North Korea Publicly Admits To Having Nukes

[KevinBrowning]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Personally I don't believe them when they say they'll only use them for self-defense. Kim Jong Il is a dangerous, egomaniacal despot. What do you guys think?

[Fyshhed]

Nobody can be trusted with nukes.

[Telex]

Yeah, I agree with you KB. Although I'd be more worried if I was in South Korea or Japan right now - I'm not positive, but I don't think N. Korea has the ability to launch a nuke at the continental US. But something has to be done.

Maybe we should set out to liberate the oppressed people of North Korea next. Iran can wait.

[Telex]

Nobody can be trusted with nukes.
I disagree. I belive that the US and its allies have handled themselves well in regards to nuclear attacks.

[Fyshhed]

I disagree. I belive that the US and its allies have handled themselves well in regards to nuclear attacks.
It's not always the people who have the nukes who are the ones whose actions and attitudes will change...

[RTShatto]

NK has had nukes for while, remember that earthquake/giant explosion they had a couple of months back? they have been getting ready for war for years now...

Even Japan is getting ready for possible war.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Telex]

It's not always the people who have the nukes who are the ones whose actions and attitudes will change...
I'm not sure I follow...so they people who don't have the nukes' attitudes will change? What are you getting at?

[FruitandNut]

The thing that alarms me, is not so much that yet another country is able to wave about their nuclear tipped phallus, it is more that in a totalitarian state some paranoid and schizoid atrophid dictator can take millions of innocent people to hell with him. The sane among us know that in a nukes against nukes stand off, we have a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) no win situation. This makes having nukes 'safe' in a country that provides safeguards for events like President Reagan's slipping into dementia, but decidedly not so if people like North Korea's 'beloved leader' hold the key to the 'go' button.

ps. How do you like my avatar? A bit like Ming chinaware, am into my artistically 'blue' period.

[CC]

by KB:

Personally I don't believe them when they say they'll only use them for self-defense. Kim Jong Il is a dangerous, egomaniacal despot. What do you guys think?

No they won't. They know if they did hit the USA that we would erase them off the map. The -pre-emptive strike policy that Bush has used to defend his actions in Iraq makes those little countries that don't trust us to grow fangs. In Bush's first term, (before N. Korea had nukes) he named them as an axis of evil, one of three. The 1st being Irag, (which we pretty well have screwed their countrie for a few generations, the 2nd being Iran, who even now is developing a nuke, though it's not believed they as of yet have. But they are growing bolder in response to our pre-emptive strike holding hands with their development of a nuke. And why shouldn't they? The same with North Korea, heck their next on bush's lists. Bush told all three of them he was going after them in his worldly mission of chasing terrorists. So of course they have done what any nation would do if they could and they were on the USA's most wanted list. I see nothing we have done that would encourage them not to arm themselves. They don't want to hit the USA because we would squish them, but if they think we are going to strike there first they would fire off the 2 or 3 nukes they have and we would have very short knowledge if any that they were on the way.

by shatto:

This makes having nukes 'safe' in a country that provides safeguards for events like President Reagan's slipping into dementia, but decidedly not so if people like North Korea's 'beloved leader' hold the key to the 'go' button.

For all we know their military could very well have contigency plans for who to do what to where, or not to, in the event that their leader starts showing signs of dementia...

by fysh:

Nobody can be trusted with nukes.

That's just it, WE believe that WE can be responsible, but that's nothing but complacency on the issue as it is not a matter if we feel we will be "responsible" with our nukes but rather if other countries that are not on our good side do feel we could be irresponsible with our nukes.


It's not always the people who have the nukes who are the ones whose actions and attitudes will change...

I believe Bin Laden has shown this to be true. Though he did not nuke us with fatalities in the hundreds of thousands, his actions have sent the USA (and were taking everyone with us) into a spiraling hunt to destroy terrorists and any place WE say (fuzzy, I mean faulty intelligence or not) are harboring them. As we invade one country, other countries we talk badly about get a bit more nervous. That alone could throw the world into another world war, as every rogue nation on earth would have their best chance to gain anything during the chaos caused by fighting on many fronts.

by Shatto:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NK has had nukes for while, remember that earthquake/giant explosion they had a couple of months back? they have been getting ready for war for years now...

Even Japan is getting ready for possible war.

Why shouldn't they? The USA stays ready for war. Who are we in that light to warn others about preparing for war when we invaded a country and tore it to shreds, on "faulty" intelligence. If I were a small country you'd better belive I would be looking for a trump card to play when things in or around me got disturbedly hostile.

by Telex:

Yeah, I agree with you KB. Although I'd be more worried if I was in South Korea or Japan right now - I'm not positive, but I don't think N. Korea has the ability to launch a nuke at the continental US.

From a declassified CIA report to the Congress in 1998:

"There is evidence that North Korea is working hard on the Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2) ballistic missile. The status of the system's development cannot be determined precisely. Nevertheless, the ballistic missile test infrastructure in North Korea is well developed. Once the system is assessed to be ready, a test flight could be conducted within six months of a decision to do so. If North Korea judged the test to be a success, the TD-2 could be deployed rapidly. It is unlikely the U.S. would know of such a decision much before the missile was launched. This missile could reach major cities and military bases in Alaska and the smaller, westernmost islands in the Hawaiian chain. Light-weight variations of the TD-2 could fly as far as 10,000 km, placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin. These variants of the TD-2 would require additional time to develop and would likely require an additional flight test."

telex:

I disagree. I belive that the US and its allies have handled themselves well in regards to nuclear attacks.
Mutual assured destruction keeps us more responsible with our nukes more so than the integrity of our leaders. Once, again, it's not whether or not WE feel we are responsible with our nukes, it's the perspective of nations who do not align with us and (apparently) play ball our way and THEIR perspective of our being responsible with our nukes that matters as to what those nations do as they wonder where the USA is headed globally.

telex:

I'm not sure I follow...so they people who don't have the nukes' attitudes will change? What are you getting at?
That's just it, WE believe that WE can be responsible, but that's nothing but complacency on the issue as it is not a matter if we feel we will be "responsible" with our nukes but rather if other countries that are not on our good side do feel we could be irresponsible with our nukes.

Can anyone say "draft"?..................:O)

[RTShatto]

Cyberclown, I never said if they should or should not have nukes...

[FruitandNut]

Cyber - Your trust in the North Korean political and military system is indeed touching. Personally, I would feel a lot safer if their nukes were in more democratic hands.

[Meng Bomin]

I agree with CyberClown. While despots may seem dangerous with nukes, they would not be so stupid as to destroy themselves or their hold at power. Mutually assured destruction works so that even the most dangerous power-hungry tyrant would not dare use them against another country with nuclear capabilities or use them against the allies of such a country. This is not to say that we should be off our guard. The system of MAD does not work well when taken for granted.

That said, the real concern about nukes is that it increases the power of these ruthless tyrants. I do not worry about rogue nations using nukes, but it does allow them some extra job security, which has a negative effect on their populace. As for who we should be afraid of: terrorists. If a terrorist group were to get their hands on nuclear weapons, there would be a problem. It is doubtful that a dictator would hand over such weapons to a terrorist group, as they could just as easily use it against them and the weapon could be traced to a source, which would incriminate the donor nation.

[CC]

Cyberclown, I never said if they should or should not have nukes..

Excuse me, my bad. I apoligize if I showed you in that light..

by F&N:

Cyber - Your trust in the North Korean political and military system is indeed touching. Personally, I would feel a lot safer if their nukes were in more democratic hands.

Neverending beat me to it. Suffice it to say they did hit us, (I have friends or relatives all along the west coast) We would suffer losses in life and economic set backs like we've never experienced. If some other nation on the USA's sh*t list thinks they might also hit us while we are weaker they would be disuaded by the top half of a nation being anihilated. I suppose even that may lead to more paranoia and a domino effect could occur........especially with a chest thumping lame duck president with the best, baddest arsenal in the world looking to change entire regions of the world...............:O).

[KevinBrowning]

especially with a chest thumping lame duck president with the best, baddest arsenal in the world looking to change entire regions of the world...............:O).

Your characterization of Bush as a lame duck isn't entirely accurate. He isn't eligible for reelection, but he has just begun his new term. "Lame duck" usually refers to a president waiting for the last few months of his term to expire, after failing to win reelection.

[CC]

Your characterization of Bush as a lame duck isn't entirely accurate. He isn't eligible for reelection, but he has just begun his new term. "Lame duck" usually refers to a president waiting for the last few months of his term to expire, after failing to win reelection.

I was toning it down. I believe he is singlehandedly going to change the face of America forever. His way of thinking is chilling. Lame duck isn't even a good excuse for all he has done and will do. (especially knowing he need not be re-elected)................................:O)

[Slipnish]

Your characterization of Bush as a lame duck isn't entirely accurate. He isn't eligible for reelection, but he has just begun his new term. "Lame duck" usually refers to a president waiting for the last few months of his term to expire, after failing to win reelection.

I thought a lame duck president was one in which his policitcal party was in the minority of the House and Senate...

So called a lame duck because he couldn't get anything done... :?:

[FruitandNut]

I still feel that if you guys 'collectively' want to change things, you can; whereas the 'citizens' of North Korea just might have a little bit more of a problem even publically expressing dissent.

[SouthernDem]

I don't think N. Korea has the ability to launch a nuke at the continental US. But something has to be done.


I think currently the problem is that the worry is that they will sell the product to someone who can. Or, they may in fact purchase the means necessary to launch. Alot harder to get the nuke than it is to find a way to deliver it.

[SouthernDem]

P.S. North Koreans longest range missile does extend to the Alaskan mainland... Hardly any population to speak of but still, If it can be developed on then before long it could be Juneau or Seattle down to LA

North Korean Missiles (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[FruitandNut]

Give them a bit of time SD, and they will have one personally targetted at you that tracks your every move using technology that piggy backs one of 'our' military satellites.

[SouthernDem]

That could be bittersweet; I would be honored that such an expensive piece of equipment posessed by perhaps the most evil asian on earth would be wasted on whacking my sorry a**, on the other hand.... I would be dead

[CC]

I still feel that if you guys 'collectively' want to change things, you can; whereas the 'citizens' of North Korea just might have a little bit more of a problem even publically expressing dissent

There are thousands upon thousands of near starving N. korean citizens scattered in rocky hills who would not know enough to weigh in on any topic. But knowing that he was definetly about to launch a nuke knowing they were giving up their own lives as martyr's to....to....to? I believe the very people who protect him and the ones who actually have the knowledge (it really isn't as easy as pushing a button under a desk) to put his plan in to action would not be so hot on the idea of causing not only their own lives, but the lives of their wives and children as well. Naw, it's just a bargaining chip. On the other hand, if we made clear we were going to rearrange their landscape they might, believing we were going to get the ones at the top, "push the button" in a last ditch effort to save some portion of their power.

I believe if N korea was to lean on China for support, that China would at best reassure them that they would protect and aid them economicly as opposed to damaging decades of economic struggle to become a world power on trade and labor.

EVERY nation, if they know only one thing about the USA, it is that we have the means and heart to wipe a nation off the face of the earth should it be felt to be in our best interests.

It would be wonderful to know that there were no nuke's anywhere in the world. But one of the big reasons that won't happen is because even without nukes, the USA has the technology and the military might, to still prevail on all or most of their "enemies". (I really cannot define "enemies" anymore, I guess it's whoever we are fighting at the time), so nukes level the negotiating table. As for the nuts that have them, ( and much of the world believe we are those nuts) I don't believe they could find a "host" countrie to shelter them. Someone putting together a nuke right here on U.S. soil should be outed by somone in the loop by trial or by error.

I wonder if "the ol' wild west" genre will resurface in the movie biz?..................................:O)

[FruitandNut]

Even the Chinese leadership are a little worried about 'our' DEAR LEADER Kim Jong-il's motives, methods and antics. I think they may have read Orwell's '1984' as well, and see references to the 'thought police' in the images of rank upon rank of human automation that go under the heading of North Korean Armed Forces. The power of cult worship can lead to suicidal tendencies, where those in charge of the nuke button have the opportunity to take a lot of us with them.

ps. Cyber - REF, your post 13 in reply to my post 8 - I liked your neat 'political' manoeuvre in your earlier post where you express my 'admission' of me being wrong about not liking other countries per ce having their own nukes, when in reality I made no such admission, because I had made no such claim in the first place. - Talk about putting words into peoples' mouths!!!! 'Stable' democracies can have as many as they like, if that is what they choose to spend their money on instead of welfare programmes. It is 'nuke buttons' in the hands of oddball mavericks that kind of concerns me.

[CC]

by F&N
Talk about putting words into peoples' mouths!!!!

If I did so it was unintentional. But I appreciate your complimenting on any political manuevering on my part...............*g*


It is 'nuke buttons' in the hands of oddball mavericks that kind of concerns me

Me too. But as I said, nobody wants for themselves and their familes to die, so those in charge of the mechanisms and the ones in charge of protecting the oddball mavericks. It's much more likely that the maverick would end up with a knife in his back.......so to speak...

Also, in order to launch a sophisticated strike against the USA they would have to have a host country. Who, knowing they would also be obliberated wouldn't be comfortable striking the USA either.


. The power of cult worship can lead to suicidal tendencies, where those in charge of the nuke button have the opportunity to take a lot of us with them.

Yes, but globally speaking only in tiny numbers. Explain to me how the oddball maverick obtains, finds a site to set up at, moves everything there for a launch site, etc;, without anyone noticing......I think you shouldn't read Orwell, he was mostly wrong anyway........*g*................................: O)

[FruitandNut]

History is littered with oddball 'charismatics' - the 'Dear Leader' is one, Il Duce another, Adolf Hitler, I could go on, but I won't - ODN would blow it's circuit cards.

[CC]

Despots such as hitler and other "oddballs" such as him failed. Are you comparing hitler to saddam? And like I said, such elaborate colaboration and the physical process involved would be under a great amount of scrutiny. Not to mention if we sent the message that if anyone shoots any missles that land on US soil that country or region would go up in a puff of smoke those countires and regions would safeguard themselves by policing themselves in so far as allowing terrorists to set up a camp of any sort.

I really think an attack of horrendous proportions will happen. But it will happen just as 9/11, from inside our borders. The dimensions of such an attack would throw us right back into the same cycle of hunting down the one's who paid for the means to strike. Of course Bush is keeping the US safe from terrorists by using Iraq to draw them in so we can stomp on them like roaches............:O)

[FruitandNut]

Comparing 'type' not 'yield'.

[erasmus211]

Hello everybody. Well, this is my first time here so I'm not really sure of what I'm supposed to do, but this is an issue I feel is of the utmost importance and I feel obliged to comment on it.
From the first time that North Korea publicly announced it's nuclear ambitions, the world should have sat up and taken notice. However , I feel that this didn't happen because of British and US involvement in Iraq. We are in a position now where North Korea are constantly pushing the envelope and all the while our governments are far more concerned with states who are not of immeadiate threat, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.
While I don't doubt that these countries are hardly genial in their outlook, they have not yet gone nuclear and have not notched up the rhetoric in the way that North Korea has.
Sanctions or a public condemnation of North Korea needs to be initiated instead of ***** footing around the issue, cosying up to Kim Jong il and chasing after despots in the middle east.
The longer this issue is left unresolved, I think the more dangerous it is going to get.

[Apokalupsis]

It's not always the people who have the nukes who are the ones whose actions and attitudes will change...
This doesn't make any sense with what you said earlier.

No nation with nukes can be trusted.
The US has nukes.
Therefore, the US cannot be trusted.

In response, Telex states that this is not the case as the US and its allies have acted trustworthy in regard to their arsenal of nukes.

You then make a statement regarding nations who do NOT have nukes.

Doesn't make any sense.

[FruitandNut]

Hello everybody. Well, this is my first time here so I'm not really sure of what I'm supposed to do, but this is an issue I feel is of the utmost importance and I feel obliged to comment on it.
From the first time that North Korea publicly announced it's nuclear ambitions, the world should have sat up and taken notice. However , I feel that this didn't happen because of British and US involvement in Iraq. We are in a position now where North Korea are constantly pushing the envelope and all the while our governments are far more concerned with states who are not of immeadiate threat, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.
While I don't doubt that these countries are hardly genial in their outlook, they have not yet gone nuclear and have not notched up the rhetoric in the way that North Korea has.
Sanctions or a public condemnation of North Korea needs to be initiated instead of ***** footing around the issue, cosying up to Kim Jong il and chasing after despots in the middle east.
The longer this issue is left unresolved, I think the more dangerous it is going to get.

Hi! - and welcome from over the Pennines and 'God's County'. Can't whip up many reasons for another 'Wars of the Roses' (more particularly 'The Battle of Towton.) over your post as I tend to agree with most of it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Should we try the carrot or the stick?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(Being an unbiased Yorkie, I much prefer Towton to Bosworth.)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ps. The word 'attainted' mentioned in list Lancastrian 'casualties' means - officially dishonoured. The equivalent of an officer having his buttons and insignia cut off his uniform in front of his men.

What sweet sport!

[FruitandNut]

Cyber - when Reagan began to show signs of Alzheimer's, he had the nuke codes quietly transferred to the Vice-President, I wonder if this would happen in the case of oddball mavericks like the 'Beloved Leader'?

[jamesb5007]

I don't think North Korea is as crazy as we're led to believe. What they're doing is perfectly logical. America invades Afghanistan, then Iraq, then says North Korea and Iran are next. Then America start talking about developing a new line of nuclear weapons. Both Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons to counteract this perceived threat. It is America who is the crazy one. North Korea and Iran are betting America will not invade a nuclear power, and they're probably right. Time will tell. North Korea also seems to be branching out into providing weapons of mass destruction to nations/groups that the American Military Machine doesn't service. Good business sense, and again, the source of the problem is America.