Home Politics & Debate

North Korea detonates nuclear bomb

SystemSystem Posts: 8,629 Staff Team
North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon, the state news agency (KCNA) has reported.
It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation.

The White House said South Korean and US intelligence had detected a seismic event at a suspected test site.

The White House said the reported test was a "provocative act", while China denounced it as "brazen".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

A lot of angry people in the world this morning. South Korea has gone as far as hinting as military reprisals.

Undesirable as it is to see another nation join the nuclear club, no one has any right to take military action against other nation for acquiring nukes. I suspect there is going to be much stomping of feet in anger for a while and then NK will be quietly accepted into the club, just as India and Pakistan were a few years ago.

Speaking of which, *Pakistan* (of all people) was one of the nations that has expressed its anger and despair at North Korea's test. You couldn't fucking make it up.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a step in the wrong direction thats for sure, but indirectly North Korea may have saved itself from destruction. The US has already played it's "War card" on the country with the least threat, any action by South Korea and you can kiss Seoul goodbye, nukes or no nukes and Japan is toothless despite it's bluster.

    America can bomb NK easily for sure, but South Korea and Japan would be the whipping boys and tens, if not hundreds of thousands would die. A ground war is out of the question, the US despite it's hardware strength is short on soldiers to use that hardware and conscription = political suicide.

    China is the key and they have a difficult choice, they can either prop up the reigime to prevent a refugee crisis or they can cut off all help and destabilise a nuclear state.

    Some interesting times ahead.

    Token "Hans Brix" reference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    we're doomed i tell ya.
  • Jamie LJamie L Sys Manager *eek* Posts: 129 Settling in
    What I find most incredible about this situation is the fact that for the last 10 years or so N. Korea has relied on the International community for aid to feed it's very own citizens. Where then did the money for the nukes and the mining of Uranium come from, which surely is not an inexpensive task?

    See here for the story which this is mentioned.

    I think this is such a bad thing for N. Korea to do, yet I can't understand S. Korea insinuating military action against this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jamie L wrote:
    What I find most incredible about this situation is the fact that for the last 10 years or so N. Korea has relied on the International community for aid to feed it's very own citizens. Where then did the money for the nukes and the mining of Uranium come from, which surely is not an inexpensive task?

    Like the old USSR, NK spends most of it's GDP on it's military and leaves it's citizens to starve. They probably got financial aid from China too.

    I don't want any country to have nuclear weapons so I don't agree with this. I do however have a problem with those who say NK shouldn't have nuclear weapons while defending the West's right to have them. Hypocrosy of the highest order.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    International relatons isn't about being 'fair'.

    It isn't hypocrisy for the US and even Pakistan to deplore NK nukes whilst wanting to keep theirs, it is just common sense.

    The key thing about the current nuke situation is that most of the nations are allies (barring india v pakistan, and there is a case for saying that these countries having nukes decreases the risk of conflict) so nuclear war is unlikely.

    NK is an enemy of most places and is dangerously unstable. As pointed out the fact that the leaders do not appear to give a fuck about their citizens just makes conflict more likely.

    Haivng said that i still don't think there is serious risk of war as a result of this......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    International relatons isn't about being 'fair'.

    It isn't hypocrisy for the US and even Pakistan to deplore NK nukes whilst wanting to keep theirs, it is just common sense.
    Common sense from their point of view- from the point of view of everyone else, it is pure hypocrisy.

    Just as it would be hypocritical of me to carry a gun and demand they are illegal for everyone else, and that those found in possession of one are punished severely.

    At least you could say that some nuclear nations that are stable and not in the business of threatening others- for instance France- are not so hypocritical. But for the likes of Pakistan (a destabilised military dictatorship that only turned nuclear a few years ago, who didn't even have the courtesy to give prior warning to its nuclear testing and who a couple of years ago came to the very brink of nuclear holocaust with India) to complain about NK's test is quite simply the ultimate piss-take and the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To uniformly apply a fixed set of morals to each different scenario might avoid accusations of hypocrisy but would make inflexible and unworkable foreign policy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe or maybe not; but I certainly don't see much difference between Pakistan and North Korea- do you? Both countries are involved in decades-long bitter and volatile conflicts with their immediate neighbours. Both are ruled by dictators. Both governments could implode leaving their respective countries even more unstable than they are now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Still no proof that they actually did test a nuc. only that they have claimed to have done so.

    Either way it is designed to be inflammatory and I'm sure that it is no coincidence that today sees the voting in of the new UN SecGen...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Either a nuke or a earthquake machine by the looks of the seismic readings - nukes are bad enough without him becoming a bond villain
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, just that I heard Bush mummbling earlier, and he didn't seem so sure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bush not sure? I'm shocked, shocked to the core ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I really don't get the problem here... I sure hope it was a proper nuke they did test here and I sure hope it will give them the guarantee of not being washed out by the US or one of their ally... They might not be the best country in the world and have crap government, but being controlled by other countries is sure not the way to go...

    I really don't get why is it such a big problem for countries that are categorised as "a risk" (and let's not forget who categorise them as such) to get nuclear weapons... specially when the US is in the middle of it...

    How many countries that were suppose to be at risk had nuclear weapons so far? How many of them used them? Which country is the only one who ever use a nuclear bomb? I say let's not forget that...

    If it takes every country to have nuclear weapons to be able to stop having other country looking in other countries business and to maybe achieve some sort of global peace via global fear, well that's might not be such a bad idea...

    Let's look back in history, when nuclear weapons didn't even exist, did he stop the world for going to war against each other? Nope. Why not try it this way, maybe if knowing that starting a war can mean the destruction of your own country, governments will start to calm down and think that maybe the land/religion or whatever they have is not so bad after all...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a load of bollocks.

    NK and its citizens endure extreme suffering - the contrast is stark; NK - a third world country with millions starving and SK - a modern, prosperous and developed country. NK getting a nuclear weapon benefits nobody, it endangers SK and Japan; it means NK is spending more on arms and even less on its impoverished population...

    And nukes or no nukes, the US wasn't going to invade NK. If anything, military action against NK is more likely because of this latest development...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Just as it would be hypocritical of me to carry a gun and demand they are illegal for everyone else, and that those found in possession of one are punished severely.

    I agree. I think it would be.

    But isn`t that exactly what the group of individuals in costumes (which you earlier referred to as armies) do, albeit "under orders" ? :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a load of bollocks.

    NK and its citizens endure extreme suffering - the contrast is stark; NK - a third world country with millions starving and SK - a modern, prosperous and developed country. NK getting a nuclear weapon benefits nobody, it endangers SK and Japan; it means NK is spending more on arms and even less on its impoverished population...

    And nukes or no nukes, the US wasn't going to invade NK. If anything, military action against NK is more likely because of this latest development...

    Let's be obvious, can anything else that war stop NK from doing whatever they want? They don't care what the rest of the world say they keep on going...

    Right now the government of NK care about one thing, and one thing only, their survival, which is why they don't give a crap about their citizens... I am not saying that thew right thing to do, but frankly wouldn't any government of any country do such in the same condition? or do you believe people like Bush would put the people of their country first?

    And here, NK having nuclear put china and SK at risk, yes, maybe, but isn't NK at risk from the same country... On top of that didn't we had the same sort of problem with russia... it was a high risk for the world peace... yet we are still waiting on them using nuclear weapons against anyway...

    I will repeat myself here, but when it come to who should have nuclear or not, I rather not listen to a group where the main leader is a country that DID USE nuclear weapon against an other... all the one at risk never did...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't mind me wading in here with my own opinion, i shall do.

    I see no problem...another country has Nukes and all though the regime is run by a nutcase with a penchant for writing musicals and then making the whole country watch them, nothing much shall change in the world...unless China get pissy about not been the only Nuclear power in the region, then the Japanese decide they want the bomb...or worse, killer robots or worse still some kind of super giant killer lizard like Godzilla as its own first strike weapon, then it would be a right shit-storm!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And nukes or no nukes, the US wasn't going to invade NK. If anything, military action against NK is more likely because of this latest development...
    See, I think the opposite is actually more likely. It has been publicly believed NK had between 2-5 nukes for a few years now- foreign government agencies are likely to have been quite aware of it for even longer.

    Look at the much trumpeted 'Axis of Evil'. Iraq was invaded on the excuse that it had WMDs and was a substantial threat to others. Of course we all knew (and that includes the US government, more than everyone else in fact) that Saddam posed as much of a threat to others as an old people's home and that he had no nuclear weapons whatsoever, and no capability or means to acquire them.

    North Korea on the other hand is a far more destabilising regime and was widely believed to have a few nukes. Clearly a far more serious threat than Iraq could ever be. And what does the US do?

    He goes for Iraq and leaves NK well alone.

    The lesson for nations across the planet, from Iran to Venezuela, is crystal clear: on Uncle Sam's bad books? Get nuclear or get invaded.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The lesson for nations across the planet, from Iran to Venezuela, is crystal clear: on Uncle Sam's bad books? Get nuclear or get invaded.

    Libya abandoned its nuclear programme. Is the US going to invade Libya? Libya's abandonment of its programme got it out of the 'bad books' of the US and EU.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, abandoning whichever nuclear programme, real or imaginary, you might have would naturally put you back on the US' good books.

    Obey, or deal with the consequences.

    It's no surprise Venezuela is finalising the purchase of advanced Russian fighters and anti-aircraft missile systems. It's no surprise Iran seeks the bomb itself. In the past you could more or less rely on the fact that unless you commited an act of war you'd be safe from unwarranted attack. But nobody is willing or capable of stopping the US from taking any unilateral action it pleases.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    In the past you could more or less rely on the fact that unless you commited an act of war you'd be safe from unwarranted attack.

    Er riight. Did Poland commit an act of war to warrant invasion?
    Aladdin wrote:
    But nobody is willing or capable of stopping the US from taking any unilateral action it pleases.

    You're on another planet if you think the US is going to invade Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Syria or any other unsavoury regime that you think should have nukes...

    For Iran, its nuclear programme would be the justification for hostilities - were it to end its aggressive ambitions there would be no talk of using force against the Iranians...Anyhow, the US is too busy elsewhere to seriously think about NK or Iran.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er riight. Did Poland commit an act of war to warrant invasion?
    You know what I mean... There have always been aggressions and conquests of course. But after World War two there was a new order, and certainly you would not expect to be attacked by the leader of the free world and member of the UNSC for no good reason. Well, unless there were 'commies' around.

    But nowadays the so called leader of the free world and champion of freedom and democracy is more than happy to ignore international law and the UN and to illegally invade nations at will, with the rest of the international community looking on and doing nothing about it.

    At least Poland had an Allied force to defend them. Nobody opposes the Imperialistic forces of G. W. Bush or dares help his targets.


    You're on another planet if you think the US is going to invade Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Syria or any other unsavoury regime that you think should have nukes...

    For Iran, its nuclear programme would be the justification for hostilities - were it to end its aggressive ambitions there would be no talk of using force against the Iranians...Anyhow, the US is too busy elsewhere to seriously think about NK or Iran.
    If Iraq had gone as the US had hoped, Iran would probably have been attacked even before the 2004 American elections.

    Even if it doesn't involve a ground invasion the US would be quite prepared to attack, bomb or otherwise destabilise any regime it doesn't like. Why should anyone put up with it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Even if it doesn't involve a ground invasion the US would be quite prepared to attack, bomb or otherwise destabilise any regime it doesn't like.

    The French had better watch out then...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They don't need to. They can put up a fight, and more to the point they have nukes.

    Hence why more and more regimes are suddenly in a hurry to go nuclear.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    It has pissed off China. China has been angry at NK for developing nukes for a while. They dont waant to push thier luck with the Chinese, I think they'll be the make or break factor here. Either that or the NK econom will finally die soon.

    Anyway, LOL at a nuke at like, 6am over here. Hahaha. Nutters.

    Well, at least the missiles fall apart.

    Edit: Interesting stuff:
    Nuclear Talks Timeline
    North Korean Nuclear Capability
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    They don't need to. They can put up a fight, and more to the point they have nukes.

    Hence why more and more regimes are suddenly in a hurry to go nuclear.

    So you think the fact that France has nukes and could 'put up a fight' is the only reason the US has not attacked them? :lol:
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    So you think the fact that France has nukes and could 'put up a fight' is the only reason the US has not attacked them? :lol:

    If France was a weak country with little military and no nukes, they'd have been taken for man reasons, if not by the US the some other greedy nation.

    They have some good resources there, you know! Plus the Wine industry makes loads... (Dunno why, French wine is blatantly NOT the best at all).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you think the fact that France has nukes and could 'put up a fight' is the only reason the US has not attacked them? :lol:
    Not only nukes but a very strong conventional military.

    Are you actually trying to deny that the US has a habit of attacking weak nations when it interest it to do so?

    Why don't you check out what the US has been up to for the last 6 decades? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well, abandoning whichever nuclear programme, real or imaginary, you might have would naturally put you back on the US' good books.

    Obey, or deal with the consequences.

    It's no surprise Venezuela is finalising the purchase of advanced Russian fighters and anti-aircraft missile systems. It's no surprise Iran seeks the bomb itself. In the past you could more or less rely on the fact that unless you commited an act of war you'd be safe from unwarranted attack. But nobody is willing or capable of stopping the US from taking any unilateral action it pleases.
    I think that basically sums it up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Maybe or maybe not; but I certainly don't see much difference between Pakistan and North Korea- do you? .

    Yes, one is our friend, the other our enemy (to simplify) thsu I am rather more concerned about NK having nukes than Pakistan.

    Not hypocrisy, just common sense......
Sign In or Register to comment.