North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

[Adron]

But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.

Also, to MyndFyre: You said "if the North feels that it must deter the United States from a preemptive attack, it is entirely rational to pursue nuclear weapons", and yet you said "Kim Jong-Il has no interest in defending his country from the United States; that isn't why he developed the system". Why don't you think Kim would like to deter the US from a preemptive attack?

[quasi-modo]

What is most bizarre about this entire situation is that even scholars believe that the United States is a status quo power -- they have no reason to want to attack or invate the DPRK.  The conclusion that we would -- and therefore the development of nuclear arms is required to deter the US -- is erroneous.

From reading that article, it is known that you invaded Iraq and it is known that Bush has bunched Iraq and North Korea together into the same group. Why would they not want a deterrent? Bush invaded Iraq on false premises, later justified by the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein. He could easily say the same about "liberating" North Korea. I see every reason for them to make sure they have as strong deterrents as they possibly can. They need to make Bush feel he can't take them without unacceptable losses.

North Korea is not a terrorist state. I am not worries about north koreans brining nukes into our country. What concerns me about n. korea is proliferation. If they have nukes they better take care of them. Their cheif export seems to be munitions.

[quasi-modo]

So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.

Bad idea. Nukes were and still are a good deturrent. Anyone who says the nukes in the hand of north korea is not a deturrent is also wrong. Those things do not have the range to hurt us, but they sure can hurt our pals. I do not think north korea really needs a deturrent though, I do not think they are in any danger of being attacked. I mean the only reason people are looking at them right now is because those things could wind up in the hands of terrorists. If they were to get rid of them no one would even be looking in their direction.

[Hazard]

But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.

So wait, in order to say that people who are insane and hell bent on killing others for their own personal gain, we have to give up our nuclear weapons which is the only thing detering them from doing so? Since when has war been fair Adron? Since when do we use the words North Korea and fair in the same sentence?

[Grok]

There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons. 

Yes, I believe these are commonly referred to as the "Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaties", but I have not read them and do not know which countries agreed to them.  This treaty enumerates the 15 or so countries allowed to have nuclear arms, and which ones will be disarming who had them already.  Maybe MyndFyre knows more about this treaty.

[Hazard]

There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons. 

Yes, I believe these are commonly referred to as the "Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaties", but I have not read them and do not know which countries agreed to them.  This treaty enumerates the 15 or so countries allowed to have nuclear arms, and which ones will be disarming who had them already.  Maybe MyndFyre knows more about this treaty.

You can do more research on the topic at http://www.nuclearfiles.org/, but it is my understanding that North Korea had joined a pact to eliminate their nuclear weapons program, then withdrew from the pact on January 10th, 2003 in order to begin persuit of a weapons program of nuclear capacity. Its safe to say they have been developing nuclear weapons for some time. When the North Korean representative dared any country, namely the United States, to try and stop them from nuclear superiority, it became clear in my eyes that war might well be inevitable.

EDIT: For more reading, consider this AP News report from Yahoo News.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

We only have proof that they have nuclear weapons, theres no proof that they are going to use them on a country. So why should we risk getting into another war when there is really no need? Its like saying your neighbor has a gun and you're going to kill him to take his gun away. We have enough things to deal with as it is(Afghanistan and Iraq).

[Hazard]

Falcon, if your neighbor was insane and had wildly ran around threatening anybody who got in his way that he would harm them, you wouldn't take action?

[dxoigmn]

But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.

That, and I was being some what ironic to point out the very flaw in everyone's statement.  Why can America have nukes but not others?

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.

That, and I was being some what ironic to point out the very flaw in everyone's statement. Why can America have nukes but not others?

Because we won't use them.

[Hazard]

I'll use one of Adron's own arguments in this situation dxoigmn. I don't want to start another battle here over gun ownership, so I'll limit this only as to how it applies to the topic at hand.

Adron has in the past argued that all gun ownership should be banned except for those used in police or military applications. By your argument dxoigmn, why should the police be allowed to have guns? Why should the military be allowed to have them? Adron do you have an answer? Should the United States get rid of its main deterant against having all out nuclear war between bitter factions? If we destroyed ours, what kind of leverage do we have against people who rise up and create one? Wouldn't they have the drop on us?

The answer to that last question is of course, yes. We can't be all happy go fucking lucky in this world. Things aren't, beneath it all, peaceful and serene. People are hateful, violent, and greedy. We can't just destroy all our weapons and in good faith hope everybody else will. When you trust people like that, bad things happen. Its not some sun shiney universe where we can all get along. Welcome back to real life.

[Adron]

Adron has in the past argued that all gun ownership should be banned except for those used in police or military applications. By your argument dxoigmn, why should the police be allowed to have guns? Why should the military be allowed to have them? Adron do you have an answer? Should the United States get rid of its main deterant against having all out nuclear war between bitter factions? If we destroyed ours, what kind of leverage do we have against people who rise up and create one? Wouldn't they have the drop on us?

Yes, the United States should get rid of their nukes. Are you saying that you need ballistical missiles as a deterrent against an all out nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or whomever is playing with nukes now? Which one of them would you be launching your missiles at?

Or if you're talking attacks on the USA, would you launch a nuclear strike against a country such as Iraq if a bunch of terrorists trained in an Iraqi camp blew up a nuke in say Washington? If so, you are just another terrorist.

[quasi-modo]

Adron has in the past argued that all gun ownership should be banned except for those used in police or military applications. By your argument dxoigmn, why should the police be allowed to have guns? Why should the military be allowed to have them? Adron do you have an answer? Should the United States get rid of its main deterant against having all out nuclear war between bitter factions? If we destroyed ours, what kind of leverage do we have against people who rise up and create one? Wouldn't they have the drop on us?

Yes, the United States should get rid of their nukes. Are you saying that you need ballistical missiles as a deterrent against an all out nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or whomever is playing with nukes now? Which one of them would you be launching your missiles at?

we need nukes as a deturrent for countries like Russia. Now Russia is not an enemy of ours, but we built nukes in the cold war and so did they (well USSR), and everything was fabulous, you had mutual assured destruction. At this point, as long as nukes that can ride on ICBMs are still out there, it would be smart to keep a few around (being that we are the big superpower and all)... safely tucked on some Ohio class subs.

[Mephisto]

Falcon, if your neighbor was insane and had wildly ran around threatening anybody who got in his way that he would harm them, you wouldn't take action?

Seems to me you're calling North Korea insane which isn't very diplomatic, Hazard.

[quasi-modo]

Falcon, if your neighbor was insane and had wildly ran around threatening anybody who got in his way that he would harm them, you wouldn't take action?

Seems to me you're calling North Korea insane which isn't very diplomatic, Hazard.

Your pulling a hazard mephisto  .