North Korea admits it has nukes

[dumspirospero]

Everybody…for the last time, I said “after Iraq”, which means when Iraq can self sustain and a substantial amount of our troops are withdrawn…and I did not say to go against them all at once…We need to knock them down one at a time in the order of whichever one poses the greater threat…then move on down the line. Am I the only one who thinks we need to pursue this enemy instead of allowing him to grow stronger? Why do people believe if we leave them alone they will not harm us?

wabrams:

Where are you going to get the man power to have a 3 front war? Tough enough coming up w/ an assault force, much less a bigger force to occupy.

 

[wabrams]

dumspirospero:

Everybody…for the last time, I said “after Iraq”, which means when Iraq can self sustain and a substantial amount of our troops are withdrawn…and I did not say to go against them all at once…We need to knock them down one at a time in the order of whichever one poses the greater threat…then move on down the line. Am I the only one who thinks we need to pursue this enemy instead of allowing him to grow stronger? Why do people believe if we leave them alone they will not harm us?

Well, that’s cool then. It’ll be another 5 to 10 years before we can leave Iraq. BTW, no one is saying to leave them alone, but we need to pick and choose our battles.

 

[BOBKAT]

dumspirospero:

Everybody…for the last time, I said “after Iraq”, which means when Iraq can self sustain and a substantial amount of our troops are withdrawn…and I did not say to go against them all at once…We need to knock them down one at a time in the order of whichever one poses the greater threat…then move on down the line. Am I the only one who thinks we need to pursue this enemy instead of allowing him to grow stronger? Why do people believe if we leave them alone they will not harm us?

I just wanted to say that I agree with you and I understand what you are saying. If we sit back and wait it may be too late, however if we pray the rosary and keep a watchful eye on the situation I think that the Blessed Mother will intercede on our behalf.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[dumspirospero]

I am with you on that…that is what I hope for. I hope all Catholics feel the same way and will pray the Rosary in hopes that the Blessed Mother will intercede on our behalf. God Bless

BOBKAT:

I just wanted to say that I agree with you and I understand what you are saying. If we sit back and wait it may be too late, however if we pray the rosary and keep a watchful eye on the situation I think that the Blessed Mother will intercede on our behalf.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[jdnation]

To offer some insight on the situation with the world…

For those with the opinion that the US should do something about the situation (that is, militarily), it is advisable to be careful here. You are under the impression that North Korea wants to destroy you. North Korea is on the other hand under the impression that the US is out for world domination.

The posession of nuclear weapons is a right for any country. Much like the right to bear arms. For deterrence. The problems arise from deciding which person is suitable to posess a weapon, just as nobody can own a firearm without going through a check first, so world politics deem to understand this, however it’s much more complicated than a simple background check.

When a person feels threathned by someone else, then owning a gun is prudent. Nobody ever has to use them, but not having one in a difficult situation is unwise. You might as well disband your entire military.

The problem with the weapons situation is, either both sides in opposition give them up, or keep them for deterrence. For example in the case about Syria’s WMD, they apparently agreed to give their WMD up, but only if Israel did the same. If Israel refused, then they would also refuse. It’s a problem of trust.

In such cases, the scales must be balanced. Say for example, the US has a larger military force of manpower. Russia may balance it out by stockpiling more WMD. Any imbalance may make one side more likely to stir conflict and the other more fearful.

Other balances can be made through forming alliances with other countries. We have the EU as an example. The US, Canada and Mexico are joining military under NORTHCOM. Russia, China, India and Brazil are also forming their own union. Depending on the manpower, land and resources of these unioins, one may emerge as the next global superpower. However what this does is create more deterrence for each individual country. For example the US and Israel are allies. Iran and Russia also have similar ties. Any attack on Israel will provoke a response from the US, and any attack on Iran will also force Russia to act. So lest any country preemptively attack one, they risk war with the remainder in the union that the country belongs to.

If the balance is unfavorable, for example with North Korea and the US right now. North Korea may posess nukes and a strong military, but the US has a greater aresenal of nukes and WMD. North Korea also doesn’t have many friends around itself either.

It is unlikely in this case that North Korea will attack the US. All it would achieve would be the deaths of millions of US citizens in a few major cities, this would hardly do anything to a country the size of America from a military standpoint, however a retaliation by the US could utterly destroy their smaller country. To attack the US or even be slightly involved in any other incident against the US would be suicidal. The only deterrence they offer is the threath of a few nukes on US soil, whereby concerned citizens would put pressure on their own government not to provoke them. The strong armed tactic they put up given their situation is a front because they are afraid of the US in the same way US citizens are afraid of their potential to hit any one of them.

As well, it would be extremely risky to begin another war or show of strength at this time given the situation in Iraq. Say the US went to Iran next, while they are occupied there, another uprising could begin in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan and then the US could find itself in an extremely bad situation. War is not a clear cut thing. One domino would topple the other and any escalations would provoke treaties etc and the world would find itself in another world war the likes of which has never been seen, all brought about by nothing but paranoia. With manpower low and too spread out, the use of deadly weapons and nukes would have to be sanctioned. If one fires, then all will fire. Other countries not involved may take advantge of the global chaos to attack one another.

Until there is justifiable cause to go to war, simple accusations of possibly aiding terrorists or harboring weapons that may or may not exist and any pre-emptive strike will simply not do, in could end up being extremely bad.

 

[Franze]

Bill_A:

In 2003-2004 North Korea Launched a missile at the US. It crashed somewhere in Alaska. One doesnt have to look too far to think maybe it was shot down by SDI.

Please can you put a link about this I´m very interested, greetings

 

[Franze]

Bill_A:

In 2003-2004 North Korea Launched a missile at the US. It crashed somewhere in Alaska. One doesnt have to look too far to think maybe it was shot down by SDI.

Please can you put a link about this I´m very interested, greetings

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

To offer some insight on the situation with the world…

For those with the opinion that the US should do something about the situation (that is, militarily), it is advisable to be careful here. You are under the impression that North Korea wants to destroy you. .

I’m not. I am under the impression that North Korea wants to keep selling missles to terrorists: which it does now.

I am also under the impression that North Korea has yet to build a military system that it doesn’t offer for sale, no questions asked: which it does now.

I am also under the impression that it will sell nukes, no questions asked: which I have no reason not to believe it will do.

I am also under the impression that it is quite easy to smuggle a nuke into a US city: a number of US news agencies have proven that by smuggling in nuclear material without being stopped.

I don’t want terrorists who have declared war on the US to blow up a US city, do you?

 

[jdnation]

gilliam:

I don’t want terrorists who have declared war on the US to blow up a US city, do you?

As I said, countries have a right to obtain nukes as well as sell them as they would any other weapon. Where the selling is concerned, if North Korea was stupid enough to sell one to a terrorist bent on harming the US, they will incur the wrath of the US and that is not something beneficial to them in any way.

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

As I said, countries have a right to obtain nukes as well as sell them as they would any other weapon. .

Where did you get this idea?

 

[Mijoy2]

Isn’t the effort, as we move forward, of keeping NWs out of the hands of countries like keeping a dirty magazine or cigarettes out of the hands of teenage boys? We can make the effort, but it’s foolish to think we can really ever contain it.

It’s only a matter of time.

 

[jdnation]

gilliam:

Where did you get this idea?

It is a right of every nation, the US does the same. Whether technology, arms and munitions, from hand pistols to vehicles to nuclear warheads.

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

It is a right of every nation, the US does the same. Whether technology, arms and munitions, from hand pistols to vehicles to nuclear warheads.

I still don’t get where you are getting this innate right.
Who said it is the right of every nation to sell nuclear weapons to any two bit terrorist who wants one?

Is it written in the Bible?

I’m not being fair to you here. Because I know the answer. It is not a God given right to give an evil person the means to cause greater evil. In fact it goes against what God would like to see humans do, and so it is a grave act.

 

[jdnation]

gilliam:

I still don’t get where you are getting this innate right.
Who said it is the right of every nation to sell nuclear weapons to any two bit terrorist who wants one?

Is it written in the Bible?

I still don’t see what is so confusing about this. There is nothing illegal about selling weapons. The only problems are the implications in the global community with allies and countries with hostile relations because they might have a problem with who it’s being sold to. The US also has the right to sell weapons to any terrorist or rebel group in any country it wants to. Whether it does or not and who gets upset is another matter.

 

[jdnation]

gilliam:

I’m not being fair to you here. Because I know the answer. It is not a God given right to give an evil person the means to cause greater evil. In fact it goes against what God would like to see humans do, and so it is a grave act.

You’re right, it’s not, but how do you know who is evil and who deserves to keep weapons or not? This isn’t a black and white issue here.

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

I still don’t see what is so confusing about this. There is nothing illegal about selling weapons. The only problems are the implications in the global community with allies and countries with hostile relations because they might have a problem with who it’s being sold to. The US also has the right to sell weapons to any terrorist or rebel group in any country it wants to. Whether it does or not and who gets upset is another matter.

Illegal? Under whose law? Under God’s Law, yes, as I explained, it is a grave act to aid an evil person in committing a graver evil. We Catholics need to first follow God’s Law (aka Natural Law).

Remember: there really is no such thing as ‘International Law’, just a set of treaties that countries sign up to. So we don’t look there for what is ‘legal or illegal’. There are international treaties against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. North Korea does not follow them. But that does not give them a right to sell to evil people.

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

You’re right, it’s not, but how do you know who is evil and who deserves to keep weapons or not? This isn’t a black and white issue here.

Intentionally setting out to kill innocent civilians is evil. That is pretty clear. We have a term for that, it is called murder.

 

[jman507]

So what your saying is that the US has its right to instead of offically using nuclear weapons, what they need to do is to sell them to independent terrorist, friendly to the US cause, and smuggle in WMD to other countries to unleash them?

 

[jdnation]

gilliam:

Illegal? Under whose law? Under God’s Law, yes, as I explained, it is a grave act to aid an evil person in committing a graver evil. We Catholics need to first follow God’s Law (aka Natural Law).

Remember: there really is no such thing as ‘International Law’, just a set of treaties that countries sign up to. So we don’t look there for what is ‘legal or illegal’. There are international treaties against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. North Korea does not follow them. But that does not give them a right to sell to evil people.

I completely agree with you. However I’m simply telling the situation as it is. It would be nice if the international community follows God’s law, but the sad truth is that on that they don’t bring Him up. For them treaties etc are all that matter. Again, no one can be certain who’s going to do what with what, but we may assume nobody is going to use nukes on their own country or people. Selling arms to anyone is allowed. If anyone is going to sell it to any shady characters, they will be aware of what’s at stake, and they will enivitably get what’s coming to them if they’re stupid enough to do so.

The reality is like this. George Bush and Kim Jong Il may both be legitimate governments in their countries, but many hate Kim Jong Il, and many hate George Bush. Many citizens trust George Bush, many citizens love their leader Kim Jong Il. Both have their brands of propaganda within their forms of government. For every criticism against North Korea, there are others against the US. What we have here is a case of high mistrust. US citizens are afraid that North Korea will nuke them or give it to someone else who will nuke them for whatever reason, and North Koreans are afraid the US will trick them and invade and bomb them for whatever reason. It’s nothing more than a stand off between two countries paranoid of each other. If there are any ulterior motives behind either George Bush of Kim Jong Il and their parties, it is unknown.

gilliam:

Intentionally setting out to kill innocent civilians is evil. That is pretty clear. We have a term for that, it is called murder.

Yet we do intentionally kill innocent civilians, we call it war and call them collateral damage. Murder is never comitted on the part of the soldiers fighting each other in a hostile situation that warrants it. The charge will rest on the leaders and instigators and their knowledge of how justified their actions were.

 

[jdnation]

jman507:

So what your saying is that the US has its right to instead of offically using nuclear weapons, what they need to do is to sell them to independent terrorist, friendly to the US cause, and smuggle in WMD to other countries to unleash them?

The US has reserved the right to use whatever force necessary, including nuclear weapons, when the situation warrants. It may even sell weapons or give them to any friendly government, rebel militias for any local war or coup d’etat. Whether they do the right or wrong thing in every instance, is a separate issue. There are always implications.