Home Politics & Debate
Fill out The Mix's Annual User Survey for a chance to win a £200 Amazon voucher, to shape our services, and get closer to earning a badge!
Need support urgently? Head to this thread.

North Korea: we have nuclear weapons- US report

SystemSystem Posts: 8,623 Staff Team
Accoding to US sources North Korea has told the Americans it already possesses nuclear weapons. Story .

So how likely is it that they're telling the truth? Could it be that they're scared that they're next in Bush's hit list and are trying to pre-empt any thoughts of an attack?

Or for that matter, are the Americans telling the truth about these allegations?

If it is true I don't know what can the US really do. The N. Koreans broke an aid agreement based on the freezing of their nuclear programme, but other than asking for the money back nobody has much right to demand that North Korea disarms. AFAIK they have as much right to own nukes as any of the 8 nuclear nations that exist today (unless the Korea War ceasefire agreement ruled against WMDs proliferation).

Will the US attack this "axis of evil"( :rolleyes: ) country that openly admits to owning WMDs? Or are we about to witness a new Cold War?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    dilema.
    my money is on the n.koreans having a tragic accident and going bang! we know it wasn't an accident though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Invasion or cold war...Neither IMO..

    The US wont invade because of the incredible casualties they will receive..

    There wont be a cold war because NK are starving and its only a matter of time before something happens.

    Personally I think China will step in and slap down NK like the bitch child they are. In fact it wouldnt surprise me in the least to see chinese troops going into NK and forcibly removing the problems.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    China know that an angry USA is something they don't need right now. China is quickly emergeing as an economic superpower, and could easily afford a war against the USA. However a war like that would certainly be nuclear and would undo the hard work they have been doing.
    I agree with Balddog, not wanting to see nuclear mushroom clouds blossoming on its border China will demand NKorea to disarm or face about 2 million troops flooding over its border.

    As for Korea itself, why they're huffing and puffing about defending themselves I don't know, yes they may have a nuke or 2, but do they have the capability to launch them towards the USA before having 500 sent back?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere

    As for Korea itself, why they're huffing and puffing about defending themselves I don't know, yes they may have a nuke or 2, but do they have the capability to launch them towards the USA before having 500 sent back?

    Maybe not, but they can probably hit Japan. They probably do think that claiming to have nukes already may give pause to any plans to invade them and force them to disarm.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Darth Fred
    Maybe not, but they can probably hit Japan.


    They wouldn't be the first ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    China know that an angry USA is something they don't need right now. China is quickly emergeing as an economic superpower, and could easily afford a war against the USA. However a war like that would certainly be nuclear and would undo the hard work they have been doing.
    I agree with Balddog, not wanting to see nuclear mushroom clouds blossoming on its border China will demand NKorea to disarm or face about 2 million troops flooding over its border.

    As for Korea itself, why they're huffing and puffing about defending themselves I don't know, yes they may have a nuke or 2, but do they have the capability to launch them towards the USA before having 500 sent back?

    I never thought of China sorting NK out before! Brilliant idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: North Korea: we have nuclear weapons- US report
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    If it is true I don't know what can the US really do.

    Which is precisely why the US had to act before Iraq go hold of the same weaponry...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What right does the US have to determine who has the right to own nuclear weapons and who hasn't? What country in the world is most likely to attack and invade others at present? Should we act immediately to ensure regime change in that country so its mad leader does not use his WMDs?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    What right does the US have to determine who has the right to own nuclear weapons and who hasn't?

    Rephrase your question and perhaps you'll get the answer...

    What right does the US have to say who constitutes a threat to them?
    What country in the world is most likely to attack and invade others at present? Should we act immediately to ensure regime change in that country so its mad leader does not use his WMDs?

    But are they likely to use their WMD? And why would they be invading? On a whim, perchance.

    I mean honestly?

    Are you telling me that you cannot spot the difference between a democratically elected leader and one there through oppression?

    I get your point, Aladdin, but you are comparing apples and pears there...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you're basically saying it is okay for the US (or any other country) to attack others at will so long as they tell the world they believe they're under threat? Even when to any outside observers the US would appear to be more at risk of an attack by giant two-headed lizards than by the country in question?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    So you're basically saying it is okay for the US (or any other country) to attack others at will so long as they tell the world they believe they're under threat?

    No, I think that there should be some form of "evidence" to support the assertion.

    Such as a unwillingness to abide by UN resolutions to disarm, whilst suggesting that your enemy is the US. Sound familiar? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The evidence to support Iraq being a threat remains to be found. If anything, the war has shown that Saddam's regime couldn't have conquered Andorra if they'd tried. But of course it doesn't matter now because the US achieved what it wanted and no-one will hold Bush to account.

    The same trick can be played again and again. Pick a country whose leaders aren't dancing to your tune, claim they have links to terrorism and WMDs and are an immediate threat, invade them, and by the time it becomes clear that it wasn't the case your puppet regime will be in place and the world will be too scared to attempt to prosecute G. W. Bush for war crimes. Back of the net!

    And then it's the little matter of double standards, with one country in breach of endless UN resolutions, in possession of illegal WMDs of all sorts and in constant breach of human rights that not only is allowed to continue its ways but actually receives constant military and political aid by that great preserver of peace and freedom, the US.

    23rd Century historians will no doubt struggle to explain not why the US government behaved this way but how on earth some people attempted to justify its actions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What shocked the Chinese was that the North Korean delegate admitted they had nuclear weapons in the hall outside the meeting. It was a cultural thing. The Chinese felt the North Koreans were making everyone at the meeting lose face. So China came down hard on them.

    My read on America right now is not to take the chance that a threat might not happen. We're also getting a lot of advice from Sharone who believes being offensive keeps you safer than being defensive. I don't know if that's true...but I know even the cops in NYC are alerted when something is going on in Israel. They believe there's a connection. I don't know if that's true either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    My read on America right now is not to take the chance that a threat might not happen.
    I trust that if North Korea, Syria, Iran or any other country for that matter launched a pre-emptive attack on the USA you would completely understand their reasons.
    We're also getting a lot of advice from Sharone
    That would explain a few things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    I trust that if North Korea, Syria, Iran or any other country for that matter launched a pre-emptive attack on the USA you would completely understand their reasons.

    You mean as they watched their countries turn to glass parking lots?

    What you're really pissed off about is that there isn't anything you can do about it, isn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not quite. I don't believe in the use of force in politics. Be Iraq, Israel, Burma, the US or any other country. But since pnj is suggesting there is nothing wrong with the US launching pre-emptive attacks at will on whoever it perceives to be threat, then surely he and anyone who shares that mentality would see nothing wrong with other nations attacking the US first if they perceive America to be a threat to them.

    Don't you think that is fair?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    The evidence to support Iraq being a threat remains to be found.

    Why, had he disarmed then? Was he in full compliance with UNSC Resolutions? Had he never threatened the US?

    BTW Not believing in force in politics if why you end up with people like Franco. At least your countryment fought back...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One thing is defending yourself or your territorial integrity against aggression, as well as helping others from being massacred, for which force can be acceptable, and another using force in politics, i.e. for the achievement of geo-political and economic control in other areas.

    Which category do you think the war on Iraq falls into?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Which category do you think the war on Iraq falls into?

    Answer:
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    One thing is defending yourself or your territorial integrity against aggression, as well as helping others from being massacred, for which force can be acceptable

    Unless you believe that the WTC isn't on the US mainland, or that Iraq has never threatened US lives, even that of the previous President Bush, or maybe you don't think that Iraqis an Kurds have been massacred...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are linking the WTC to Saddam Hussein now are you?

    And do you think that plans to carry out an assassination on a former politician justify waging war on another country?

    As for massacring others, I presume you believe that we should go to war against every single country where serious human rights abuses have been committed. I don't agree with that policy although I understand perfectly the reasons behind it. Pity the governments behind the war on Iraq don't share your feelings, preferring to ignore or even actively trade with many a country with appalling human rights records for as long as they can profit from it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    You are linking the WTC to Saddam Hussein now are you?

    No, I'm linking him with terrorism.
    And do you think that plans to carry out an assassination on a former politician justify waging war on another country?

    Er, yes. It's an act of war. That simple. BTW Former Head of State, not just a politician
    As for massacring others, I presume you believe that we should go to war against every single country where serious human rights abuses have been committed. I don't agree with that policy although I understand perfectly the reasons behind it. Pity the governments behind the war on Iraq don't share your feelings, preferring to ignore or even actively trade with many a country with appalling human rights records for as long as they can profit from it.

    No, I think we should do everything we can to remove those regimes. If that ultimately means war, then fine. I'd prefer not to have to go down that route though.

    And I don't expect my Govt to agree with me all the time. It just means that I have something to criticise them for, to work against. If I agreed with them life would be so dull...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are linking the WTC to Saddam Hussein now are you?

    Aladdin, I'm not saying the poles are right...but in the US, people do believe there's a link...I read, especially in the Mid West. Less in the West and even less in NYC and the East Coast.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From Sky News:

    N KOREA TO SUSPEND NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
    North Korea has offered to suspend its nuclear programme at talks with the United States, Chinese officials have told Western diplomats.
    Pyongyang also offered to suspend ballistic missile tests, halt missile exports and allow in nuclear inspectors.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    From Sky News:

    N KOREA TO SUSPEND NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
    North Korea has offered to suspend its nuclear programme at talks with the United States, Chinese officials have told Western diplomats.
    Pyongyang also offered to suspend ballistic missile tests, halt missile exports and allow in nuclear inspectors.

    Sounds like the Chinese brought their big stick to the talks...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was actually crediting the US for making the Koreans suspend their programme. Do you think it was the Chinese who made them see sense then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Do you think it was the Chinese who made them see sense then?

    Publicly, that'll probably be the the story as they can't be seen to give in to the US
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    I was actually crediting the US for making the Koreans suspend their programme. Do you think it was the Chinese who made them see sense then?

    North Korea hasn't shown any sense in any negotiations with the United States in 50 years. Yeah, I think the Chinese decided to take sides, and made it very, very clear to the North Koreans what the consequences could be if they didn't do what was required. Don't think the Chinese need any more disruption of their economy, and they sure don't want nuclear explosions near their northern territories.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    North Korea hasn't shown any sense in any negotiations with the United States in 50 years. Yeah, I think the Chinese decided to take sides, and made it very, very clear to the North Koreans what the consequences could be if they didn't do what was required. Don't think the Chinese need any more disruption of their economy, and they sure don't want nuclear explosions near their northern territories.

    Totally Agree, but don't you think the threat from the US had any effect on the NK loonies?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Had a lot more effect on the Chinese. They know the USA isn't bluffing. Kim doesn't care if the USA is bluffing or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Incidentally, I would have been much more happy about a liberation of N Korea -
    - It has WMD.

    - It is a breakaway piece of a country.

    - It is led by a bunch of suicidal wackos rather than impressionable bully's.

    - It poses a clear WMD threat to neighbouring countries (S Korea, Japan etc)

    - It expelled the IAEA inspectors.

    Why did the Cheney and co. plump for Iraq? Easier target?
Sign In or Register to comment.