Kennedy 0 #26 February 11, 2005 Think we'll see them used in anger in that timeframe? And you're right, the SALT treaties and other disarmament agreements only really work when both sides have more than they need. When the up and comer wants nukes, a nuclear power doesn't exactly have the high ground in saying he shouldn't. ps - c'mon, you know what a joke the term "assault rifle" is by the politicians' definition...witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #27 February 11, 2005 QuoteThink we'll see them used in anger in that timeframe? Yes. The US used them as soon as they got them. I think other countries may too. Technology is a strange thing. What the average Marine carries around would have made him a near GOD on the battlefeild 500 years ago. Technology moves. The only hurdle now is finance, and we all know as skydivers that people can afford to do things they can't really afford to do. When you take a life time dictator - like Robert Mugabe, who's 80 years old and has proven for decades that he doesn't give a shit about his country.. what does he have to lose when his back is to the wall? Saddam is a sadder case. He was put there by the US. The WMD's he used to gas his own people was given to him by the US. Then he got nailed by the US. I think he would have negotiated if he had nukes. He would have enjoyed the power more than the use. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #28 February 11, 2005 QuoteAnd become a hero to Islam and get 72 Virgins. Saddam didn't believe in all that shit. He was only religeous when it suited him politically. Iraq was a secular state. QuoteHe hated the US and a WMD used in the US would make him happy. Is that your personal opinion? Or do you have some facts to back up that statement, for example a quote from SH himself or from the Iraq regime. And why do you think NK just want food? They are communist. Communism by definition wants to spread itself across the entire globe. At least that's what we kept being told all through the cold war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #29 February 11, 2005 QuoteSaddam didn't believe in all that shit. He was only religeous when it suited him politically Giving a WMD to OBL would have suited him politically. Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He hated the US and a WMD used in the US would make him happy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that your personal opinion? Or do you have some facts to back up that statement, for example a quote from SH himself or from the Iraq regime. How about him trying to kill Bush Sr? Is that good enough for you? Maybe staments about our stomachs roasting in hell?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #30 February 11, 2005 QuoteThe way I see people in the gun threads insisting how they NEED assault rifles to defend themselves in their homes, so we'll see small countries wanting nukes. For "home defense" against a "with us or against us" foe. I think we'll see MASSIVE proliferation of nuclear weapons in the next 20 - 50 years, in a world many times more volitile than it was in the cold war days. I think this is what I said about three years ago. Bush was looking at the short term and wanted to go into Iraq alone. It is pretty sad when someone that is not schooled in global politics (like me) can easily see how an over-aggressive stance can be bad in the long term...and someone that has to do it for a living can't. The ironic thing about all of this? Bush claimed how the axis of evil was a true danger to the world. He played right into their hands and is now the biggest reason we have destabilized relationships in every corner of the globe. You reap what you sow._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 February 11, 2005 QuoteNK just wants food. The leadership has all the food they want. Just watch the way that little tinpot dictator waddles when he walks. The people want food, but Kim Jong Il doesn't give a shit about them. If he did, he would have done something to reform their society a long time ago, to make them more productive and prosperous. What Kim Jong Il wants is power, and these nukes are bargaining chips for him. * * * Korean trivia: In Korea, the last name is spoken first, followed by the first name and middle name. So "Kim Jong Il" in English would be "Jong Il Kim". And about a third of the people in Korea share the last name of "Kim"... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 February 11, 2005 QuoteThe US used them (nukes) as soon as they got them. To end a war in our favor, which we did not start, and which saved hundreds of thousands of both American and Japanese lives in the long run. What do you suppose Hitler would have done had he developed them first? Russia and England would probably still be uninhabitable... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 February 11, 2005 QuoteBush was looking at the short term and wanted to go into Iraq alone. It is pretty sad when someone that is not schooled in global politics (like me) can easily see how an over-aggressive stance can be bad in the long term... The "long term" will be written by historians 50 years from now. You can't claim at this time to know what was best for the long term, because it hasn't happened yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #34 February 11, 2005 QuoteWhat Kim Jong Il wants is power, and these nukes are bargaining chips for him. What does Lil' Kim want?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 February 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteThink we'll see them used in anger in that timeframe? Yes. The US used them as soon as they got them. I think other countries may too. Technology is a strange thing. What the average Marine carries around would have made him a near GOD on the battlefeild 500 years ago. Technology moves. The only hurdle now is finance, and we all know as skydivers that people can afford to do things they can't really afford to do. 1945 is a different world - those nukes were new, unknown, and really not all that different from a concerted bombing strike. And of course, Japan didn't have any to strike back with. With wide proliferation the potential for use of course goes up, but as a rule nuclear nations don't war, and the rest of the world would be very hostile to a nation that uses one on a non nuclear power, unless it was retaliation for a strike of similar power. The US has the leading capability, but the only way it could ever nuke Bagdad would have been if tens or hundreds of thousands were killed in NYC by nerve gas. A terrorist group with plausible deniability seems to be the most likely scenario, but looking at the hurt put on Al Queda for a much smaller attack, a guy would have to really think about the consequences before he does more than just threaten to do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #36 February 11, 2005 QuoteA terrorist group with plausible deniability seems to be the most likely scenario, but looking at the hurt put on Al Queda for a much smaller attack, a guy would have to really think about the consequences before he does more than just threaten to do it. I don't agree. I think they would use it just to start shit."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #37 February 11, 2005 QuoteIt seems to me that Bush put N Korea into the same category as Iraq in his first term when it came to destablization of a region and supporting terrorist groups. That makes N Korea just as much of a safety problem as Iraq was. Irrelevant. Every forecast model I've heard of estimates millions of lives lost if we invade N. Korea. Therefore, the Bush administration wisely does not put them "into the same category" with Iraq when it comes to how to handle the problem. Quote. . .we have documentation from 'experts' that they never had WMD . . . Sigh . . . QuoteThey claim it is for protection against an aggressive President Bush - sounds like a good ploy that the world will buy into since most don't like GW anymore. We have no proof that he won't give that 'stick' to anyone else, do we? Extremely simplistic reasoning. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #38 February 11, 2005 As a few of you know, I'm pretty intimate with this particular stuff, so I hope I can shed some light on some misconceptions thus far: Ron's post QuoteBoth NK and Iraq were perceived threats. In one case we had information that a guy that had WMD's and hates the US still has them and still hates the US...This guy had already started one war, and was supporting terrorism. This guy was making every effort to ignore the UN and was playing games with the inspectors that were sent ot check on him. The other guy was reported to be building nukes. He never said he hated the US in fact he was afradi of the US... Prior to his father's death, Kim Jong Il served in several key positions managing party message/propaganda, with particular focus on the divinity of their Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, the absolution of Juche, and the reunification of their divided peninsula under their policies and political ideals. Regarding the latter, he did what any good propagandist/lobbiest/spindoctor/insert-euphemism-here would do, and distilled the major obstacles to that goal into a single enemy that could be easily personified and vilified: the U.S. He personally oversaw an extremely effective campaign to breed a zealous hatred for the U.S. among the people of his country, consisting of daily doses of extreme anti-U.S. messages in broadcast and print, while also infecting the South (Republic Of Korea/ROK) with the same message to bolster support there. With the younger Kim now heading the state, the hateful anti-U.S. message continues. Although I agree that he fears U.S. aggression, Kim has unquestionably and reiteratively proclaimed his hatred for the U.S. QuoteThey just want food, not 72 Virgins. That's a serious oversimplification. Their push for a bilateral non-aggression treaty with the U.S. seems to be their foremost political goal right now. JohnRich's post QuoteI suppose it was much better when Clinton had an agreement with them to not build nukes, and he smiled in front of the TV cameras, pronounced the world safe, and the voters were happy. Meanwhile, North Korea violated their agreement and kept on building their nukes... By information we currently have, that is incorrect. The 1993-1994 Yongbyon nuclear issue was enormously complex and multifaceted, with much happening behind the scenes. I was in country at the time, and it wasn't fun. Although I personally wouldn't directly credit Clinton for the solution (there were too many hands in that pie), the agreement (fact sheet) was a huge step in the right direction. The DPRK was finally cooperating with IAEA inspectors, and production of weapons-grade plutonium in Yongbyon had ceased. Now, here's the caveat. Does cooperation with inspectors mean that they had completely smooth, uninhibited access to everything they want? Of course not. When does this ever happen? Consider a lawsuit in discovery phase. One party requests all emails dealing with a particular issue. The other party goes in their email system, performs a few searches, and bulk exports the requested email messages. What commonly happens next is the emails are printed onto reams and reams of paper, loaded without categorization into boxes, and shipped to the case's document depository. Why not just send a DVD, you may ask? To make it more difficult for the other party to find what they're looking for. How about Clinton during the inquiry/impeachment? Or Bush during the aftermath of 9/11? (It's not SC without bringing presidents into it. ) This kind of behavior is common, expected, and to some extent, tolerated within the framework of such agreements. There will be back-and-forths on trying to work around such obstacles, but as long as opposition doesn't take the form of outright refusal to comply, things tend to move forward in one way or another. Now, was the DPRK immediately violating the agreement, building more nukes, while Clinton was boasting the successful end to the crisis? We have no evidence of this. There were, however, disputes on details on which the DPRK didn't follow up, with their reasoning that the U.S. didn't follow up some of their obligations (again, at the detail level). This resulted in a stalemate on some issues. We do know that in the years following, the DPRK continued to pursue nuclear technology, at the very least. This activity without question violated the spirit of the agreement, but I'm not certain whether it violated the agreement outright. Some intelligence (defector reports, etc.) indicated that work continued with fissible materials, with some indications that weapons were continuing to be built, but this wasn't thoroughly substantiated. In 1993, Yongbyon was confirmed. In these cases, we didn't have much to go on. It wasn't until the end of 2002, some eight years after the agreement was enacted, that the DPRK admitted to having an active nuclear program (outright violating and effectively terminating the 1994 agreement) and expelled the IAEA inspectors, resuming production in Yongbyon. It is through this activity that the DPRK has the capacity to effectively build nuclear weapons. DPRK nuclear weapon production capacity prior to this is speculative, at the very least. dorbie's post QuoteDon't forget the financial assistance we gave them as part of that treaty. We paid them to not build the nukes they built anyway. An agreement with NK isn't worth the paper it's written on. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. From the text of the agreement: Quote 1) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003 By the time ground was broken on the light water reactor, completion had slipped to 2007. Lawyers can debate the meaning of "target date", but the DPRK contends the late delivery was a violation of the agreement. Quote III. Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. Although the detail items below this header focus on denuclearization, the wording here specifically spells out working together for peace and security. The DPRK contends the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric (which came some 21 months before their admission of an active nuclear program), followed by the subsequent invasion of Iraq violates this stipulation. Again, just playing devil's advocate here, but the same could be said, from an opposed perspective, about an agreement with the U.S. in this case (ABM, etc. notwithstanding) -- the two arguments can cancel each other out. That being said, however, the DPRK has a history of disregard for even its own word, whenever it's convenient for them. In this case, however, it could be construed as tit for tat, much as their violation of the agreement resulted in the halt of oil shipments. Kennedy's post QuoteNo one feared or respected us in the Clinton years, not SH, not the Somalis, not the countries we gave conditional aid to (since they knew the conditions were bogus). That's just a plain prejudicial blanket statement. Example: the younger Kim's militant propaganda had included his promise to bury his father in Seoul. Tension hit a second peak in 1994 when ol' daddy kicked the bucket, but I don't recall T-72's rolling down the corridor. crozby's post QuoteAnd why do you think NK just want food? They are communist. Communism by definition wants to spread itself across the entire globe. The DPRK follows its own policy of Juche, which is derivative of communism. Although some of their propaganda discusses spreading their love and joy throughout the world, it's not likely that this is anywhere near the DPRK's actual agenda -- they're isolationist. The furthest they have indicated actually wanting to spread Juche is to the ROK. DPRK Motives With regard to the DPRK's motives with the current nuclear issue, I think Ron and JohnRich have nailed it on the head: QuoteIf he did that he would be toast and he knows it. The world would turn against him...right now part of the world agrees with his stance of "Don't tread on me". If he uses them to become an agressor he will lose public support. If he sells of gives them away he will lose public support... Hell even I think it was a smart move for him to build them. QuoteWhat Kim Jong Il wants is power, and these nukes are bargaining chips for him. Great discussion. As for me, I'm no fan of Kim Jong Il, but I think his going public with their nuclear program (versus his father's keeping things relatively mum in 1993) is the smartest move he could have made to protect his regime, both internally and externally, and he continues to play it smart. If, however, one of his devices somehow makes it into the wrong hands, he'll have committed to his own destruction. I pray that never happens, as the loss of life will be catastrophic on all sides, even if the conflict stays conventional. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 February 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteA terrorist group with plausible deniability seems to be the most likely scenario, but looking at the hurt put on Al Queda for a much smaller attack, a guy would have to really think about the consequences before he does more than just threaten to do it. I don't agree. I think they would use it just to start shit. That presumes a lack of regard for their own lives. So far, it's apparent to me that the opposition leadership is quite willing to send their minions to death, but not willing to do it themselves. They like to live, and they're fighting a war using the methods available to them. Dying doesn't help. And crossing the nuclear threshold will likely result in that, along with the loss of any sponsor support from the country they're residing in. No one wants to be the next Taliban. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buried 0 #40 February 11, 2005 some interesting info about who has what http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4256599.stm Where is my fizzy-lifting drink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #41 February 11, 2005 QuoteIrrelevant. Every forecast model I've heard of estimates millions of lives lost if we invade N. Korea. Therefore, the Bush administration wisely does not put them "into the same category" with Iraq when it comes to how to handle the problem. So, we only beat up the smallest, weakest of threats that we know we can defeat? Hmmmm.....maybe that prediction of more countries pursuing nukes will be correct after all? What a turn of events - we built nukes to protect ourself from these rebel countries and now we are the big bad that everyone has to worry about. QuoteExtremely simplistic reasoning. Which rules it out as being incorrect? Besides, what country would want to give WMDs to upstart rebel countries that have terrible intentions despite the ramifications...oh, never mind. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 February 11, 2005 Quote So, we only beat up the smallest, weakest of threats that we know we can defeat? That's certainly the way it works in nature. Only a damn fool looks for a fair fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #43 February 11, 2005 QuoteBesides, what country would want to give WMDs to upstart rebel countries that have terrible intentions despite the ramifications...oh, never mind. I hope the US doesn't repeat those mistakes. If it does in my lifetime, I'll die as cynical a man as some of the other posters here in SC. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
