North Korea confirms it has nuclear weapons

billy the squid

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/index.html

...so the thought there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, so they bombed it.

now they know north korea has weapons of mass destruction and there is no bombing. why is this. is it because there is no oil there or is it the fact that the US is afraid to take on a country which really has WMD

my opinion is it is the latter.

will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Hobbes

I would say partly that and partly because it allows the US to increase miltary contracts with Korea and still have its somewhat pax americana in S.K.

garthv

Good on ya North Korea,its about time someone stood up against that american idiot.

MeatProduct

I'm sure there's a really obvious answer to this but why can't North Korea have WMD? The US has them, why should'nt anyone else have them? Please forgive me if this is a very stupid question.

Nick

PS: I know that "rogue" nations shouldn't have WMD but imo the US is a bit of a rogue nation.

HomesickAlien

ya know, i read in noam chomsky's "hegemony or survival", that the reason america took on iraq was that it was virtually defenceless and they could invade and win the war with few american casualties (they didn't expect the insurgency). this would have been a pr dream come true for bush after not finding osama bin laden in afganistan. they wouldn't invade north korea because they have a HUGE military force + (apparently) wmd. the us would suffer massive casualties if it invaded, so they wouldn't do it.

plus i think bush only added north korea to the axis of evil so it would seem less like a war against islam.

Nuttzz

The US have fought in both Korea and in the Gulf before, given the options to the US administration what would you want to repeat? the easy victory in the gulf like in 91 or a bloody conflict like the Korean War. It all boils down to bodycount, the US losses in military terms in Iraq since the end of major combat operations has only been 1% of their force in just over a year. This is nothing in military terms, in fact they have more non combat casualities than combat casualities. If there were an attack on North Korea or even an attack by North Korea on the south then US casualities would easily hit 1000 within a few weeks rather than years. Its all a numbers game.

links:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7368173.htm
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/237ADM.htm

por

GaRtH_V wrote:

Good on ya North Korea,its about time someone stood up against that american idiot.

Yea, brilliant, I love it too when a totaliterian state announces it has nuclear weapons...

toiletduck

GaRtH_V wrote:

Good on ya North Korea,its about time someone stood up against that american idiot.

ya, why bother feeding your people when theres a huge famine on when instead you can build weapons to kill millions....

vorbis

agree N. Korea would want to concentrate on feeding its people instead of wasting vast sums of money on unneeded WMDs.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mr_angry

I think the Americans don't want to invade because its likely North Korea has a number of nukes pointed directly at Japan, and whats more, there's a meglomaniac with his finger on the button. Sure, they could easily take NK, but not without Kim Jong Il getting a couple of missiles off in the process and destroying a couple of major Japanese cities. Not really that attractive a thought.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

The US have fought in both Korea and in the Gulf before, given the options to the US administration what would you want to repeat? the easy victory in the gulf like in 91 or a bloody conflict like the Korean War. It all boils down to bodycount, the US losses in military terms in Iraq since the end of major combat operations has only been 1% of their force in just over a year. This is nothing in military terms, in fact they have more non combat casualities than combat casualities. If there were an attack on North Korea or even an attack by North Korea on the south then US casualities would easily hit 1000 within a few weeks rather than years. Its all a numbers game.

links:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7368173.htm
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/237ADM.htm

This all assumes, of course, that the US (or any other country for that matter) has the right to invade another just because they posses WMD's.
Which they don't.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So it's ok to attack any country that violates the NNPT then?

dathi1

Kim what's his name had a go with this sort of thing in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This has major repercussions so far as Bush's stance with Iran and makes it look like a sideshow. Excellent!!

Nuttzz

sovtek wrote:

This all assumes, of course, that the US (or any other country for that matter) has the right to invade another just because they posses WMD's.
Which they don't.

quite true, but when GWB came out with his axis of evil statement "you" knew that he was going to attack somewhere, given his options which was the easiest one to win, Iraq was (and still is) IMO when compared to NK

sovtek

dathi1 wrote:

Kim what's his name had a go with this sort of thing in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This has major repercussions so far as Bush's stance with Iran and makes it look like a sideshow. Excellent!!

"I'm sor wronry....sor very wronry..."

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

quite true, but when GWB came out with his axis of evil statement "you" knew that he was going to attack somewhere, given his options which was the easiest one to win, Iraq was (and still is) IMO when compared to NK

If it was so easy why are they still there and still losing troops 2 years later.

toiletduck

the best way to deal with NK is santions and the possibilty of increased aid if they halt their WMD programmes

kasintahan

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It's about 30 km. That's a 2 hour jog.

Nuttzz

Redleslie2 wrote:

If it was so easy why are they still there and still losing troops 2 years later.

I didnt say it was easy, I said that it was easier than fighting the North Koreans. As for the occupation of Iraq I think the yanks will be there for many years to come, after WWII the "wolverines" kept killing US troops up to 1949, I cant see why Iraq would be any different.

tuxy

toiletduck wrote:

the best way to deal with NK is santions and the possibilty of increased aid if they halt their WMD programmes

yup good idea because we all know how much Kim Jong-il cares about the well being of his citizens

Daveirl

Daveirl wrote:

Because the vast majority of the world don't want everyone to have weapons. There are 170 countries who are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The basic idea is that Nuclear weapons are very bad and it's a pity anyone has them, but since that genie is out of the bottle we'll do our best to limit who else gets them.

And like all good ideas it needs to be backed up. However, the nations that are there to back this up, aren't exactly the best role models. The US continues its research in Nuclear weapons, France has demolished an Atol in its tests etc. Its all very well to say lets prevent other nations from having nuclear weapons, but you kind to have to lead by example.

N. Korea seeking Nuclear weapons, at such a huge cost is because of the need for a massive defensive weapon against the superpower that won't stop flexing its muscles. It remains a factor that the US doesn't think very much of International Treaties, even ones it instigated in the first place.

When the US starts decommissioning the largest stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the world, then maybe I'll start expecting other nations to follow suit. Not going to happen though.

toiletduck

tuxy wrote:

yup good idea because we all know how much Kim Jong-il cares about the well being of his citizens

not only aid for civilians but oil aswell. the deal clinton struck with NK in '94 included a nuclear reactor and oil.

ionapaul

The announcement is just another move in the ongoing effort by North Korea to extract as much economic aid / bribery as possible from the Japanese, South Korea and the US before agreeing to wind down the nuclear programme. Although it has proven extremely difficult to get reliable reports from inside the 'Hermit Kingdom', the last decade has been disastrous for them and Kim thinks this is his best bet at getting out of the hole he has dug himself and his people.

Ahh, communism, how I love thee...to be fair I suppose the cult of personality problems have ruined anything good communism ever hoped to give.

Boggle

So you want to reward him for building them so he could remove them??

Dont make sense...to be honest the answer to this is simple but brutal. The UN (America but under a different flag) should hit them hard and fast and act as a warning that building nukes, instead of protecting you, will lead to invasion. No if's, no but's.

Wont happen though - the UN is toothless, and the US are like the playground bully... pretty impressive until someone stands up to them.

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

As for the occupation of Iraq I think the yanks will be there for many years to come, after WWII the "wolverines" kept killing US troops up to 1949,

Source of this rubbish?

I cant see why Iraq would be any different.

Same thing isn't it? Because Hitler was a Bad Man and Saddam was a Bad Man.

growler

mr_angry wrote:

I think the Americans don't want to invade because its likely North Korea has a number of nukes pointed directly at Japan, and whats more, there's a meglomaniac with his finger on the button. Sure, they could easily take NK, but not without Kim Jong Il getting a couple of missiles off in the process and destroying a couple of major Japanese cities. Not really that attractive a thought.

Ironic is'nt it ? As America is the only nation to have used WMD's against Japan.

I imagine part of their seeming reluctance to attack NK would be because they probably have worse intelligence about what's going on there than they did have on Iraq , they won't want another ground war so any military intervention is likely to be missile / air strikes against suspected nuke sites and without the intel they might miss some risking a retaliatory strike on the south or Japan.

And it doesn't have oil so their really is no need to liberate them from oppression.

David19

ionapaul wrote:

The announcement is just another move in the ongoing effort by North Korea to extract as much economic aid / bribery as possible from the Japanese, South Korea and the US before agreeing to wind down the nuclear programme. Although it has proven extremely difficult to get reliable reports from inside the 'Hermit Kingdom', the last decade has been disastrous for them and Kim thinks this is his best bet at getting out of the hole he has dug himself and his people.

Ahh, communism, how I love thee...to be fair I suppose the cult of personality problems have ruined anything good communism ever hoped to give.

Thats it. I don't think north korea is any danger to the US. Afaik they don't support terrorism. Obviously north korea is never going to attack the US. The US isnt going to bomb north korea because they have nuclear weapons. They'd only bomb if north korea was a major threat.

Nuttzz

Redleslie2 wrote:

Source of this rubbish?

Rubbish? So history is rubbish now?

But since you insist
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0752417932/qid=1108048018/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2372124-3939052?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802008623/qid=1108048018/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-2372124-3939052?v=glance&s=books

Frank Grimes

David19 wrote:

They'd only bomb if north korea was a major threat.

Exactly as what happened in Iraq then.
Seriously though, if there is any chance of real retaliation from the Koreans I doubt there'll be any confrontations with them.
They'll just continue threatening Iran over what they might potentially be doing rather than confront a very real (regional at least) threat.