North Korea conducts Nuclear Test - Page 4

**leejo** · 10-11-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

I'm generally center-right leaning, but this is a great post.

Except for the fact that NK was working on the nuke prior to being labeled part of the Axis of Evil. IMO the nuke has little to do with national security. Their 10k arty pieces pointed at Seoul provide all the deterrence they need or will ever have. It has to do with $$, and the USA is the big check-writer.

It's perfectly understandable when robbers steal things, too: it's because they want the stuff. The guy who shot the cop in the back of the head here in Houston a few weeks ago was perfectly understandable too: he didn't want to go to jail or get deported. There's no terrific insight here, and it doesn't make the acts less evil.

If the good people of North Korea were thriving and happy, or even had a hope of achieving that state, I'd feel a little different about North Korea's government and its motivations, maybe.

Bommando · 10-11-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strag

Sorry for the old bait & switch, but sometimes levity can be good for the Sandbox.

You obviously don't spend enough time in the Sandbox to know that your 'fake' opinion is actually reflected quite literally by quite a few people

SmokingTarpan · 10-11-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bommando

Are Americans so paraniod that they must make an enemy of any large, powerful country under the assumption that they are bent on world domination? Seriously, sometimes I am more scared of Americans' paranoid delusions than all of those 'Gawddamn Commies' combined.

All sarcasm and joking aside (fear the China-Ant Nation Treaty, CANT for short), proxy wars are not a new concept; nor are gigantic wars that start with some action against a small, mostly unimportant country.

Hell, don't we assert routinely that Iran/Syria/(insert mideast country we don't like here) is the one pulling strings behind Lebanon/Al Qaida/(insert other country/faction we don't like here)? Not saying this is the case with N. Korea, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

TheFatKidDeath · 10-11-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Did you come to that conclusion with information from the same source that told you North Korea spends less than 30 million dollars a year on its military? Given the consistant aggressive actions taken by North Korea against its neighbors, I don't see how you can claim that everything the DPRK does militarily is done out of fear of US aggression. The other countries in that region are all in a defensive posture because of fear of further aggression from the "D"PRK.

Also, didn't they just recently declare an end to the cease-fire? I recall that in August, North Korea declared the armistice from the end of the Korean War "null and void." Does a country ending a cease-fire agreement sound like they are afraid of an attack?

I never stated that North Korea spends less than 30 million dollars a year on it's military. In fact, it's much higher than that number, as you stated. The $20 dollar per soldier is based on training and equipping and supplying of individuals and excludes money spent on all other forms of defense. For more information on the numbers I cited I would encourage you to read John Feffer's excellent book on North Korea, he also writes about the Korean peninsula and region.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...unterpunchmaga

**leejo** · 10-11-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bommando

You obviously don't spend enough time in the Sandbox to know that your 'fake' opinion is actually reflected quite literally by quite a few people

If that opinion were true, it would greatly simplify things and be very helpful, wouldn't it? Maybe people are just hoping.

Or the onion is making a satirical comment about the US policy of not negotiating directly with NK.

I don't understand why we still have so many troops in SK if China isn't in the picture though. It's certainly a stretch to say that China is waving NK at the world on the end of a stick, but one might also notice that you can't talk about NK long at all without mentioning China. My eyebrows flew up when I read Strag's post, but I wouldn't have mocked him for it had it been an honest opinion. What does that make me?

Bommando · 10-11-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Except for the fact that NK was working on the nuke prior to being labeled part of the Axis of Evil. IMO the nuke has little to do with national security. Their 10k arty pieces pointed at Seoul provide all the deterrence they need or will ever have. It has to do with $$, and the USA is the big check-writer.

It's perfectly understandable when robbers steal things, too: it's because they want the stuff. The guy who shot the cop in the back of the head here in Houston a few weeks ago was perfectly understandable too: he didn't want to go to jail or get deported. There's no terrific insight here, and it doesn't make the acts less evil.

If the good people of North Korea were thriving and happy, or even had a hope of achieving that state, I'd feel a little different about North Korea's government and its motivations, maybe.

Awesome.

So, only thriving happy nations are allowed to develop or hold the trigger for nuclear weapons? Do they all line up to the 'thriving-and-happy-o-meter' with a big joke hammer and see if they ring the bell allowing them to develop nukes?

Please tell me what you think an unhappy nation would want with nukes. 'OK guys, make us all happy, or we nuke you'. This isn't a school shooting on a global scale. Governments don't just get depressed and start making nukes. The nuclear arms race has always been about providing a deterrent for other nations to do silly stuff and is basically global chest-beating. North Korea is (somewhat blindly) seeking to protect itself from what it sees as global pressure against it. The chances of KJI being insane enough to think about deploying a nuke in an aggressive stance are pretty slim in my opinion.

Now, I don't have any particular love for North Korea or its government, but unless we can start backing up paranoia with evidence and action, this is all just global bullying. I see all this attention as a media initiative to start garnering positive public opinion should the 'thriving and happy coalitions' seek to mobilise against NK.

To this day, America is still the only nation to deploy a nuke against another nation in combat. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't understand why we still have so many troops in SK if China isn't in the picture though. It's certainly a stretch to say that China is waving NK at the world on the end of a stick, but one might also notice that you can't talk about NK long at all without mentioning China. My eyebrows flew up when I read Strag's post, but I wouldn't have mocked him for it had it been an honest opinion. Maybe you mock me for that?

You can't talk about anything for a long time period without some American freaking out about the end of the world. For a country with as many people and nukes as you guys have, you sure aren't comfy with being the toughest kid on the block. A lot of American opinion seems to be constantly trying to find the David to your Goliath.

**leejo** · 10-11-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

I never stated that North Korea spends less than 30 million dollars a year on it's military. In fact, it's much higher than that number, as you stated. The $20 dollar per soldier is based on training and equipping and supplying of individuals and excludes money spent on all other forms of defense. For more information on the numbers I cited I would encourage you to read John Feffer's excellent book on North Korea, he also writes about the Korean peninsula and region.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...unterpunchmaga

Wow I bet those guys fight well and hard on their $20/yr. I'm sure the supplies come rolling up in a sustained fight, too. God it would be pitiful.

**Strag** · 10-11-2006, 10:47 AM

My post was meant to be a bit far-fetched, just to snag a good bite so I could post that Onion article (which is pretty old, but I still get a kick out of it). It was just pure luck that Bommando replied so I could tack on the Aussie Trojan Horse bit as well.

But, who knows? Maybe there is some truth to it. Remember that China got involved in the Korean War, and this was after we (the U.S.) had dropped the Bomb on Japan. It's hard to say what machinations are going on over there today.

**leejo** · 10-11-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bommando

So, only thriving happy nations are allowed to develop or hold the trigger for nuclear weapons? Do they all line up to the 'thriving-and-happy-o-meter' with a big joke hammer and see if they ring the bell allowing them to develop nukes?

No, I think that dictators who are much more concerned with their personal power than their nation's welfare are extraordinarily dangerous keepers of nuclear weapons. This is about Kim Jung Il making yet another horrible decision that enhances his personal power with little regard for the consequences it will have on North Korea's people. I have a problem with that.

Quote:

North Korea is (somewhat blindly) seeking to protect itself from what it sees as global pressure against it.

Right. This makes their actions no less evil.

Quote:

The chances of KJI being insane enough to think about deploying a nuke in an aggressive stance are pretty slim in my opinion.

You show my opinions little respect, but I will respectfully disagree with this assessment. I don't know what KJI would do with a nuke. I would bet you a lot of money that the people of North Korea will not benefit from any of his decisions regarding whether, when, or how to deploy a nuke.

Quote:

To this day, America is still the only nation to deploy a nuke against another nation in combat. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Hopefully it won't change. That is why it is so important to minimize nuclear proliferation. Technology is coming online that will make future nukes extremely difficult to deploy. It would be great if we could at least stall nuclear proliferation until those technologies are widely available, I think. I don't understand why this position is met with such hostility: "I'm no fan of KJI but that won't stop me from sneering at the idea of keeping a nuke out of his control". Weird.

Quote:

You can't talk about anything for a long time period without some American freaking out about the end of the world. For a country with as many people and nukes as you guys have, you sure aren't comfy with being the toughest kid on the block. A lot of American opinion seems to be constantly trying to find the David to your Goliath.

Maybe. But unlike you, I grew up with 10000 Russian nuclear missiles pointed at me. Now that they are gone, their nukes are disappearing to God-knows-where. And then this sustained wave of terror attacks on US interests around the world... So we're a little jumpy. Why is it so easy for you to understand and excuse KJI and so difficult to understand this basic fact of the American psyche without hostility?

Bommando · 10-11-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Hopefully it won't change. That is why it is so important to minimize nuclear proliferation. Technology is coming online that will make future nukes extremely difficult to deploy. It would be great if we could at least stall nuclear proliferation until those technologies are widely available, I think.

With this I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't understand why this position is met with such hostility: "I'm no fan of KJI but that won't stop me from sneering at the idea of keeping a nuke out of his control". Weird.

I'm not saying that anyone should be allowed to produce nukes, all I am saying is that it's all well and good to have all the nukes and then decide that nobody should make them anymore. I can kind of see how the kids without the nukes would see this as a little bit unfair. This doesn't make a nuclear development program right in any sense, it just places a little credence to the intentions.

TheFatKidDeath · 10-11-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Wow I bet those guys fight well and hard on their $20/yr. I'm sure the supplies come rolling up in a sustained fight, too. God it would be pitiful.

I think it would be to our determent to belittle the North Korean army simply based on expenditure per soldier. They have a great deal of ability to inflect tremendous casualties on any invader. Koreans, North and South, are nationalisitic and have been fighting off invading armies such as the Chinese, Monguls and Japanese for centuries.

**leejo** · 10-11-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bommando

I'm not saying that anyone should be allowed to produce nukes, all I am saying is that it's all well and good to have all the nukes and then decide that nobody should make them anymore. I can kind of see how the kids without the nukes would see this as a little bit unfair. This doesn't make a nuclear development program right in any sense, it just places a little credence to the intentions.

Well I think you have to look at the situation tactically. Yes of course it's well and good to camp out on a pile of nukes and then say no-one else can have them, but it isn't as if the USA is alone in seeking to minimize proliferation. With a few VERY NOTABLE exceptions, the whole world wants to minimize nuclear proliferation. So why is the USA flogged with this tired argument everytime we seek to implement this world's stated, sustained, and enthusiastically agreed-upon policy of non-proliferation?

In any case, the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak: yes we have these nukes. So do France, China, Russia, England, India, Pakistan, and maybe Israel. So what next? Do we limit nuclear proliferation or don't we? If so, can we enforce this policy vigorously without having to endure the name-calling every time?

**WhiskeySix** · 10-11-2006, 11:44 AM

ok, I was trying to resist, but this thread wouldn't be complete without a link to the aforementioned End of the World flash

(NSFW - LANGUAGE WARNING)

Bommando · 10-11-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

If so, can we enforce this policy vigorously without having to endure the name-calling every time?

Enforcing this policy on countries who actually have nukes would be a good start.

**leejo** · 10-11-2006, 12:33 PM

Surely a kitten just died? Still funny.

10-11-2006, 10:47 AM	#53 (permalink)
Strag Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Columbus, OH, USA Age: 34 Posts: 5,004	Re: North Korea conducts Nuclear Test My post was meant to be a bit far-fetched, just to snag a good bite so I could post that Onion article (which is pretty old, but I still get a kick out of it). It was just pure luck that Bommando replied so I could tack on the Aussie Trojan Horse bit as well. But, who knows? Maybe there is some truth to it. Remember that China got involved in the Korean War, and this was after we (the U.S.) had dropped the Bomb on Japan. It's hard to say what machinations are going on over there today.

10-11-2006, 11:44 AM	#58 (permalink)
WhiskeySix Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Gillette Stadium, Section 309, Row 12, Seat 24 Age: 33 Posts: 8,272	Re: North Korea conducts Nuclear Test ok, I was trying to resist, but this thread wouldn't be complete without a link to the aforementioned End of the World flash (NSFW - LANGUAGE WARNING) __________________ *PoE2 Version 2.5 Overview \| Get started with PoE2 (for free!)*

10-11-2006, 12:33 PM	#60 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,683	Re: North Korea conducts Nuclear Test Surely a kitten just died? Still funny.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
email: Wow Expansion Beta- welcome to the closed beta	luna	World of Warcraft - General Discussion	18	10-30-2006 03:55 PM
North Korea: 'Mushroom cloud was not a nuclear explosion. Ignore people with 3 heads.	_Ender_	The Sandbox	2	09-14-2004 03:20 PM
Wow stress test sign up	Polska	General Discussion	45	09-12-2004 06:31 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links