North Korea "Conducts Nuke Test!"

[.pt]

Merocaine,

The fact that kim traveled recently twice to China, wich, as you stated he is not prone to, can be interpreted as tact aproval, or, it can be interpreted as Kim asking for permission, or simply informing the chinese that a test would occur briefly, and being denied or pressured to hold the test. The fact that he made 2 trips and not only one would sugest the later, in my view.
The noises the Chinese are making, officially, seem to indicate, he did it anyway, without their aproval. The only warning he gave was to China and russia, some 2 hours before the blast.
But we will see in the coming days, what the real Chinese position is, in the UN security council, and other moves they might make.
As for the Personal cult in the regime, as Alexsa said, it´s not impossible for kim to suffer a sudden "acident" or "ilness", is it?
Regarding Russia, i don´t think Putin would move in NK as a replacement to the Chinese, because Kim is not a reliable ally, whatever would be the Russian goal.
.pt

 

[dioditto]

There seems to be a catch phrase in this forum coming from a lot of americans : "To turn Iran or NK into largest piece of glass on earth." Its funny (and frightening) to see the irony of such statement coming out from so many americans. The american would not want others (besides its allies) to own nuclear weapons, but would be more than happy to threaten to use or consider to use nuclear weapon against any other country it deem a threat.

There is a strange familiarity to all this. If you read into the US Gun control policy, it has a very open racist policy right from the start. "The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites."

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Looking at the nuclear control policy, and you get exactly the same effect. British was encouraged and helped by the American in developing the bomb. The French was merely monitored, Russians, wasn't stopped. (same with israelis) But when the Chinese tried to develop the bomb, the american considered comprehensive military actions against it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/prc64.htm

It just seems very hypocritical that American would not let Iran, North Korea have any right to defend themself.

 

[swerve]

Merocaine,

The fact that kim traveled recently twice to China, wich, as you stated he is not prone to, can be interpreted as tact aproval, or, it can be interpreted as Kim asking for permission, or simply informing the chinese that a test would occur briefly, and being denied or pressured to hold the test. The fact that he made 2 trips and not only one would sugest the later, in my view.
The noises the Chinese are making, officially, seem to indicate, he did it anyway, without their aproval. The only warning he gave was to China and russia, some 2 hours before the blast.
But we will see in the coming days, what the real Chinese position is, in the UN security council, and other moves they might make.
.pt

They're reported to have shown Kim round a couple of Chinas booming cities, which has a fairly obvious meaning. "Look what you could have if you did things our way, & gave up all this silliness". They don't care if N. Korea has a brutal authoritanian government which likes needling the USA (in fact they rather like the last bit), but they want a sane brutal authoritanian government, which has some concern for the welfare of its people & isn't interested in blackmailing the neighbours.

 

[RubiconNZ]

It just seems very hypocritical that American would not let Iran, North Korea have any right to defend themself.

Please North Korea and Iran would not have Nuclear weapons to defend themselves they have shown in the past with statements and actions they don't have peaceful agenda's. Iran's Regime has stated it wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, do you consider that defensive? Not to mention that it wasn't possible to halt the russians from developing the bomb without full scale conventional war after which Europe first then the US would not of had the willpower to fight such a huge war where already devasted Europe was the playground

 

[Grand Danois]

It is quite a leap of logic to use the real or perceived domestic fears on the personal level and project them into the logic of nation states, which would be to preserve a power monopoly nevertheless.

The NPT has primarily been used by the US to prevent Japan, Germany and Australia from going nuclear.

The US couldn't do much about the French and UK nuclear programmes, and they were conducted in different times anyway.

Pakistan and India got their nukes, and IIRC suffered a limited sanctions regime.

I don't see that DPRK nukes are an equalizer or a tool for justice or fairness in any respect.

 

[dioditto]

Please North Korea and Iran would not have Nuclear weapons to defend themselves they have shown in the past with statements and actions they don't have peaceful agenda's. Iran's Regime has stated it wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, do you consider that defensive?

And I suppose Israel have a peaceful agenda by having 300 nukes aim at Iraq and Iran and whole of middleast?? To say that israel is not the least threatening is an understatement.

So, the whole of the middle east under constant threat of nuclear annihilation from Israel is a non-issue?

It is funny to see the irony of it. NK/Iran who cannot even have missiles to reach US, but the mere hint of threat and US would sprint into action considering drastic mean to disarm the "offending nations".
"As long as we have the gun, they aren't allow to have it". And because we have the gun, we have the biggest bargaining chip on the table.

 

[Grand Danois]

And I suppose Israel have a peaceful agenda by having 300 nukes aim at Iraq and Iran and whole of middleast?? To say that israel is not the least threatening is an understatement. Imagine mexico have nuclear arm, or better Cuba, and look what happen to Cuba for the past 40 years, still under strict sanction.

The Israeli programme is French in origin. This is a lateral displacement of discourse.

 

[RubiconNZ]

And I suppose Israel have a peaceful agenda by having 300 nukes aim at Iraq and Iran and whole of middleast??

I think so, IMO if you haven't used them in 40 years youve proven yourself to have restraint, if Israel was seeking domination of the middle east then I would of course have a problem with it, I think Israel restraint despite years of overt state sponsored terroism and at times full warfare, and plus with reference to China now that I think of it the US and UN fought a lond bloody war against Communist China just before they devloped their bomb they showed a disposition to agression, not to mention their involvement in Vietnam

 

[dioditto]

It is quite a leap of logic to use the real or perceived domestic fears on the personal level and project them into the logic of nation states, which would be to preserve a power monopoly nevertheless.

The NPT has primarily been used by the US to prevent Japan, Germany and Australia from going nuclear.

The US couldn't do much about the French and UK nuclear programmes, and they were conducted in different times anyway.

Pakistan and India got their nukes, and IIRC suffered a limited sanctions regime.

I don't see that DPRK nukes are an equalizer or a tool for justice or fairness in any respect.

Ofcourse it is about power monopoly. If you and I were to do business, try meet me in the desert unarmed and bring a suitcaseful of cash - while I bring a G36, a baretta and machete. And let's see who gets the better end of the deal.

 

[RubiconNZ]

It is funny to see the irony of it. NK/Iran who cannot even have missiles to reach US, but the mere hint of threat and US would sprint into action considering drastic mean to disarm the "offending nations".
"As long as we have the gun, they aren't allow to have it". And because we have the gun, we have the biggest bargaining chip on the table.

Are well thats the problem being the strongest nation on earth damned if you do damned if you don't, they did not resist strongly to Indian or Pakistan developing the bomb and now when anyone discuss non proliferation everyone see what about them, and as the worlds strongest nation they do have a responsibility, now Im not suggesting they have lived up to that all the time and "national interest" has been at stake but the US and all G8 members should saying there is non proliferation treaty and it should be enforced how they back date is well beyond me

 

[Grand Danois]

Ofcourse it is about power monopoly. If you and I were to do business, try meet me in the desert unarmed and bring a suitcaseful of cash - while I bring a G36, a baretta and machete. And let's see who gets the better end of the deal.

My points were, just to sum them up:

• I just don't think you can put racism into the equation.
  
  
• The US has a history of curbing proliferation amongst allies.

Cheers

 

[dioditto]

I think so, IMO if you haven't used them in 40 years youve proven yourself to have restraint, if Israel was seeking domination of the middle east then I would of course have a problem with it, I think Israel restraint despite years of overt state sponsored terroism and at times full warfare, and plus with reference to China now that I think of it the US and UN fought a lond bloody war against Communist China just before they devloped their bomb they showed a disposition to agression, not to mention their involvement in Vietnam

40 years of restraint? I suppose reducing the "enemy population" to just throwing rocks, and mass murdering them freely on illegal occupation is called restraint.

As for China, I can quote your word that Chinese shows "restraint" for not using nukes anywhere for the past 40 years. And as for korean war, if I am not mistaken, the Chinese didn't get involve much later, which means, the US is the aggressor.

 

[Grand Danois]

As for China, I can quote your word that Chinese shows "restraint" for not using nukes anywhere for the past 40 years. And as for korean war, if I am not mistaken, the Chinese didn't get involve much later, which means, the US is the aggressor.

IIRC NK went to Stalin to get approval for their attack on SK. Stalin calculated correctly, that if it went badly for NK, the Chinese would bear the burden of interfering, as they wouldn't like to have the US at its borders.

NK got kicked in the teeth. No one was attacking China. They attacked into Korea in their perception of the interest of the nation state.

So who were the aggressor?

 

[dioditto]

Are well thats the problem being the strongest nation on earth damned if you do damned if you don't, they did not resist strongly to Indian or Pakistan developing the bomb and now when anyone discuss non proliferation everyone see what about them, and as the worlds strongest nation they do have a responsibility, now Im not suggesting they have lived up to that all the time and "national interest" has been at stake but the US and all G8 members should saying there is non proliferation treaty and it should be enforced how they back date is well beyond me

The indians and pakistan was a surprise development for the washington I believe, that they did not know or did not have a response in time until it was already too late, and after testing, all they can do is just whine. Now that both countries have the "gun" the sherif in town is a bit scared and ofcourse, backaway from the situation besides a verbal warning.

 

[dioditto]

IIRC NK went to Stalin to get approval for their attack on SK. Stalin calculated correctly, that if it went badly for NK, the Chinese would bear the burden of interfering, as they wouldn't like to have the US at its borders.

NK got kicked in the teeth. No one was attacking China. They attacked into Korea in their perception of the interest of the nation state.

So who were the aggressor?

So I suppose the US involvement into Korea is also the interest of the nation state (and to stop the much quoted Domino effect)

 

[.pt]

Dioditto,

In the Israeli case, the nuclear weapons are used as deterrents, to discourage atacks from neighbouring Arab states, or use as last ditch efort in case of conflict wich it s losing. The proportion of Arabs to the Israelis is stagering, in terms of manpower and size of armed forces, but not in the case of military capabilities.
The Israelis have suffered about 5 Major wars since Israel was born 1in 1948.
But they never threatened to use these weapons as offensive weapons, or in a first strike option. They are a democracy, with a stable leadership.
Regarding only these weapons, and not conventional ones, can you honestly say that NK or Iran, are not a much more threat to everyone else?
I would also like to have a world without nukes, but if someone has them, better that it´s a Nation with sense than some lunatics.
Nukes should be seen as deterrents only, not just another big gun to use on someonelse´s country, or blackmail it. And i certainly don´t advocate the use of nukes, on any country, whatever the regime, unless it strikes first with WMD.
.pt

 

[Grand Danois]

So I suppose the US involvement into Korea is not also the interest of the nation state (and to stop the much quoted Domino effect)

And to defend a country being attacked by its highly aggressive and militant northern neighbour, an attack that was cleared by Stalin (and Mao), is easily within the security concerns of the US. Especially considering the security environment of the day i.e. SK security was guaranteed by the US post WWII.

It was Stalin et al who gave the green light to fight a proxy war.

 

[dioditto]

Dioditto,

In the Israeli case, the nuclear weapons are used as deterrents, to discourage atacks from neighbouring Arab states, or use as last ditch efort in case of conflict wich it s losing. The proportion of Arabs to the Israelis is stagering, in terms of manpower and size of armed forces, but not in the case of military capabilities.
The Israelis have suffered about 5 Major wars since Israel was born 1in 1948.
But they never threatened to use these weapons as offensive weapons, or in a first strike option. They are a democracy, with a stable leadership.
Regarding only these weapons, and not conventional ones, can you honestly say that NK or Iran, are not a much more threat to everyone else?
I would also like to have a world without nukes, but if someone has them, better that it´s a Nation with sense than some lunatics.
Nukes should be seen as deterrents only, not just another big gun to use on someonelse´s country, or blackmail it. And i certainly don´t advocate the use of nukes, on any country, whatever the regime, unless it strikes first with WMD.
.pt

But to live with a neighbour with and unannounced nuclear capability and a policy that could change anytime they like,(who says they will not use it as first strike weapon) is living under fear. And besides, we are talking about equality here, nuclear weapon offers equality no other weapon offer.. mutal total destruction. The arabs are not fools, (or are you too racist to not recognise that) there is no advantage to attack someone knowing they will be annhilated as well. What is the arab had to gain if they fought a nuclear war with israel? There will be just wastelands and nobody have anyone alive to gain anything or claim the win the war. On the other hand, only israel having the nuke is intimidating to say the least, it can translate to a lot of trade concessions, border concessions, and other means of power advantage.

 

[Grand Danois]

... And besides, we are talking about equality here, nuclear weapon offers equality no other weapon offer.. mutal total destruction...

A few dozen nukes is not an equalizer, not a deterrent and there is nothing mutual nor assured about it. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it only serves to legitimize a nuclear attack by other parties.

 

[RubiconNZ]

As for China, I can quote your word that Chinese shows "restraint" for not using nukes anywhere for the past 40 years. .

I'll agree with I think China has shown restraint, I at this time do not have a problem with PROC having the bomb, of course I was not around during the development period otherwise I may think differently