Just when America is gearing up to bomb Iran, North Korea pops up and announces its intention to conduct a nuclear test.
Well, that's a clear policy success for the Bush Administration's strategy of refusing to negotiate under any circumstances, isn't it?
Ack. The only way America is going to get these people to stop testing is to hand out nukes that work already.
ReplyDeleteOr they could utilise the famous communist corruption and bribe the governments into holding real elections.
And neither of those are going to happen.
These pretty much sum it up ...
ReplyDeleteAtomic Touch, Part II
Duplomacy
Yes, I must admit I find it strange why the ambitions of a lunatic dictator who's starved to death 2-4 million of his people is somehow America's fault. As pointed out, America did indeed negotiate in good faith; the North Koreans broke the deal. There are some good posts on this site; there is also the most thoughtless, knee-jerk, blame everything on America rubbish. Pity.
ReplyDeleteYou can count but you don't know history.
ReplyDelete> Well, that's a clear policy success for the Bush Administration's strategy of refusing to negotiate under any circumstances, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI/S your world is apparently upside down.
If iran gets nukes it might be a problem with the no negotaition strategy.
This is a clear failure of the NEGOTIATION strategy. People have been negotaiting with Nth korea for ages and Nth korea has moved ever closer to being able to nuke those people.
It may be time for Japan to "nuke up" and beef up their military.
Then sth korea and co can consider their options.
So I guess that all you people here think that the USA should be the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteI dont see anything wrong with North Korea having a nuclear deterrent..
The USA murders its fair share of people too....
Milsy,
ReplyDeletehow do you feel about me having a nuclear deterant just in case someone breaks into my home?
North Korea, along with every other country threatened by the U.S. would be stupid NOT to develop and test nuclear weapons. That is the lesson from the invasion of Iraq, and most other countries the U.S. has tried to destroy. The U.S. is a real and known threat; they're the only nation to have even used nuclear weapons against another.
ReplyDeleteGenius, if you had violent, threatening and imperious neighbour's with nuclear weapons I wouldn't try to suggest you shouldn't have them as a deterent yourself.
> would be stupid NOT to develop and test nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteIt isn’t feasible for the US to nuke Nth Korea. Nth Korea knows that, which is exactly why they know they can play this game.
> Genius, if you had violent, threatening and imperious neighbor
Well the US isn't their neighbor - but yes - can I have my nukes now?
Once you've got them I'll tell you where to deliver.
BTW I take it that you don't oppose the US developing and testing more nuclear weapons? And that you would consider them stupid if they did not do it?
What are you talking about it not being feasible to nuke Korea? You really think "feasibility" is high on the agenda of necon radicals? In any case the point of testing and developing nukes is to deter the U.S. from invading or bombing, whatever cowardice form it takes.
ReplyDelete"Well the US isn't their neighbor - but yes - can I have my nukes now? Once you've got them I'll tell you where to deliver."
Boy that's towering argument you have there Genius. You see your problem is that you're blinded by the sun you see shining out America's ass.
And of course I oppose the U.S. developing and testing more nuclear weapons. It's perfectly crazy to have the capabilty to blow the world up hundreds of times over. Don't you think once is enough? Of course they're flouting their obligations under the NPT and destroying it in the process by developing further nuclear weapons.
> You really think "feasibility" is high on the agenda of necon radicals?
ReplyDeleteYes - much more than it is on Nth Korea's agenda. If it ISN'T on the USA's agenda then that is MORE reason to be concerned about proliferation not less.
Besides remember that you are very different form a Neocon - I don’t think you understand their motivation at all, so it isn’t surprising that you are unable to asses their danger.
> deter the U.S. from invading or bombing.
[sarcasm] Indeed and the nuke I'd like you to give me to deter you from annoying me whatever form your annoyance might take. [/sarcasm]
In civilized countries like NZ we oppose people having loaded hand guns in their house and shooting people who are on their property. Why do you think that is?
What is even worse is that you seem to consider Nth Korea initiating nuclear war to be legitimate.
>Don't you think once is enough?
Being able to do it once is morally identical to being able to do it 100 times. It is like you threatening to kill me one hundred times over - that is just comical.
>blinded by the sun you see shining out America's ass.
In that case - you seem to be sucked into the blackhole inside their ass (cripes, why did we start on that metaphore!).
Your point is inconsistent – it might be the opposite of someone like Cheney but the mirror image of a crazy guy is still a crazy guy.
It is as if Cheney said “red is the only colour in the world” you’d say “NO blue is!”.
Since North Korea has been developing its weapons programme since the end of the Cold War and its been since 1994, I can't see how the Bush Administration is too blame.
ReplyDeleteor you can be millsy and equate the USA with a regime that maintains an Orwellian style Police state with gulags that imprison men women and children (small children too) in slave like conditions.
If anyone thinks they can rationally negotiate with a regime that denies man landed on the moon, that maintains a personality cult of its leader who is the greatest man, that continually lies about who started the Korean War, maintains a police state without parallel, they are deluded - all that be done is deter, and wait for Kim to die or be overthrown.
Indeed LibertyScott - I agree. And let's not forget that it was the US that provided most of the food aid - and offered more - during the years of North Korea's famine. Here's wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteIn 1995, responding to the North Korean flood that caused the famine, the United States government initially provided over $8 million in general humanitarian assistance (China was the only country to initially contribute more aid). However, eight years later, the United States government had provided $644 million in aid to the country which comprised nearly 50% of the aid going to North Korea.
Why do large portions of the Left want to make excuses for every despotic regime they can find? It's all rather depressing - like the Western apologists for Stalinism in the 1930s/40s...
Genius, please don't be a hypocrite, bitchin and moaning that I have the gall to criticise the U.S. while your endless apologising for the U.S. knows no bounds. And what makes you think I believe it's legitimate for Nth Korea to initiate a nuclear war? No where have I even implied such a thing.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile you appear to be living in some parallel universe where the U.S. doesn't actually go around invading other countries and destroying them, but instead acts with "feasibility" in mind. How you resolve such pig headed thoughts in your head with reality I really do not know.
"Since North Korea has been developing its weapons programme since the end of the Cold War and its been since 1994, I can't see how the Bush Administration is too blame."
Let me spell it out for you. Big bully (with a history of using nuclear weapons) starts aggressively invading weak countries (breaking international law and destroying them in the process), develops new nuclear weapons (breaking obligations under the NPT) and threatens to invade others. Other countries learn that might is right and if they want to stand up to the bully they'll need to be able to hit back.
As per normal for libertarians, you're too blinded for your love of all things American to even consider that the U.S. might be responsible for its actions.
> Please don't be a hypocrite
ReplyDeleteYour claiming your territory are you?
> bitchin and moaning that I have the gall to criticise the U.S
Where did I say that?
> No where have I even implied such a thing.
1) You defend the spread of tools for nuclear war.
2) In doing (1) you seemed to talk favorably of them being a deterrent (i.e. response) to "whatever cowardice form" (only if the people who would be killed are American?).
> But instead acts with "feasibility" in mind.
I think in addition to not understanding the Neo-cons or the USA, you also don't understand what feasibility means (you also seem to have issues with the term hypocrisy).
Apparently in your world there are two groups of people
1) Those that support Nth Korea getting nukes
And
2) "those evil other bastards"
Chairman Kim would be proud
Instead of babbling obfuscation Genius why don't you admit that your analogy just doesn't stack up.
ReplyDeleteYou offered a domestic analogy and I tore it apart, and your whiny half-assed response was 'but they're not neighbours.' You never actually responded in a intelligible way to my comment: if you had violent, threatening and imperious neighbour's (call em whatever you like) with nuclear weapons I wouldn't try to suggest you shouldn't have them as a deterent yourself. I would argue that neither of you should have it, but that it would be worse if only your violent, threatening and imperious neighbour had it.
As for feasibilty, of course it's not feasible for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, just as it's not feasible to use them against Iran and just as it wasn't feasible to invade Iraq. Neocon radicals don't care about convenience, they care about domination. If destroying half the world is what it takes, they'll do it. They have to destroy people to save them, remember?
The point of having the bomb as a deterrent is that you won't have to use it (as opposed, I'll remind you, to the U.S., which is the only country that has used it). If North Korea has a nuclear weapon then the radical neocons will think twice about invading or bombing North Korea because invading or bombing a country that can toss a nuclear weapon your way is not the road to domination.
And don't talk to me about understanding. You live in a world of naviety I didn't know was possible.
"Apparently in your world there are two groups of people 1) Those that support Nth Korea getting nukes And 2) "those evil other bastards"
No I live in a world where I believe the U.S. is currently the single largest threat to my existence on this planet, and that part of the problem is its very ability to dominate.
Your the one who lives in black and white world Genius, no matter what your rhetoric. You are lost in the darkness my friend and you don't even know it.
"1) You defend the spread of tools for nuclear war."
No, I'd rather that the U.S. didn't push other countries into developing nukes, with its threatening and destructive behaiviour. I'd rather the U.S. didn't flout it's obligations under the NPT, destroying it in the process. I'd rather the U.S. didn't militarise space and develop "star wars" as a means to end the stalemate that is the nuclear deterence.
I don't defend the spread of tools for nuclear war. I defend the spread of tools for the deterence of war, fullstop. I would prefer that we used treaties to dismantle the tools of nuclear war, but for that you need the dominant player on board, instead of running amock. In the mean time I'd rather see governments utilise nuclear weapons as a deterent in order to protect their citizens from U.S. aggression.
God know Iraqis would be better off if they'd actually had nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete> You offered a domestic analogy and I tore it apart
ReplyDeleteWhich conversation were you having? it obviously wasn't the one I was involved in.
> if you had violent, threatening and imperious neighbour's (call em whatever you like) with nuclear weapons I wouldn't try to suggest you shouldn't have them as a deterent yourself.
In case you missed it, in NZ we don't allow people to take just any old action or have any old weapon even in the process of defending their property. What country do you live in?? And if you are from somewhere like the USA how is this "free gun love" thing working for you?
> just as it wasn't feasible to invade Iraq.
Again you have an issue with the word "feasible". the US did bungle iraq of course.
>They have to destroy people to save them, remember?
obviously you don't understand neocons you really should give up and let other people tell you about them.
> The point of having the bomb as a deterrent is that you won't have to use it
Again you appear to be living in a upside down world.
> If North Korea has a nuclear weapon then the radical neocons will...
again your making assumptions regarding people who are fundimentally see the world differently from you and assuming that you are the great authority on how they think... Surely your getting the picture?
> the U.S. is currently the single largest threat to my existence on this planet, and that part of the problem is its very ability to dominate.
Dangers like those you are thinking of are systematic. Saying "its the USA" or "its muslims" is the talk of people who haven't bothered to really try to understand or look for solutions.
Domination is also not a threat to your existance in itself - it is just something that annoys you.
People have been "dominated" for almost all of history.
try not to confuse "what annoys you" with "what will destroy the world".
> Your the one who lives in black and white world Genius, no matter what your rhetoric.
if you came to this opinion IN SPITE of my rhetoric it makes me wonder what additional information you used - since there is no other information, I imagine it is just you making stuff up.
> No, I'd rather that the U.S.
By "no" you mean "yes" because this is the relevant part of your post
> In the mean time I'd rather see governments utilise nuclear weapons [as a deterent]...
I bracketed the last bit because how they use it once they have it is a seperate question - it isn't a package deal.
You might as well say "I support someone shooting a bullet into your head but I'd rather it didn't kill you"
> God know Iraqis would be better off if they'd actually had nuclear weapons.
Iraq doesn't have a delivery system that can hit the USA anyway - what would they do?
>I'd rather the U.S. didn't militarise space and develop "star wars" as a means to end the stalemate that is the nuclear deterence.
ReplyDelete1) 'Star wars' doesn't end the 'stalemate'. The "neocons" surely have many reports telling them that.
2) China will build something like that anyway in due course.
> I'd rather the U.S. didn't flout it's obligations under the NPT, destroying it in the process.
ReplyDeleteHmm this also might be worth looking at.
there are two sections the US could be flouting
1) the obligation to allow the spread of peaceful nuclear technology - article IV.
- I think they might be hampering the spread of nuclear technology to iran and Nth Korea - but so too is more or less everyone else in the world. Besies it is a catch 22 because the NOT also tells them not to share no peaceful technology. And to an extent it is the same technology.
2) The obligation to work to end the arms race.
If anything the US seems to be THE LEAST in breach of this. they reduced theirs by 85% or so. What has france/britain/china done? how about india/pakistain/israel/north korea?
they still have more nukes than they need but the NPT doesn't create a measuring stick based on how many nukes "total" you have.
"Which conversation were you having? it obviously wasn't the one I was involved in."
ReplyDeleteThe one where you wrote, "how do you feel about me having a nuclear deterant just in case someone breaks into my home?"
"In case you missed it, in NZ we don't allow people to take just any old action or have any old weapon even in the process of defending their property."
Your the one that offered the analogy, and clearly you don't like my response because you're doing everything you can to avoid responding without obfuscation. As I said, I wouldn't want anyone, including yourself to have a nuclear deterrent. However, if someone like Uncle Sam, with nuclear weapons and a history of using them, was breaking into people's homes and threatening to break into yours I would far prefer that you did have a nuclear deterrent, especially when there's no one else to stick up for you.
"Again you appear to be living in a upside down world."
And that would clearly be the opposite of your fantasy world. Please, do explain how nuclear weapons do not act as a deterrent.
In the mean time let me put it another way for you, North Korea thinks of it as a deterrent: “the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure” compel the country “to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure for defense.”
Which is not a surprising stance when you consider that Washington implemented financial sanctions against North Korea late last year, just days after reaching what appeared to be a monumental breakthrough in the six-party talks on Pyongyang's civilian and military nuclear programs. These undiplomatic sanctions, which were recently strengthened and taken up by Japan and Australia as well, provoked the collapse of the six-party talks and have greatly increased the probability that Pyongyang will conduct a nuclear test in the near future.
You see Washington has quite a history of breaking off talks or denying them all together, and instead opting for violence.
"Dangers like those you are thinking of are systematic. Saying "its the USA" or "its muslims" is the talk of people who haven't bothered to really try to understand or look for solutions."
Whatever makes you feel comfortable. There are many threats to our continued existence, I'm simply saying the U.S. is at the top of list, for many reasons.
"By "no" you mean "yes" because this is the relevant part of your post"
Haha. I mean no as in no. Capice? But, yeah, I see you're trying to avoid responding to my comments again. You don't seem to be able to bear the thought that Washington's threatening and destructive behaivour has consequences.
"I bracketed the last bit because how they use it once they have it is a seperate question"
When the tyrants who have taken over Washington lose power there might be a slim chance of getting the NPT back on track. But in the time being, with the U.S. running amok, I think it's safer for billions of people and the environment if nations have nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It's a gamble of course, but, judging by Washington's history, a pretty obvious gamble.
"Iraq doesn't have a delivery system that can hit the USA anyway - what would they do?"
Haha, they didn't have nukes either. My point was, if they had had them, and they were able to threaten U.S. interests (even if just their client state (Israel) and their many imperial troops in the Middle East) it's extremely unlikely that they would have been invaded. Same with Afghanistan (another situation where Washington opted for violence instead of diplomacy).
"'Star wars' doesn't end the 'stalemate'."
That's what it's designed to do, and that's what they ultimately want it to do.
"China will build something like that anyway in due course."
If the U.S. goes ahead with their plans, instead of pushing for a treaty against militarisation of space, probably, yes. But that's no response to my argument; get back to me when China do.
"there are two sections the US could be flouting [it's obligations under the NPT] ... 2) The obligation to work to end the arms race. If anything the US seems to be THE LEAST in breach of this."
While Washington cynically uses the NPT against Iran to further its agenda in the Middle East, it does so having flagrantly rejected its own obligations under the treaty. Being a signatory to the treaty the U.S. has a binding legal requirement to move towards “complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” While none of the nuclear powers have lived up to their commitments under the NPT the U.S. is far in the lead in rejecting them and alone in officially rejecting them. Not to mention its open plans to develop new nuclear weapons.
> and clearly you don't like my response
ReplyDeleteYour not really dealing with hte issue.. talk about obfuscation!
> I would far prefer that you did have a nuclear deterrent.
And how is that "deterrant policy" working for america? Anyone been kiled lately?
>Please, do explain how nuclear weapons do not act as a deterrent.
that is a stupid question to ask. like an arms trader saying "please explain how seling guns doesn't save lives."
> These undiplomatic sanctions
Japan at least is not TRYING to set up a war with nth korea.
> I'm simply saying the U.S. is at the top of list, for many reasons.
youve missed the point - yet again.
> You don't seem to be able to bear the thought that
your answering my question! and your complaining that Im not following you off-track?
> if they had had them, and they were able to threaten U.S. interests (even if just their client state (Israel)
ever read the bible?? i not sure thatwould work as a deterant. And that fact that you would play that game shows how catastrophically wrong your strategy might go.
> That's what it's designed to do
thats like saying oragami is designed to defend your country.
> But that's no response to my argument; get back to me when China do.
Thats pretty stupid - you dont wnat to take into account the actions of any other players or any sort of fprethought into your political theories?
> the U.S. is far in the lead in rejecting them
hmm its also, strangely, in the lead in disarmament...
> alone in officially rejecting them.
I thought you liked that approach. you would seem to hate it when the US doesnt say what they are doing.
anyway - there would seem to be no nuclear power working towards disarmament
> And that would clearly be the opposite of your fantasy world.
ReplyDeleteNo - but as I said - the opposite of a fantasy world is just another fantasy world.
> In the mean time let me put it another way for you, North Korea thinks of it as a deterrent:
Now you’re making a call on what nth Korea thinks. Maybe you are in a better place to make that call; possibly you really are just like chairman Kim... maybe not
> Washington implemented financial sanctions against North Korea late last year
Which is not surprising since they counterfeit other countries currencies and threaten the rather innocuous country of Japan (who doesn’t even have an offensive military) and sth Korea (who really see them as the mentally retarded brother).
> provoked the collapse of the six-party talks and have greatly increased the probability that Pyongyang will conduct a nuclear test in the near future.
That’s not really a meaningful point - it isn't as if countries care if they kill you with their first or second bomb. The testing of the bomb is more a sign of you being belligerent than an actual problem in itself.
>You see Washington has quite a history of breaking off talks or denying them all together, and instead opting for violence.
Nth Korea tests a nuclear weapon and you accuse the other side of using violence?
> I'm simply saying the U.S. is at the top of list, for many reasons.
Even if you choose to view the world that way, that doesn't lead to the conclusions you think it leads to.
> Ha-ha. I mean no as in no. Capice?
your first part of your post read "[blah blah blah] However, if someone like Uncle Sam... " And clearly you think uncle sam is like you say so you don't mean no. you might as well say "yes because if the world was full of fairies... but in the real world no".
> But, yeah, I see you're trying to avoid responding to my comments again.
please restate your question if you don’t feel it has been answered
>It's a gamble of course, but, judging by Washington's history, a pretty obvious gamble.
nuclear war is a whole new level of problems above "the US running amok.
Making Iraq a democracy might cost 20-100,000 lives, lets say (btw I think that was a stupid idea), but a nuclear war could cost the majority of all people's lives. there is a massive gap there.
> If the U.S. goes ahead with their plans, instead of pushing for a treaty against militarization of space, probably, yes.
you think china would do that ONLY if the US does it? That is just stupid talk.
> But that's no response to my argument; get back to me when China do.
It is a response. And you think they aren't planning it? they just don’t have to have a big public discussion regarding allocation of money. You have no transparency. (not saying I am worried too much by that though)
> has a binding legal requirement to move towards “complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
that section was headed by the word "desiring" and thus doesn't sound like a binding requirement. it could be countered with "but they didn’t do it so that’s why I didn’t". Hmm I was wondering what you means so I had to read the treaty again...