View Full Version : North Korea Nukes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_go_ot/north_korea_missiles
Scary.
Thoughts? Or is this old and already posted?
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 12:59 PM
Not all that scary when you consider the amount the US has and how many the Russian have that they don't have secured.
Let's not turn this into a Republican vs. Democrat thread. there's a reason I don't post in the politics forum. I just wanted thoughts on this.
Right. Very constructive. Thank you.
We'reAllThieves
09/10/08, 01:13 PM
When we get involved in North Korea, shit hits the fans.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 01:22 PM
Not all that scary when you consider the amount the US has and how many the Russian have that they don't have secured.
My thoughts, quit your bitching.
I'm more concerned with Iran and their nuclear ambitions than with North Korea.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 01:50 PM
I'm more concerned with Iran and their nuclear ambitions than with North Korea.
Because as everyone knows:
Power plants > missiles
Because as everyone knows:
Power plants > missiles
Do you actually believe Iran has no desire to create weapons of mass destruction? If you think all they want is nuclear power, you are a fucking idiot.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 02:07 PM
Do you actually believe Iran has no desire to create weapons of mass destruction? If you think all they want is nuclear power, you are a fucking idiot.
HE SAID FIRST, NOT ME.
x
Would you like a chart of who has more weapons of mass destruction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons #Estimated_worldwide_nuclear_stockp iles
Also, here is an IAEA statement concerning their program: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html
Also, when you use the "Who cares who has more, we won't use them and he will" argument, I will respond by telling you the only nation that has ever used the weapon in combat is the United States, so please don't waste my time.
HE SAID FIRST, NOT ME.
x
Would you like a chart of who has more weapons of mass destruction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons #Estimated_worldwide_nuclear_stockp iles
Also, here is an IAEA statement concerning their program: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html
Also, when you use the "Who cares who has more, we won't use them and he will" argument, I will respond by telling you the only nation that has ever used the weapon in combat is the United States, so please don't waste my time.
And that shit has nothing to do with why I find Iran having nuclear weapons more troubling than North Korea. Please explain why the fuck the shit you posted is relevant to anything I have said.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 02:35 PM
How do you figure it's not relevant? North Korea has actual nukes and Iran is enriching the stuff for nuclear power.
Stop using talking points, and start using facts.
All you fucking do is parrot what you hear on the news.
Let me simplify it for you:
North Korea having nukes has less of an impact on the U.S. than if Iran has nukes. Iran, being in the Middle East, would have much more leverage against the U.S. and would fuck with the global oil market if they didn't get their way.
Being so close to a powerful country like China, I find it hard to believe that North Korea would ever use the nukes.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 02:56 PM
Again.
Those Who Have Nukes
North Korea
Those Who Don't
Iran
But you are trying to tell me...that Iran is the bigger threat. K.
jagermeister
09/10/08, 03:25 PM
All you fucking do is parrot what you hear on the news.
Let me simplify it for you:
North Korea having nukes has less of an impact on the U.S. than if Iran has nukes. Iran, being in the Middle East, would have much more leverage against the U.S. and would fuck with the global oil market if they didn't get their way.
Being so close to a powerful country like China, I find it hard to believe that North Korea would ever use the nukes.
Agree.
That kid is an idiot, man.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 04:02 PM
I'm guessing idiot means right.
The only people in Middle East fucking with the global oil market are the US, imagine that.
jagermeister
09/10/08, 04:14 PM
I'm guessing idiot means right.
The only people in Middle East fucking with the global oil market are the US, imagine that.
You need to look deeper than what you read in the news or see on TV.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 04:21 PM
I have. Try again.
jagermeister
09/10/08, 04:25 PM
I have. Try again.
Your ignorance shows otherwise.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 04:28 PM
Ignorance? You are the one swallowing the bullshit 'fear' of simple enrichment. I'm the one looking at the bigger fucking picture.
jagermeister
09/10/08, 04:32 PM
Ignorance? You are the one swallowing the bullshit 'fear' of simple enrichment. I'm the one looking at the bigger fucking picture.
I never said anything about being scared of enrichment. All I am saying Iran IS a nuclear threat from the Middle East and believing otherwise is just ignorant, uninformed and stupid.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 04:39 PM
Nuclear power is threatening?
jagermeister
09/10/08, 04:43 PM
Nuclear power is threatening?
You don't seriously believe Iran wants nuclear power or a nuclear program strictly for energy purposes do you?
I still can't tell if you're an idiot, or just playing dumb.
Seriously, pick up a book and read it.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 04:54 PM
Ok, but why would we stop Iran and not North Korea? Don't use the middle east as rationale, nuclear weapons are a global threat.
jagermeister
09/10/08, 05:05 PM
Ok, but why would we stop Iran and not North Korea? Don't use the middle east as rationale, nuclear weapons are a global threat.
I have no idea why the US (not we, I am not American) would try to stop Iran over North Korea. I do not work in high government to know the details behind why certain countries are more focused on, and neither are you.
With that being said, I do not know every little detail about the North Korea-US relations, or those with Iran but I do know Iran is a real threat regarding their nuclear program. If you can't find anything that says that online or in a book then you're doing it wrong.
Ok, but why would we stop Iran and not North Korea? Don't use the middle east as rationale, nuclear weapons are a global threat.
We would stop Iran because of all the billions of dollars we have invested in the middle east. China, Japan, and Russia can deal with North Korea.
FYI Wikipedia doesn't always have the most factual information.
jagermeister
09/10/08, 05:20 PM
We would stop Iran because of all the billions of dollars we have invested in the middle east. China, Japan, and Russia can deal with North Korea.
FYI Wikipedia doesn't always have the most factual information.
agree.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 05:23 PM
I have no idea why the US (not we, I am not American) would try to stop Iran over North Korea. I do not work in high government to know the details behind why certain countries are more focused on, and neither are you.
With that being said, I do not know every little detail about the North Korea-US relations, or those with Iran but I do know Iran is a real threat regarding their nuclear program. If you can't find anything that says that online or in a book then you're doing it wrong.
A nuclear power program. I guess France is a bad egg too, they've got nukes and 80% of their energy is nuclear.
We would stop Iran because of all the billions of dollars we have invested in the middle east. China, Japan, and Russia can deal with North Korea.
FYI Wikipedia doesn't always have the most factual information.
Congratulations on a huge big paragraph of wrong.
The whole table is sourced. Try again.
Congratulations on a huge big paragraph of wrong.
Please tell me what I am wrong about. Is it the billions of dollars we have put into Afghanistan and Iraq? The billions of dollars we have invested in Saudi Arabian oil? Please, help me understand.
The whole table is sourced. Try again.
I never said it wasnt. I just noticed you like to link a lot in the political threads and wikipedia is probably the worst site to link.
How are you so sure Iran only wants nuclear power?
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 05:51 PM
Please tell me what I am wrong about. Is it the billions of dollars we have put into Afghanistan and Iraq? The billions of dollars we have invested in Saudi Arabian oil? Please, help me understand.
I never said it wasnt. I just noticed you like to link a lot in the political threads and wikipedia is probably the worst site to link.
How are you so sure Iran only wants nuclear power?
Yes, that is true, but we are not invested in China/don't have an interest in the East? You know that new global superpower that has a huge effect on the global market? All the things we import from both Japan and China. I guess that doesn't really count. Congratulations on your wrong, Amerocentric argument.
Wikipedia is a trustworthy source as long as you know how to use it. I only link to stuff that has clearly sourced information because it makes it much easier.
How are you so sure they want a nuclear weapon? More importantly, what gives the US the right to say they can't have one?
Yes, that is true, but we are not invested in China/don't have an interest in the East? You know that new global superpower that has a huge effect on the global market? All the things we import from both Japan and China. I guess that doesn't really count. Congratulations on your wrong, Amerocentric argument.
Why would China need the U.S. or any other country to help them with a regional problem? They are more powerful and influential than the U.S. right now. As much as you think the U.S. can solve all the worlds problems, we must learn to pick and choose what problems we get involved in.
Also its the other way around, China is invested in the U.S. They need the U.S. and the world in order to economically survive.
Why do you keep saying I'm wrong? I know thats how you think you win arguments in the Obama threads, but it just makes you look like an idiot.
North Korea is paranoid enough to launch a salvo at the West Coast or at Japan.
Iran is not.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 07:18 PM
Why would China need the U.S. or any other country to help them with a regional problem? They are more powerful and influential than the U.S. right now. As much as you think the U.S. can solve all the worlds problems, we must learn to pick and choose what problems we get involved in.
Also its the other way around, China is invested in the U.S. They need the U.S. and the world in order to economically survive.
Why do you keep saying I'm wrong? I know thats how you think you win arguments in the Obama threads, but it just makes you look like an idiot.
Are you fucking serious?
The Chinese need us and considering we import from them, clearly, we need them.
Again wrong.
Are you fucking serious?
The Chinese need us and considering we import from them, clearly, we need them.
Again wrong.
All you do is focus on things and twist them around to make them what you want to hear.
I never said that we do not need China. I made the point that they need to export in order to survive. Technically, we could survive without China, although it would be extremely hard and our economy would take a tremendous hit.
If North Korea decided to go all crazy and start threatening to use their nukes, I am positive that China, Japan, and even Russia would step in.
Iran on the other hand has shown a continuous defiance against the U.S. and our allies. Iran having nuclear weapons, being located in a very important region of the middle east, will have major economic problems as well as pose a major threat to all U.S. allies in the region. If the U.S. wants the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan to survive, then we need to make sure Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
What parts will you pick out to spin for your own gain?
open mind
09/10/08, 08:04 PM
All you do is focus on things and twist them around to make them what you want to hear.
I never said that we do not need China. I made the point that they need to export in order to survive. Technically, we could survive without China, although it would be extremely hard and our economy would take a tremendous hit.
If North Korea decided to go all crazy and start threatening to use their nukes, I am positive that China, Japan, and even Russia would step in.
Iran on the other hand has shown a continuous defiance against the U.S. and our allies. Iran having nuclear weapons, being located in a very important region of the middle east, will have major economic problems as well as pose a major threat to all U.S. allies in the region. If the U.S. wants the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan to survive, then we need to make sure Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
What parts will you pick out to spin for your own gain?
north korea has a long standing pattern of defiance.....sometimes they'll say they're going to do something and then do the exact opposite, so you can throw dishonesty in there to.
benjammun
09/10/08, 08:55 PM
This entire discussion is based entirely on propaganda.
Iran is a member of the NPT, which, under Article 4 gives them legal rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Now, you might say, "well they're trying to get nukes and blow us up omg,' but this argument is amazingly arrogant, and is indeed 'parroting what you hear in the news.' I preempt this by saying that the U.S. does not even heed the NPT and is ignoring it's most important articles (Article VI, most notably), and has been stockpiling weapons for years, as well as funneling them into Israel, which is extremely dangerous.
As for FISSBAN (a treaty denouncing the further production of nuclear materials), despite strong U.S. objections it did come to a vote at the UN in November 2004. It passed 174-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which is reflexive, and Britain, which is more interesting. The British ambassador explained at the U.S. session that Britain favoured a FISSBAN, but this version "divided the international community": 174-1. That's quite a divide.
So Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency proposed a treaty stating that "all production and processing of weapon-usable material be under international control, with assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies.” That should be the first step towards fully implementing FISSBAN. The only signer to this date: Iran.
Iran has not sought weapons until it was basically forced to do so. They would be insane had they not, with the global superpower declaring it's unilateral ability to go to war with whomever we choose. North Korea is much the same; they are one of the last countries in the world resisting U.S. influence and thus are forced to have some kind of deterrent. Also consider the history when, during the Korean War, North Korea was bombed so heavily by the USAF that they ran out of military targets. This, coupled with all the sanctions levied against them might help explain their distrust of the US.
saysmydoctor
09/10/08, 10:12 PM
All you do is focus on things and twist them around to make them what you want to hear.
I never said that we do not need China. I made the point that they need to export in order to survive. Technically, we could survive without China, although it would be extremely hard and our economy would take a tremendous hit.
If North Korea decided to go all crazy and start threatening to use their nukes, I am positive that China, Japan, and even Russia would step in.
Iran on the other hand has shown a continuous defiance against the U.S. and our allies. Iran having nuclear weapons, being located in a very important region of the middle east, will have major economic problems as well as pose a major threat to all U.S. allies in the region. If the U.S. wants the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan to survive, then we need to make sure Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
What parts will you pick out to spin for your own gain?
You clearly don't know American interventionist past and realize you are promoting double-standard bias.
Exactly, there is interest in China, thank you for clarifying.
Iran? That's actually only in the last 50 years.
Invoking the real rationale behind those two wars I see...oh wait.
benjammun
09/10/08, 10:20 PM
He is right about Iran being a problem for Middle East stability, except that stability means U.S. interests and has absolutely nothing to do with security.
boykosaurus
09/11/08, 09:54 AM
When the U.S. rhetoric ratchets up oil prices increase, think about that.
benjammun
09/11/08, 08:13 PM
Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html
hmmmmmm
09/11/08, 08:26 PM
So what is the deal with Kim Jong?
Supposedly he had a stroke and some reports are even saying that he might have died but North Korea is saying it is just a "western Conspiracy" yet he is nowhere to be found...
benjammun
09/11/08, 10:21 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it matters all that much seeing how U.S. policy in regards to North Korea will remain unchanged with a Kim Jong replacement.
Iran is religiously against using nuclear weapons. Yeah, that hasn't stopped anyone before, but consider... the justification for most of the things people in the US are afraid of are caused by Iran's religious beliefs. You can't have it both ways. Either they believe what they say, or they don't.
ghostyouare
09/12/08, 11:55 AM
Ignorance? You are the one swallowing the bullshit 'fear' of simple enrichment. I'm the one looking at the bigger fucking picture.
Again.
Those Who Have Nukes
North Korea
Those Who Don't
Iran
But you are trying to tell me...that Iran is the bigger threat. K.
/shrug
joeag1985
07/24/10, 02:28 AM
Kim Jong talking shite again...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0724/korea.html
<*)))><
07/24/10, 09:07 AM
This entire discussion is based entirely on propaganda.
Iran is a member of the NPT, which, under Article 4 gives them legal rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Now, you might say, "well they're trying to get nukes and blow us up omg,' but this argument is amazingly arrogant, and is indeed 'parroting what you hear in the news.' I preempt this by saying that the U.S. does not even heed the NPT and is ignoring it's most important articles (Article VI, most notably), and has been stockpiling weapons for years, as well as funneling them into Israel, which is extremely dangerous.
As for FISSBAN (a treaty denouncing the further production of nuclear materials), despite strong U.S. objections it did come to a vote at the UN in November 2004. It passed 174-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which is reflexive, and Britain, which is more interesting. The British ambassador explained at the U.S. session that Britain favoured a FISSBAN, but this version "divided the international community": 174-1. That's quite a divide.
So Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency proposed a treaty stating that "all production and processing of weapon-usable material be under international control, with assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies.” That should be the first step towards fully implementing FISSBAN. The only signer to this date: Iran.
Iran has not sought weapons until it was basically forced to do so. They would be insane had they not, with the global superpower declaring it's unilateral ability to go to war with whomever we choose. North Korea is much the same; they are one of the last countries in the world resisting U.S. influence and thus are forced to have some kind of deterrent. Also consider the history when, during the Korean War, North Korea was bombed so heavily by the USAF that they ran out of military targets. This, coupled with all the sanctions levied against them might help explain their distrust of the US.
Sounds fishy.
LiquorAndDick
07/25/10, 08:55 AM
North Korea has made threats for years, it's just there way of asking the world for some attention.
BornUnderPunches
07/25/10, 11:41 AM
I'll never be able to look at Kim Jong and then take his country seriously.
North Korea has made threats for years, it's just there way of asking the world for some attention.
love the avatar
AlkalineAshes
07/25/10, 01:21 PM
I dont see why we should be allowed to have stockpiles of nukes and say countries like N korea cannot. At least they arnt pretending to be some great humanitarian nation pretending they have the world's best interest at heart like the US does
BornUnderPunches
07/25/10, 02:22 PM
I dont see why we should be allowed to have stockpiles of nukes and say countries like N korea cannot. At least they arnt pretending to be some great humanitarian nation pretending they have the world's best interest at heart like the US does
because we no longer threaten other countries with them.
Scrandon
07/25/10, 03:10 PM
I dont see why we should be allowed to have stockpiles of nukes and say countries like N korea cannot. At least they arnt pretending to be some great humanitarian nation pretending they have the world's best interest at heart like the US does
Their leader is an illogical tyrant with a Napoleon Complex.
Elemenopee13
07/25/10, 06:28 PM
:-)
samsara
07/25/10, 06:31 PM
Did someone get Lunchforthesky'd?
AlkalineAshes
07/25/10, 06:35 PM
Their leader is an illogical tyrant with a Napoleon Complex. kinda like our last president
Scrandon
07/25/10, 06:44 PM
Ugh, geez.
paper halo
07/25/10, 06:53 PM
Ugh, geez.
Did you not see that coming? I almost said it myself, although I was going to finish with "amirite?", so everyone would know I'm not an idiot.
Scrandon
07/25/10, 06:56 PM
Did you not see that coming? I almost said it myself, although I was going to finish with "amirite?", so everyone would know I'm not an idiot.
Yea, at least hinting at sarcasm/irony would have been nice so we could know whether or not he's completely lost it.
First page makes no sense,just some guy arguing with himself?
<*)))><
07/25/10, 08:54 PM
kinda like our last president
Someone's stupid is showing.
caveBEAR
07/25/10, 09:22 PM
First page makes no sense,just some guy arguing with himself?
Do you have someone on ignore?
caveBEAR
07/25/10, 09:25 PM
I dont see why we should be allowed to have stockpiles of nukes and say countries like N korea cannot. At least they arnt pretending to be some great humanitarian nation pretending they have the world's best interest at heart like the US does
kinda like our last president
Yikes. I get the point you're trying to make, but if you really can't see the difference in this scenario between the U.S. and North Korea...
AlkalineAshes
07/25/10, 09:26 PM
Someone's stupid is showing.
who started more wars in the last 10 years?
samsara
07/25/10, 09:27 PM
Do you have someone on ignore?
I cant see it either.
caveBEAR
07/25/10, 09:31 PM
I cant see it either.
KBM600, saysmydoctor, We'reAllTheives, & MidCal on Page 1. Seems to be a back and forth discussion for me.
:shrug:
<*)))><
07/25/10, 09:35 PM
who started more wars in the last 10 years?
Some rich guys who want diamonds.
But that is not the point, do you really think on September 12th he had any other option? Then to try to prevent another strike on the US he went to war against Iraq because someone said they had WOMD. If those weapons actually were used against the US don't you think the public would demand that he found a way to stop it? I'm willing to bet any president would of done the same thing if they were in his position.
BornUnderPunches
07/25/10, 09:38 PM
Some rich guys who want diamonds.
nah man, diamonds are a girl's best friend. It's women, it's always been women.
<*)))><
07/25/10, 09:42 PM
nah man, diamonds are a girl's best friend. It's women, it's always been women.
So guys wanted to get laid so they paid people to get them diamonds by starting a war. Way easier then finding a drunk girl at a bar.
BornUnderPunches
07/25/10, 09:45 PM
So guys wanted to get laid so they paid people to get them diamonds by starting a war. Way easier then finding a drunk girl at a bar.
diamonds = better quality sex than drunk girl sex
<*)))><
07/25/10, 09:46 PM
diamonds = better quality sex than drunk girl sex
I think we are getting a little off topic.
BornUnderPunches
07/25/10, 09:48 PM
I think we are getting a little off topic.
at least it isn't something stupid.
/sarcasm
Sunken In
07/26/10, 07:34 AM
I got about 20 posts into this thread, and decided to quit reading because there is no respect whatsoever for anyone's opinions going on.
Pricks.
paper halo
07/26/10, 07:39 AM
I got about 20 posts into this thread, and decided to quit reading because there is no respect whatsoever for anyone's opinions going on.
Pricks.
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/butthurt_report_form.jpg
I got about 20 posts into this thread, and decided to quit reading because there is no respect whatsoever for anyone's opinions going on.
Pricks.
http://edgewatertech.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/stop-whining.jpg
circasuicide
07/26/10, 02:44 PM
http://rlv.zcache.com/they_took_our_jobs_tshirt-d235648038281095886yhmi_325.jpg
north korea will never use nuclear weapons, because they know that it would immediately result in their own destruction and the deaths of their own civilians. didn't they try to test a missile though, and it failed miserably? how many nukes do they actually have?
BornUnderPunches
07/26/10, 06:52 PM
I got about 20 posts into this thread, and decided to quit reading because there is no respect whatsoever for anyone's opinions going on.
Pricks.
http://clipsandcomment.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/stfudl7.jpg
BornUnderPunches
07/26/10, 06:52 PM
north korea will never use nuclear weapons, because they know that it would immediately result in their own destruction and the deaths of their own civilians. didn't they try to test a missile though, and it failed miserably? how many nukes do they actually have?
one billion
lets just hope nobody uses the damn things huh?
<*)))><
07/27/10, 01:22 PM
I sure hope someone gives me a Bentley.
Do you have someone on ignore?
Only several noah fawkes profiles? :shrug:
The problem is, North Korea with nukes might not be a threat directly to America but A North Korea/China alliance would leave America vastly outnumbered, what to do if that happens?
north korea will never use nuclear weapons, because they know that it would immediately result in their own destruction and the deaths of their own civilians. didn't they try to test a missile though, and it failed miserably? how many nukes do they actually have?
They don't have any verified missles, but neighbors China and Russia do. Russia alone has over half of the world's nuke stockpile. Scary stuff.
The problem is, North Korea with nukes might not be a threat directly to America but A North Korea/China alliance would leave America vastly outnumbered, what to do if that happens?
doesn't china only have 60 or so? the u.s. has thousands of nuclear warheads. an alliance between north korea and china would not outnumber the united states. and if china or korea ever used a nuclear weapon, they know they'd lose much more than they'd gain due to retribution.
I meant in sheer infantry manpower, China's military alone is close to our country's entire population.
I meant in sheer infantry manpower, China's military alone is close to our country's entire population.
what country? china's military is about 3 million, compared to ~1.5 million for the u.s.?
Jake Gyllenhaal
07/28/10, 06:33 PM
http://gadabyte.com/ww-ii/images/propaganda/jap_next.jpg
what country? china's military is about 3 million, compared to ~1.5 million for the u.s.?
Try 300 million, which is about the size of americas population. Counting their irregulars and reserve forces, (I think they have a militia type section of their army made up of civilians, I'm not 100% sure though)
Try 300 million, which is about the size of americas population. Counting their irregulars and reserve forces, (I think they have a militia type section of their army made up of civilians, I'm not 100% sure though)
oh i see what you mean. according to wikipedia, they have over 300 million that are "fit for duty", as in, could be called up to fight if needed to be. that's a lot of dudes.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.