that wont last forever.The president also has proposed repealing a decade old law prohibiting the development of smaller, low-yield weapons. The law was intended to discourage other countries from developing what are regarded as more "usable" nuclear warheads.
It wasnt long ago when Bush threatened the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq if they resorted to using gas. All the time the United States is expanding its own biowarfare research programs.
Nuclear testing has been banned since 1992, and the Bush administration has said it has no plans to resume underground blasts. But some arms experts and congressional Democrats charge that the proposed spending seems aimed at a resumption of testing.
They want to restart production of tritium, which has not been produced by the government for more than a decade. This will be produced at a commercial reactor in Watts Bar, Tennessee, an unprecedented breaching of a long-standing policy that kept weapons work at military facilities. The decision to develop tritium at the Watts Bar reactor blurs the line between commercial and military reactors, something the United States has insisted other countries should not do.
After a revamp of its nuclear posture that includes the right to strike with nuclear weapons any country that tries to develop them I think the US are one of the biggest threats to world peace at this moment in time.
If I was living in the middle east I too would want to acquire nuclear technology, specially with evil war criminals such as the Israelis who alledgedly posses them.
As for the Pacific rim, I think the Americans would love a limited nuclear war out there. They are terrified at the new threat of a communist superstate developing between China and Russia and destabilisation in that area could prove an advantage for them.

Originally posted by Abdul
Sierra

Unfortunately, your response is exactly what I feared. This was the first time I'd ever responded to one of your posts regarding the foreign policy of the USA, because I honestly didn't want you to feel that by criticising the sale of miltary technology to third-world despots, I would be seen as an 'America basher'. I tried to make this clear in the first sentence of my reply, but sadly you misread that as sarcasm :(

I have family in the Middle East; I'm perhaps more aware of the destruction and instability that the interference of other nations causes to an entire region, so I may be more suspicious than most other regulars on the SheffieldForum.

I also have sympathy with your feelings about how your nation is an easy target for criticism. Imagine the flak I get on the SheffieldForum whenever anything happens in the Middle and Far East. Or Page Hall ;)

Anyway, to answer your question about what can be done about the present situation in North Korea:

Kim Jong-II obviously enjoys all the attention he's receiving at the moment (calling Bush a 'hooligan' and a 'philistine' whom it could not deal with) so why not give him his 15 minutes of fame and engage in high profile peace talks? It happened with Libya a few months ago. After being a pariah state for several years, British companies are now falling over themselves to do business with Libya.

Diplomacy may not go down well with Pentagon Hawks who will deem this negotiation with a terrorist state, but until North Korea test their bomb, or perhaps threaten another state with it, there is a window of opportunity to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. I know European states are trying a similar line with Iran (something those Hawks aren't too pleased at either).

India and Pakistan are now engaging in peace talks after quickly realising that dropping the bomb would be then end of both of them.

It's unlikely that Kim Jong-Il would ever use the bomb in anger, as they have little to gain except complete annihalation. And given Jong-IIs' reputation as a plutocract living in luxury, I doubt he'd wish to risk a nuclear war for the sake of his ego.

I fear a pre-emptive strike on North Korea would galvanise the North Korean people behind their leader and encourage Jong-II in his belief that the USA is a bully boy state who is not prepared to negogiate in order to pursue its own interests (such as when France performed a series of nuclear tests on the other side of the world many years ago).

And finally, governments can stop selling miltary technology to despots and states that have terrible human rights records - yes, and I include many Middle East governments. As my dentist said, prevention is better than the cure. :D

Well Abdul,

I do apologize for misunderstanding you. Ah! The foibles of internet communication! Where you are unable to see the person you are addressing, and they are unable to see you.

Perhaps I am too sensitive? (my sister says I am, but what does she know? lol) I try not to be. But it's difficult to see the US constantly criticized for everything. Stuff we do, stuff we don't do, and even stuff we might do.

As I said in my previous post, I don't agree with everything my country does. I personally feel selling military technology to those who shouldn't have it is the height of hypocrisy. It's something I'm not proud of, and I've no idea why they do it. Believe me when I say it probably isn't for the money, and that these companies do so with the permission of the US government, who could easily put the kibosh on the whole thing...if they wanted to.

If Kim Jong Il wants to negotiate with Bush, he's off to a terrific start. I agree, he's sure enjoying himself and loves being the center of attention. The man clearly has megalomaniac tendencies. He must be a thrill a minute to live with. I wonder how Mrs. Kim Jong Il can tolerate him?

I think the pentagon feels that negotiating with terrorists is a waste of time. If they were capable of being reasonable, they wouldn't be resorting to terrorism. The problem is, other countries always feel that they'll be treated differently, better than us yanks, because we don't know how to behave, we don't know how to treat people, we have no manners. If they treat us badly, it's our own fault. The terrorists count on this, and attempt to manipulate accordingly.

Would a pre-emptive strike against North Korea galvanize the people behind their leader? It's certainly a strong possibility, although I don't feel any of them are especially fond of the guy. And there are those poor souls who have lived under his oppressive rule for so long they wouldn't know the difference. If they ever did.

I truly don't know if it's even possible to negotiate with someone like Kim Jong Il. I have a feeling it's his way or the highway. You do what he wants. That's his idea of negotiation.

But anyway Abdul, I certainly appreciate your taking the time to reply. We do agree on some things, and I found your response informative.

And your dentist is absolutely right.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
I think the pentagon feels that negotiating with terrorists is a waste of time. If they were capable of being reasonable, they wouldn't be resorting to terrorism.
The thing is, a lot of terrorists (though probably not Kim Jong Il) resort to terrorism for perfectly logical reasons: they believe in a cause very strongly, but have either tried diplomacy and got nowhere or do not have any faith in it in the first place, and so they resort to violence. I can understand the US position of "no negotiating with terrorists" in that it may send out a signal to other potential terrorists "if you want to do a deal, blow something up", but on the other hand offering the terrorists an alternative means of making their point may be the only way to stop them. Bringing the IRA to the negotiating table may not have solved Ireland's problems, but it has certainly had a big impact on terrorism.

Originally posted by Sierra
Would a pre-emptive strike against North Korea galvanize the people behind their leader? It's certainly a strong possibility, although I don't feel any of them are especially fond of the guy. And there are those poor souls who have lived under his oppressive rule for so long they wouldn't know the difference. If they ever did.
Hmm, I can think of another country where most of the poor souls weren't very fond of their ruler. One pre-emptive strike later, and most of them aren't very fond of the USA either.

We're all going to die! The end of the World is nigh





:) cool :)

what's the difference between terrorism and a pre-emptive strike?

Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate, but proportionally small, acts of violence to engender a climate of fear and terror, in the pursuit of political or other goals.

A pre-emptive strike is an offensive military tactic - to calculate/guess where the next enemy offensive is going to come from and to launch a disabling attack on that point before the enemy offensive begins.

In nuclear terms, the pre-emptive strike is the sound reasoning that one day we will be nuked, so it makes sense to nuke the other sonsabitches before they do it to us.

so if the usa were to nuke NK it wouldn't be terrorism.

It would however be a greater crime in my opinion as more civilians will suffer and die for a political reason than if it were a terrorist act.

Of course an occupying force or sitting government calls it terrorism when an unorganised force lacking a central command continues a war and attacks military targets. Strictly speaking under your definition these people should not be considered terrorists, but guerilla's. They probably call themselves freedom fighters, but terrorist sounds so much better from the goverment forces point of view.

Well said cyclone.

Originally posted by Cyclone
They probably call themselves freedom fighters, but terrorist sounds so much better from the goverment forces point of view.

And 'enemy' civilian casualties are called... collateral damage.

Nick2 made the comment that America is the only country to have used a nuclear bomb in anger and implies that in that case they do not have any moral authority to criticise or take action against North Korea , amongst others.
America in 1945 was fighting an enemy that was still very powerful . The Americans [and Japanese ] had lost many thousands , just fighting for control of a few islands , south of the Japanese mainland,.It was a pretty safe calculation that hundreds of thousands would probably die , civilians and military , if the fighting was to continue on conventional lines until the whole of Japan was subdued. Japan was warned that America had a powerful new weapon and would use it if Japan refused to surrender. Even after the first bomb was dropped , Japan refused the offer.
In any case , the total number killed , injured or affected by the Japanese A -bomb was miniscule when compared with the number killed by conventional means in Europe alone. There's nothing unique , surely , quantitively or qualitively , about being killed by a nuclear bomb ?
North Korea attacked South Korea for such a flimsy reason that the United Nations almost immediately set action in motion. Since that time North Korea's attitude has remained politically frozen in time and that's why many countries feel queasy at a country like North Korea having nuclear power.
I think there's a world of difference between the two attitudes and situations.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what's the difference between terrorism and a pre-emptive strike?
One is carried out by terrorists. The other by governments.