1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

North Korea plans nuke test

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. macrumors 601


  2. macrumors regular

    Their leaders should all be shot at close range in the middle of the head. They aren't mature enough to have these kinds of things. Only the U.S. and other major powers :D
  3. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Ah, delving into the political threads, I feel dirty...;)

    Its a bit hypocritical to be saying we shouldn't let them. Sure, its going to cause problems and there's no easy solution here.

    And how would we stop them? War isn't a very good option, you know?

  4. macrumors 6502a


    Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    So what do you think about the UNITED STATES' nuclear arsenal? Do you find it acceptable that we have our own nuclear weapons? Why doesn't the U.N. send inspectors to OUR country? If you think that North Korea's actions are unacceptable, then you have no choice but to believe that the U.S. retaining its own nuclear arsenal is also unacceptable.
  5. macrumors regular

    Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    One reason: Because we are not unevolved morons.
  6. Moderator emeritus


    heh :)
    Exactly, why should "we as a county" (the Americans) "let them"? What are you? Global police? My god I hope not! :eek: Nothing against the US, or it's people, but no one/nation has the right to decide what other nations can and can't do.
    Again, I have to agree here. We cannot just go to war with anyone who has or is developing weapons that we don't think they should have. It's just not right.
  7. macrumors 601


    Well, we had the weapons that we have for a reason. MAD. Remember. Still, we have not developed weapons since the treaties were signed that stopped the development of them. Korea with them means that Russia, China, and even Japan may be forced into an arms race.

    So, morally, yes we are on the high road with these weapons.
  8. macrumors 68040


    There are no good options with North Korea. This sounds like more brinksmanship designed to wrest concessions from us. North Korea is very good at these tactics. We'll see if Bush goes the same route Clinton did. Problem is that he has pretty much pooped on that idea as appeasment, so he's gonna be looking for a different solution. Military is out, even if we could take out the govenment ala Iraq, we wouldn't be able to occupy the country.
  9. macrumors 6502a


    So just because we were technologically able to make thousands of nuclear weapons before any treaty was signed allows us to retain those same nuclear weapons? After all, WE could take the world hostage with our nuclear arsenal! I don't see how MAD has anything to do with this discussion -- we have nuclear weapons that could threaten the world, yet we don't allow others to have them.

    This is hypocrisy at its best.
  10. macrumors 68040


    Re: Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    Oh this isn't good. Let's not go there.
  11. Moderator emeritus


    Re: Re: Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    Yeah, I do hope there are no Koreans (sp?) browsing the boards :rolleyes:
  12. macrumors regular

    Re: Re: Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    come on.... :D
  13. macrumors regular

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    Talking about that government.
  14. macrumors 601


    No, they are defensive. There are other countries that still have thousands of nukes. I would rather have them then them have the ability to whipe us off the face of the earth.
  15. Moderator emeritus


    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    Then maybe you should word it better, because it sure doesn't sound like that. If I were Korean I would take great offence to you calling me and my people "unevolved morons".
  16. macrumors 6502a


    Oh, so magically, because we're Americans, our nuclear weapons are automatically "defensive". So magically, just because we're the United States, we're not going to wipe everyone off the face of the earth even though we have the ability.

    Right. That makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:
  17. macrumors 68040


    Being American means never having to say you're sorry. :rolleyes:
  18. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    lets please not forget where the know how, the material and the plants came from-----CHINA & USSR (russia) we should tell them to take care of it since they gave it to them and have supported this sorry excuse for a govt. How about you guys take care of this problem or we stop free trade that would wake those sorry communist up and help the trade imbalance.
  19. macrumors 6502

    Magically, because we were in an arms race for 50 years, we happened to accumulate these weapons. Only a fool would have trusted the USSR to actually stop developing new weapons and destroy their current ones during the Cold War. We developed our current nuclear arsenal as a form of combination offensive/defensive arsenal - we didn't know whether we would have to be offensive, or if we would have to be defensive until the time came.

    The nuclear weapons we have are still that way. It's up to our leaders (i can see all you "I hate Bush" people going "Oh God" right now) to decide whether they are defensive or offensive. Up until recently (correct me if I'm wrong) no U.S. president has threatened a country with the use of nuclear weapons. I think President Bush was just trying to scare the Iraqis when he said that - at least his advisors know that using Nuclear weapons on a probably 99% innocent country would be a bit of an international incident.

    Personally, I think the North Korean gov't is f***ing crazy, and I wouldn't trust them with a butter knife (apparently, according to OS X spell check, butterknife isn't a word). But that's my Oh So Humble Opinion that everyone is now going to tear to shreds and pee on.
  20. macrumors 6502a


    *sigh* Did you not read what I said before? The arms race with USSR has *NOTHING* to do with this discussion -- the point is that we have nuclear weapons with which we could decimate the world. How can you realistically justify trusting the U.S. not to use its nuclear arsenal while simultaneously NOT trusting North Korea to use its nuclear arsenal.

    Whether it is North Korea or the U.S. that decides to actually use nuclear weapons (if they do), it will be an "international incident" either way. The actual country that is in question has no bearing on whether this will be an "international incident" or not -- OF COURSE it will be.

    I just don't see from where the implicit trust with regards to the U.S. comes. How can we trust Bush (this is JUST AN EXAMPLE since he's the current President) to not use nuclear weapons when he's pooh-poohed other international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol?
  21. Moderator emeritus


    Re: Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

    Playing the devil's advocate...

    That's a very subjective statement.
    http://www.bushorchimp.com/ ;)
  22. macrumors regular

    Re: Re: Re: Re: North Korea plans nuke test

  23. macrumors 6502

    Well, to be honest, I know nothing about the North Korean laws, or anything of that sort. However, I have a strong feeling that if Bush said "let's nuke somebody", even if he's the commander-in-chief, it would have to go through somebody else's judgement. Would it have to go through Congress? Would anyone have to OK it? Just my question. I honestly don't know the answer. But I bet that Kim Jong-Il just has to give the order.

    And the reason I can trust the U.S. over North Korea is this, it's actually quite simple if you think about it:

    They are run by different people.
    They are run in a different manner.
    They are different countries with different philosophies, and I happen to agree with democracy and trust our democratic system with nuclear weapons moire.

    And my post was clarifying how and why we have the nuclear arsenal, and why we never eliminated it, and why we won't eliminate it.
  24. macrumors 68040


    Of course I trust our government with nuclear weapons more than I trust the North Koreans. That's not the point. THe point is how do we go around asking others to either not go nuclear, or to dismantle their nukes when we won't get rid of ours? I'm sure the answer is that we won't give up our right to self defense, but why should any other country feel they need to give up what the US won't? People here are always saying we need to act in our own self interest even at the expense of other nations, but then those same people get all worked up when another country acts in its interests when those interests happen to conflict with ours.
  25. macrumors 68000


    To answer your question, it is totally up to the President if and when to launch nuclear missles. Assuming a "defensive" launch there is no time to consult anyone. That is why an aide always accompanies the President with the nuclear launch codes with him. If the President were to decide to use Nuclear weapons "offensively" then it would be interesting if any in the chain of command would resist such an order, but there are not built in safeguards to prevent such an action.

    We have an opportunity to eliminate these weapons altogether with the reduction planned with Russia as a first step, but conservatives in the administration would oppose such a move at every step. If you doubt that look what almost happened at the Reagan-Gorbachov summit in Iceland and the response of folks like Richard Perle.

    mactastic, you raise a great point. I don't think it is possible to win others to the position that it is alright for the US to have these weapons and not for others to have them as well. Lastly, it should be remembered that only one country has ever used these weapons in war - the US. The rest of the world remembers.

    Oh, and just in case - none of this means that I don't think North Korea should divest themselves with these weapons. I do think the price of a non-aggression pact and recognition is not too high to pay to accomplish the verified disposal of their nuclear arsenal. I know that in the eyes of some right-wingers that makes me an appeaser.

Share This Page