• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NK Claims it has six nukes

a_unique_person said:
So, there are claims North Korea has nukes, that Iran is just about to develop them, and the US has just blown multiple billions on the place that didn't have them. Go figga.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting we should invade North Korea, too?
 
Re: Re: Re: NK Claims it has six nukes

Hutch said:
Nice side-step. Does the term "Value for Money" ring a bell?
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're right. I should have asked, "Are you suggesting we should have invaded North Korea, instead?"
 
a_unique_person said:
So, there are claims North Korea has nukes, that Iran is just about to develop them, and the US has just blown multiple billions on the place that didn't have them. Go figga.
Click to expand...

aside from the multiple billions...we took troops out of S.Korea to put in Iraq.

if only North Korea had a better mineral base instead of all that slave labor we'd be able to do something!
 
Re: Re: NK Claims it has six nukes

HarryKeogh said:
aside from the multiple billions...we took troops out of S.Korea to put in Iraq.

if only North Korea had a better mineral base instead of all that slave labor we'd be able to do something!
Click to expand...

A better idea is for AUP and his country to do something. If he/they see a problem he/they should address it instead of bitching to us to address it for them. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. It seems reasonable that our priorities/decisions regarding our 'best interests' would differ from his/theirs. He needs to follow his own path and stop expecting us to hold his/their hand.
 
I think we probably saw this coming. Imagine being in such a position... You have nukes, you and everyone else knows you have nukes... The UN/EU/USA tries to negotiate with you to disarm... What can you expect?

Our most recent example is a country that (apparently) did disarm, but what came of it? Once they were disarmed, they were invaded by the very people who threatened to invade if they didn't disarm.

Obviously this is a very narrow and simplistic view of the situation, but what can NK (or Iran and anyone else for that matter) expect to gain by disarming? If they're threatened with invasion for not disarming, can they expect to not be invaded if they do disarm? (By "disarm" I also mean to include every condition put forth involving their weapons capability, such as Iran's nuclear program).

Short of invasion, other possibilities include embargoes or limiting other trade agreements, which just seems to be bully tactics along the lines of "Let your defenses down or we won't deal with you on an economic level... No, we won't invade or allow others to invade you once you're defenseless, we just prefer to trade with defenseless people who know the threat is being held over their heads."

I guess if I were in that situation, I'd feel like I were going to the store where the clerk said "Before you can buy anything here, you have to bend over, drop your pants and lube up your sphincter. No, we won't actually take advantage of your position, we just prefer to sell to people when we know they're not a threat. Oh, and we've negotiated with the other stores in the area, and you'll find most of them won't deal with you either."

I expect NK won't agree to get rid of their nukes until either a) Bush leaves office, or b) we leave Iraq and have more resources to devote to liberating the North Korean people.

Just one ill-informed and ignorant view. ;)
 
Mason said:
I guess if I were in that situation, I'd feel like I were going to the store where the clerk said "Before you can buy anything here, you have to bend over, drop your pants and lube up your sphincter. No, we won't actually take advantage of your position, we just prefer to sell to people when we know they're not a threat. Oh, and we've negotiated with the other stores in the area, and you'll find most of them won't deal with you either."
Click to expand...
Better analogy would be "Before you can buy anything here, you have to get rid of that pistol. Yes, I am holding a 12 gauge shotgun, and my wife is in the back with a Smith and Wesson pointed right at you, and you are being filmed at this very moment and I do have my finger on the alarm to the police station. But I still won't sell you anything while you have that gun.

"And believe me when I tell you that I will blow your @#$%ing head off if you even point that thing at me."
I expect NK won't agree to get rid of their nukes until either a) Bush leaves office,
Click to expand...
Rose-colored glasses. They were building nukes back when Clinton was president and he was trying to bribe them with food, oil, and money to behave. Or do you think they just fired up their nuclear program on January 21, 2001?

Once again, we see proof that you don't negotiate with tyrants, because they don't negotiate in good faith. A tyrant is a terrorist who's gotten what he wanted.
 
Better analogy would be "Before you can buy anything here, you have to get rid of that pistol. Yes, I am holding a 12 gauge shotgun, and my wife is in the back with a Smith and Wesson pointed right at you, and you are being filmed at this very moment and I do have my finger on the alarm to the police station. But I still won't sell you anything while you have that gun.

"And believe me when I tell you that I will blow your @#$%ing head off if you even point that thing at me."
Click to expand...

Okay, that's probably a bit closer, but the requirements aren't just leaving the pistol at the door; you're making me get rid of it altogether and following me back to my house to make sure I don't have any extras hidden under the bed. Meanwhile, there are other people out there who still have their guns and don't necessarily like me, and the last guy who went in the store decided not to buy anything under those conditions, but you still went back to his house to check under the bed... Then burned his house down after not finding anything.

So now I'm left with the choice of giving up the gun and hoping you don't follow me home after the purchase, or keeping the gun, not buying anything under those conditions, but still having the gun in the hopes that I can keep my house from being burned down.

I think I'm mostly just playing around at this point, though. Sorry. ;)

What I mean to get at here is that what could have been a negotiable situation (regardless of when the situation began) has become a more difficult situation to negotiate, since the credibility of some of the key players on both sides is highly questionable. Compromise will leave people vulnerable at a time when trust is low and other powers have recent records of capitolizing on vulnerable countries with bad PR.
 
Reality Check time:

1. 6 Nukes fits with what intel services have estimated. Is N. Korea playing on our fears as a gambit?

2. We still have no hard evidence that this is the exact amount of nukes they have or even if they have one functional nuke (functional meaning with a working detonator).

3. Even if they have nukes, they have no delivery mechanism. They have not tested missiles that can support a nuclear warhead as far as I have seen.

4. North Korea as far as we know hasn't tested a nuclear bomb.


All of that said, I think the skeptic's view of North Korea is that it is a paper tiger unless proven otherwise. This is more desperation from them in trying to draw the US into unilateral talks and a sweetheart deal.
 
corplinx said:
3. Even if they have nukes, they have no delivery mechanism. They have not tested missiles that can support a nuclear warhead as far as I have seen.
Click to expand...
Parcel post.
 
a_unique_person said:
So, there are claims North Korea has nukes, that Iran is just about to develop them, and the US has just blown multiple billions on the place that didn't have them. Go figga.
Click to expand...

Well, it's obvious, isn't it?

Saddam hid his nukes in North Korea.
 
North Korea could not possibly have 6 nukes. The UN has been negotiating with North Korea for years. The UN kept nukes out of Iraq right? The same must be true for North Korea. Nope. They can't possibly have them.
 
DavidJames said:
The responses in this tread can best be summed up with the return of my old sig.
Click to expand...

Sean Hannity doesn't post on this forum. Your sig fits him quite well but I think your just poisoning the well here in case anyone tries to compare what happens under the current president to what happened under the old one.

In any case, your sig doesn't sum up this thread well at all and you should probably pull your head out of your ass before you start thinking the people on TV are stealing your sig.
 
A small "nobody" (saddam) received hell, because "they were a threat to the United States"...

But A REAL THREAT is simply ignored...

American politics are amazing :(

oh wait, there is no oil in NK!
 
This is silly, a post about NK having WMDs that they are not suppose to have. And of course this isn't about invading NK, it's about US being wrong to invade Iraq...you know I am not sure what this post is about if it's not about invading NK.

Of course, if you think NK should be dealt with militarily then you can just say goodbye to the city of Seoul and its citizens. And that can be done with out the benefit of nuclear weapons that’s just good old-fashioned artillery.

Certainly, US should get no credit for attempting diplomatic solution with NK because US is never right.
 
Two big differences between North Korea and Iraq:
1) The present leader of North Korea has never invaded a neighboring country unlike someone else.
2) North Korea has the ability to destroy Seoul without nuclear weapon.

I still think we should have made a targeted strike on NK's nuclear facilities when they withdrew from the non proliferation agreement but I think I probably would have felt differently if I lived in Seoul.

CBL
 
You gotta say one thing for the NK's: They certainly know how to speak the careful language of diplomacy (ellipses mine):
This is nothing but a far-fetched logic of gangsters as it is a good example fully revealing the wicked nature and brazen-faced double-dealing tactics of the U.S. as a master hand at plot-breeding and deception...

However, the U.S. interpreted this as a sign of weakness, defiled the dignified political system in the DPRK chosen by its people and wantonly interfered in its internal affairs...

Is it not self-contradictory and unreasonable for the U.S. to urge the DPRK to come out to the talks while negating its dialogue partner? This is the height of impudence...

The U.S. now foolishly claims to stand by the people in the DPRK while negating the government chosen by the people themselves. We advise the U.S. to negotiate with dealers in peasant markets it claims they are to its liking or with representatives of "the organization of North Korean defectors" on its payroll if it wishes to hold talks.

Japan is now persistently pursuing its hostile policy towards the DPRK, toeing the U.S. line...

It is by no means fortuitous that the world people raise their voices cursing and censuring the Bush administration as a group pursuing tyranny prompted by its extreme misanthropy, swimming against such trend of the world...

The U.S. evermore reckless moves and attempt to attack the DPRK only reinforce its pride of having already consolidated the single-minded unity of the army and people and increased the capability for self-defense under the uplifted banner of Songun.

The DPRK's principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom