North Korea - testing Nuclear Bomb & Missiles
- Thread starter Yappy
- Start date
- Status
Well, quite a subjective topic. My stand would be that, the world is trying to maintain peace and afrain from the use of atomic/nuclear weapons. After the effects of the atomic bomb on Japan as well as the chernobyll accident, we can see clear clues about what such weapons can do.
So when N.Korea, builds such weapons, its a natural cause to be on high alert. N.Korea, is very isolated from the world, and it doesn't really like the allied countries. Also, the war against S.Korea, could eventually see N.Korea, using it's weapon against them.
GMAN
that's like asking why parents get anxious when their kids get into potentially bad company.
think about the potential repercussions Japan and South Korea could get as a result of North Korea's nuclear activities. if you're not sure on geographic location and proximity, opening an atlas or loading an internet page atlas would show you that these two countries are pretty much within striking range of North Korea for any weapon/s.
the US? they're pushing for tougher sanctions to the North for their weapons programs. think about it. it's one of the most isolated country in the world, people are dying from starvation and potential annual famines due to the country's antiquated farming policies, and all the government really does is speeds up weapons/nuclear development. I think they do it to use it as a bargaining chip against them powers to argue for a larger slice of the huminitarian pie.
also, because the US has strong alliances with Japan and South Korea (with troops stationed in both countries), I don't have to tell you what will happen to them should a conflict arise between North Korea and these two countries. and remember, North and South Korea are still TECHNICALLY AT WAR with each other since the 1950s.
so anything can/may/could happen, especially when you have an unstable ruler in place.
also, the proliferation of nuclear arms within the region could encourage other countries to step up their nuclear development as well, under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (where if you launch nukes at me, I will make sure I launch my nukes at you too so that I will wipe you out just as you have wiped me out). I doubt anybody wants to have such a situation like that (you don't have to look far for such an occurrence... India/Pakistan is the nearest example you have of such an act)
Last edited:
that my friend, is an assumption. we do not know if they will use it, or if they're just setting up their nuclear capabilities as a form of a bargaining leverage against the other countries that it is being held out against.
but my other point of it having an instable government does not lend credence to your assumption.
A weak child needs to equipt himself with some muscle. Building up is telling pple that do not bully me...?
Funny that USA itself has perhaps more nukes and done more nuke tests and has more "WMDs" than any country in the world. And it itself goes around accusing countries like Iraq for having WMDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
Last edited:
They felt insecure when in 1990 Russia make friend with S Korea and again in 1992 when China befriend S Korea.
you cannot extrapolate playground rules onto a stage like that. the severity of the situation does not allow for a direct comparison between the two settings. how so? building muscle is like building an army. you can have the biggest army in the world but you still may lose if you have an incompetent commander at the helm. nuclear weapons on the other hand, is a trump card. the card that will surely SURELY win regardless of who is at helm. just that with MAD doctrine, you probably will end up losing after winning for a couple of minutes.
most countries that have nuclear capabilities developed it as a knee jerk reaction to other people having it. the development of nuclear capabilities via tactical nukes or ICBMs might lead to neighbouring regions going into an arms race. again, if you look at the economies of scale, if you already are one of the poorest nations in the world, would you rather be spending money building up your army/nuclear capabilities or providing for your people? but since North Korea has an extraordinary army budget (given its current economic condition), and because the government's base of power comes from the military... it probably will spend such money to re-enforce its presence within the region.
remember, you are dealing with a despotic ruler who rarely, if ever, appears publicly any more and doubts have been raised within the international community with regards to his succession and health. these may also have an impact on what/why they are doing what they are doing right now.
some one I know once told me that if America were to adopt a passive stance, the world will ask "why aren't you doing anything about it!"
if America were to adopt an aggressive stance, the world starts asking "why are you policing us!"
America, in certain situations like the nuclear proliferation act, is really stuck between a rock and a hard place.
bousozoku
Senior Member
The U.S.A. also has biological weapons stockpiled since the 1940s.
However, it seems as though one country with weapons that the other doesn't have leads to a lot of chaos and countries being conquered.
If North Korea decides to send weapons against Japan, South Korea, or even their ally, China, shouldn't someone well-armed deter them?
You are right. They have enough to destroy the earth and even the moon. They have been testing and testing and testing and testing.. so what?
They always proudly stated.."I am the big brother. I can do whatever I like. I can have more but other cannot....."
You are right. N Korea is isolated and its leader behind the scene always.
But who started all these so call nuclear weapon?
A mad general once proposed to bomb China with a curtain of Atomic Bomb.. fortunately the leaders stopped it.:sweat::sweat::sweat:
Somehow, I think it would had been better if the US hadn't interfered in the Vietnam and Korea wars, things might had been better (fewer casualties). But then again I might be wrong. And they shouldn't had started the 2 Gulf Wars.
hindsight is 20/20
who is to say the world wouldn't have panned out in an equally messed up way if none of those conflicts ever occurred?
bousozoku
Senior Member
Maybe.
Maybe, it would have been better if France hadn't been in VietNam first, or for that matter, the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and English being in Asia hundreds of years prior to the U.S.A. existing?
I think Kim whatever his name is just has a trigger happy finger moment. He just needs to let the itch go away.
- Status
