North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

[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?

Because we won't use them.

We won't?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind but maybe we can deny those events like some people deny the holocaust ever happened.

[dxoigmn]

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.

I don't think anyone should have guns.  My answers: They shouldn't. They shouldn't. Can't answer that one. Yes. Moral leverage. No.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

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.

Destroying our nukes isn't destroying all our weapons. How long do you think N. Korea would last if they dropped a nuke anywhere?

[Hazard]

Dxo, you live in some perfect little drug-induced world. Come back to real life.

[dxoigmn]

Dxo, you live in some perfect little drug-induced world. Come back to real life.

Drugs are not a part of my life, but whatever.

[MyndFyre]

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.

The DPRK withdrew from the nuclear NPT in 2001.

[quasi-modo]

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.

We won't?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind but maybe we can deny those events like some people deny the holocaust ever happened.

Just because we used them in japan does not mean we will use them again. We are not fighting a conventional war against a super power, we are not in a world war.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

Well, just because N. Korea has nukes doesn't mean they will use it.

[Adron]

Well, just because N. Korea has nukes doesn't mean they will use it.

Nukes are weapons of losers. Sore losers. As long as noone attacks N. Korea, it's very unlikely they'll use nukes. They're useful as a threat: Look at me, I'm insane enough to want to kill millions of people while accomplishing nothing useful if you push me into a corner!

[Hazard]

Dxo, you live in some perfect little drug-induced world. Come back to real life.

Drugs are not a part of my life, but whatever.

Dxo then explain to me why you have this lofty outlook on human nature. Karl Marx made the exact same mistake that you have made. Why do you refuse to look at the world as it really is and refuse to accept the realities at hand, because the solutions you have given us to the problems we have come up with are not even close to being realistic.

[dxoigmn]

Dxo then explain to me why you have this lofty outlook on human nature. Karl Marx made the exact same mistake that you have made. Why do you refuse to look at the world as it really is and refuse to accept the realities at hand, because the solutions you have given us to the problems we have come up with are not even close to being realistic.

Well if you put that way...maybe I was Karl Marx in a former life. 

It was all experiment to see how low you would go to prove a point.  It's obvious that people are not inherently evil as proved by myself since for the most part I am the opposite of "hateful, violent, and greedy" as are many of my friends.  I like to see the good in life because it helps me get through the day.  It helps me feel better about what I accomplished and what I am trying to accomplish.  I don't know maybe you don't have anything to work for or to believe in.  It is exactly people like you who spread this underlying hatred and allow us to commit the atrocities that are committed justifying it by saying "People are bad."  We need sane people in politics who are interested in working things out, not blindly invading counties because we don't see a reflection of ourselves in them.  After all, no one wants to send their children, their husbands, their wives, and their friends to war to die because someone like you thought it was necessary.  And I'm willing to bet you will never serve this country, but maybe you will.  Certainly you will never see the action that our troops are seeing in Iraq, or saw in Vietnam, or experienced in World War 2 – in some wicked way I hope you do so only then will it change your view on life. 

[iago]

This thread got long, but I read most of it *proud* (I don't normally read politics forum, and just noticed it)

Anyway, the idea of "mutual distruction" is an interesting one, philosophically.  IF any country starts a nuclear war with any other country, you can pretty much guarentee that life as we know it will be over.  The fact that America as nukes means that nobody can possibly attack them without the world being destroyed.  That's a lot of power to have, and a scary thought.  If every country had nukes, then nobody would be able to attack anybody else. 

Countries like America having nukes is almost like having a room full of children and a gun, or even taking a hostage in a shoot out.  Yes, it's dirty, and yes, America isn't fighting fair, but the rest of the world knows damn well that, if America is losing, they will start shooting the children (or kill the hostage).  So it basically makes America impossible to attack unless you're willing to accept the horrible consequences. 

Other countries having nukes is fair, in a way, because it ensures that the balance of power will remain just that: a balance.  Hopefully, nobody is willing to start a nuclear war, because they know that there's no good results that can happen, and therefore countries with nukes can exist peacefully, taking care of themselves, without other super powers thinking they have to baby sit them.

That being said, George Bush scares me.  It seems to me that he's overly aggresive, and that he would be willing to start a nuclear war.  I'm just going to hope that he doesn't make that decision.

But my main point was, the idea of mutual destruction is pretty interesting, and scary.

[Warrior]

Poor Canada, we get nuked they are screwed.

[Hazard]

An experiment? It sounds to me like you are trying to justify in your own mind what you are doing, and writing it up so that you sound like this righteous philosopher and bringer of truth and light.

[MyndFyre]

Wow iago, I think you have a very slanted and incorrect idea of what the US is about.  That's okay, because so does one of my professors.  I'll explain exactly what I mean by that....

In my paper, I argued that the North acted boundedly rational because they misinterpreted US intentions and they gain economic bonuses from manufacturing nuclear weapons.  There is stability on the Korean peninsula, and to attack would cause grave losses in Seoul, something which the United States would be highly averse to.

Invading Iraq would have little consequence except within Iraq.  However, invading the DPRK would result in serious South Korean casualties.  I believe I have already set these scenarios out, but it's worth the rehashing.  Invading with ground troops would cause heavy American casualties, even if the Americans are rated at an effectiveness of 8 to 1; the DPRK has a standing army of one million men, which would be a casualty count of 125,000 Americans -- in other words, political suicide.  Consider ranged bombing of Pyongyang and Yongbyon from the Navy: while the United States has absolute naval superiority and wouldn't have any American casualties, the DPRK has ranged SCUD missiles targetting Seoul.  An attack on the North would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of RoK casualties, not to mention foreign nationals in Seoul -- in other words, political suicide AND a strain on diplomatic alliances far beyond that of what happened in Iraq.

Nobody flinched when Iraq was invaded because Iraq's economic contribution to the global economy was minimal; even Iraq's oil contribution was a mere 3% of the United States overall oil consumption.  The RoK was ranked 15th in world GDP in 2001; Iraq was ranked 81st ( The World Factobook, Central Intelligence Agency).

Attacking the DPRK would raise significantly more real problems, both economically and diplomatically, than an invasion of Iraq, and it would be irrational to do so.

Anyway, the idea of "mutual distruction" is an interesting one, philosophically.  IF any country starts a nuclear war with any other country, you can pretty much guarentee that life as we know it will be over.  The fact that America as nukes means that nobody can possibly attack them without the world being destroyed.  That's a lot of power to have, and a scary thought.  If every country had nukes, then nobody would be able to attack anybody else. 

Even having a nuclear detonation in a major city wouldn't guarantee that a nuclear war would start.  The doctrine of "asymmetrical warfare" is one in which the United States, because it is the world hegemon, must work constantly to be very precise and avoid civilian casualties.  Iraq has cost the United States many more lives than a "roll-over-with-utter-destruction" war because the United States has bent over backwards trying to avoid civilian casualties.  Straight from an Army Captain who was in my National Security Analysis class: "We tried to do our best to preserve infrastructure, but when we got to Baghdad, we discovered that there just wasn't any infrastructure there."

Countries like America having nukes is almost like having a room full of children and a gun, or even taking a hostage in a shoot out.  Yes, it's dirty, and yes, America isn't fighting fair, but the rest of the world knows damn well that, if America is losing, they will start shooting the children (or kill the hostage).  So it basically makes America impossible to attack unless you're willing to accept the horrible consequences.

America isn't fighting at all.  The problem with saying this is that, should the US government use nuclear weapons in an unjustified way, every member of the government would be removed from office.  I don't care how popular a leader is; that kind of thing simply wouldn't fly.  And any professional politician will tell you that the most important thing to that person is maintaining their public image.

Other countries having nukes is fair, in a way, because it ensures that the balance of power will remain just that: a balance.  Hopefully, nobody is willing to start a nuclear war, because they know that there's no good results that can happen, and therefore countries with nukes can exist peacefully, taking care of themselves, without other super powers thinking they have to baby sit them.

That is accurate to an extent; however, as I argue in my paper, the DPRK isn't developing nuclear weapons for deterrence; they have enough deterrence (as I argued above) to keep themselves safe.  They're developing nuclear weapons to sell.  And should they sell these nuclear weapons to non-state actors, such as a terrorist cell, who can the United States retaliate against?  That is where the real danger lies in having third-world countries developing nuclear weapons.

That being said, George Bush scares me.  It seems to me that he's overly aggresive, and that he would be willing to start a nuclear war.  I'm just going to hope that he doesn't make that decision.

I don't think any American politician would be willing to start a nuclear war.  But I suppose that's what happens when you buy into the liberal media.  *shrug*