Is North Korea a Nuclear Threat?

[Mental Gridlock]

I don't know one way or the other. I mean I know what the news says, I just don't know if all of this adds up to an actual threat. I have to plead ignorance on this one which is why I'm asking so I can know what other people around the world feel about it.

I am wondering if North Korea is able to continue their nuclear weapons program, then is another country going to then wind up being nuked?

 

[loseyourname]

I have an extremely difficult time imagining any country actually striking another using nuclear weapons. On the other hand, given what little those of us outside of Kim Jong Il's immediate circle of friends knows about him, he seems pretty damn insane. Lord knows what he might do. I certainly would not want to be in South Korea or Japan with him around, but I definitely do not feel threatened here in California.

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps to South Korea.

The missle they are getting ready to test is a 2 stage version ICBM. If the are successful and then test a third stage... Well Kim jong Il is more of a loose cannon than Bush and Shooter.

 

[Gokul43201]

Perhaps to South Korea.

Not specifically a nuclear threat to the South. Seoul is likely in much greater danger from their artillery batteries than their nukes.

 

[edward]

Not specifically a nuclear threat to the South. Seoul is likely in much greater danger from their artillery batteries than their nukes.

Ya , I don't think the North Koreans would want to occupy a radioactive Hyundai factory.

North Korea is a good example of how one deranged leader can maintain control over an entire country by convincing them that they have an enemy.

Ironically that works both ways. ie American defense contractors must love that little North Korean nad man.

 

[kyleb]

Not specifically a nuclear threat to the South. Seoul is likely in much greater danger from their artillery batteries than their nukes.

I'd wager that even being the nut that he obviously is, Kim Jong still has enough sense to know that any such attack would get his country summarily flattened.

 

[Smurf]

Well Kim jong Il is more of a loose cannon than Bush and Shooter.

I hear that kind of thing about Kim jong a lot, but I don't actually know why everyone thinks that. What exactly makes him a loose canon?

 

[J77]

North Korea is a good example of how one deranged leader can maintain control over an entire country by convincing them that they have an enemy.

I thought this was standard policy in all countries these days...

:tongue:

 

[MemoryOfUs]

I don't know one way or the other. I mean I know what the news says, I just don't know if all of this adds up to an actual threat. I have to plead ignorance on this one which is why I'm asking so I can know what other people around the world feel about it.

I am wondering if North Korea is able to continue their nuclear weapons program, then is another country going to then wind up being nuked?

That sounds like a flow of energy in daily human relations

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know one way or the other. I mean I know what the news says, I just don't know if all of this adds up to an actual threat. I have to plead ignorance on this one which is why I'm asking so I can know what other people around the world feel about it.

I am wondering if North Korea is able to continue their nuclear weapons program, then is another country going to then wind up being nuked?

Well, the claim of the "nuclear club", those nations which already have nuclear weapons, is that "We have proven that we can have these weapons and not use them." Note that now includes India and Pakistan, which were formerly treated as outlaws, since they cooled their latest confrontation over Kashmir, precisely because they both now have nuclear capability. So now they are accepted in the "sane and sensible" category.

The general rule seems to be, you are assumed to be a wild man until you prove otherwise. And since you can't prove otherwise until you have the weapons, are provoked, and don't use them, there seems to be a Catch-22.

 

[Astronuc]

I would consider NK a potential threat with nuclear weapons. SelfAdjoint makes some very good points.

 

[ukmicky]

Its scary all these new countries developing nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them but turning around to these countries an saying your not allowed to do that is not the anwser, what right have we got to prevent any country in the world from developing anything which we have developed and are still independently maintaining. We can only do that if we were to hand all of ours over to an organisation like NATO and at the same time relinquished all independent controls over them.
Not only that but if north korea had nuclear weapons they would never use them because if they did korea would be wiped off the face of the earth

 

[Theons]

I agree with most of you on that crazy as he may be i don't think he's dumb enough to actually launch nukes at any country. And if that articl is true i don't understand why we haven't now done anything, its going way over the line to launch ANYTHING fake or not at anyone.

 

[edward]

The August 1998 test of a three-stage Taepodong-1 missile was an unsuccessful effort to launch a satellite, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The first stage splashed down in the Sea of Japan, while the second stage flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific, U.S. officials said. The fate of the satellite stage has not been reported.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/2719687p-2767626c.html

There is al lot of space junk out there, but it would have to survive re-entry. It might have even been a piece of our own space junk that was found. But how the Korean Times got the information is a big ?

To date North Koreas nuttly little leader has been more involved in blackmail than anything. The U.S. has given N.K over $2 billion in the last 10 years. On the other hand if NK ups the stakes to the threat of using or use of a nuclear weapon, all hell is going to break loose. They havwe been pushing the edge during this past week.

 

[edward]

Well, the claim of the "nuclear club", those nations which already have nuclear weapons, is that "We have proven that we can have these weapons and not use them." Note that now includes India and Pakistan, which were formerly treated as outlaws, since they cooled their latest confrontation over Kashmir, precisely because they both now have nuclear capability. So now they are accepted in the "sane and sensible" category.

The general rule seems to be, you are assumed to be a wild man until you prove otherwise. And since you can't prove otherwise until you have the weapons, are provoked, and don't use them, there seems to be a Catch-22.

WOW you nailed that one.

 

[ukmicky]

Originally Posted by selfAdjoint
Well, the claim of the "nuclear club", those nations which already have nuclear weapons, is that "We have proven that we can have these weapons and not use them." Note that now includes India and Pakistan, which were formerly treated as outlaws, since they cooled their latest confrontation over Kashmir, precisely because they both now have nuclear capability. So now they are accepted in the "sane and sensible" category.

The general rule seems to be, you are assumed to be a wild man until you prove otherwise. And since you can't prove otherwise until you have the weapons, are provoked, and don't use them, there seems to be a Catch-22.

Does that mean America's not a member of the club, seeing as they are the only nation to have used them in anger.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Does that mean America's not a member of the club, seeing as they are the only nation to have used them in anger.

The first axiom of US political posturing is, "The rules don't apply to us." This is known as "American Exceptionalism" and it's an attidude we inherited from the British.

 

[kyleb]

Well we proved to ourselves along with the rest of the world why no one should use them, that mostly settled the debate.

 

[ukmicky]

Well we proved to ourselves along with the rest of the world why no one should use them, that mostly settled the debate.

So you did twice,maybe third time will be lucky.

 

[MeJennifer]

The first axiom of US political posturing is, "The rules don't apply to us." This is known as "American Exceptionalism" and it's an attidude we inherited from the British.

Basically it is as long as the "good guys" like the US, Europe and Israel have them it is ok. Even when the "good guys" use them you can be assured it is for an even greater good. However the "bad guys" should not even be able to have a technology that can potentially make them, because of course that is all bad, because they are bad guys. This is of course obviously logical and reasonable. And if you don't understand that flawless logic, well then, by golly, you must be a bad guy!

 

[edward]

Basically it is as long as the "good guys" like the US, Europe and Israel have them it is ok. Even when the "good guys" use them you can be assured it is for an even greater good. However the "bad guys" should not even be able to have a technology that can potentially make them, because of course that is all bad, because they are bad guys. This is of course obviously logical and reasonable. And if you don't understand that flawless logic, well then, by golly, you must be a bad guy!

This is a complex issue. The bad guys now actually think that they are the good guys and I am not so sure that the original good guys, if there ever were any, have their heads screwed on straight.

 

[ukmicky]

Its not complex its quite simple. Basically the good but occasionally bad people who have the power and status that comes with the weapons don't want the bad but occasionally good people to join their club because their not good enough to be bad ok. :uhh:

 

[Theons]

With the whole thing about we not letting them have nukes, arent we currently trying to get ride of them in the world? Its also the same reason we don't let everyone carry around guns on the streets and limit the types of guns one can own. Some people will abuse them, use them to rob stores ect, kind of like i think why North Korea wants them. What could they possible want with nukes besides to have people fear them and to use them to threatin to help them become a superpower? There is none. Now i think if they had tried getting them years ago it wouldn't be such a big deal with some of the other countrys who got them. The countrys that had nukes back then actually had reasons for them, self defense and counter-attacks. Just imagin if every country had nukes, espically a lot of these middle east ones who are constantly having civil wars, with some of the crazy leadership over there what's stoping them from shooting a missile that will demolish there enemy? I don't think we should totally erase nukes from every country also, the countrys that currently have them correct me if I am wrong are all pretty much friendly and have the brians to never launch them, i don't think countrys like US or Russia would actually launch nukes at each other unless lauched back. So you people that are thinking it stupid for countrys like the US to police others form getting nukes just think to your self if you really want countrys who want to launch them to actually have them.

 

[selfAdjoint]

i think why North Korea wants them. What could they possible want with nukes besides to have people fear them and to use them to threatin to help them become a superpower? There is none.

North Korea is a very weak country, depenedent on its neighbors for basic food and energy. To be in such a position is shaming for human beings and it is understandible that they should want to command the greatest military power to show they are not the wimps they seem. If you think this is an unworthy motive consider that the French, and I really suspect also the British, developed nuclear and thermonuclear weapons partly to deny that they had been sidelined on the world stage by the US. That doesn't mean I think NK should have nuclear weapons (I don't) but it is another way of looking at the issue.

 

[Theons]

North Korea is a very weak country, depenedent on its neighbors for basic food and energy. To be in such a position is shaming for human beings and it is understandible that they should want to command the greatest military power to show they are not the wimps they seem. If you think this is an unworthy motive consider that the French, and I really suspect also the British, developed nuclear and thermonuclear weapons partly to deny that they had been sidelined on the world stage by the US. That doesn't mean I think NK should have nuclear weapons (I don't) but it is another way of looking at the issue.

This brings me to what has been being said all along, they are trying to become a superpower but going about the entirely wrong way of doing it, there is other ways then having nukes and pissing off every country. You can have all the technology and nukes in the world but that won't make you a superpower if you have no allies and people don't want to trade goods with you.

 

[Astronuc]

and I really suspect also the British

Britain was one of the first five nations - US, Russia, Britain, France and China - to have nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Weapons#History

The first nuclear weapons were created in the United States, by an international team including many displaced émigré scientists from central Europe with assistance from the United Kingdom and Canada, during World War II as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project.

On the 3 Oct 1952, the United kingdom tested it's first atomic weapon named "Hurricane" at Monte Bello Islands off Western Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hurricane
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/wayward/ch16.html

Britain subsequently tested their nuclear warheads at Maralinga (S. Australia) and left somewhat of a mess behind. :yuck:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maralinga#Nuclear_tests_and_cleanup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

In May 1954 the French were losing the war in Indochina against Ho Chi Minh. At the height of the decisive battle at Dien Bien Phu France's nuclear bosses sent a request to the chairman of the British Atomic Energy Authority. It was a shopping list of items that would help them build nuclear weapons, including a sample quantity of plutonium "so we can take the steps preparatory to the utilisation of our own plutonium". Britain had exploded its own bomb less than two years earlier and so they realized the significance of the request.

So the British had nuclear weapons first.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_missiles;_ylt=AgkM6dgXBnfVwzYQRPmzDZms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Oh, great!

TOKYO - Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for sanctions against the regime.

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

Well if the US can pre-emptively strike any nation, why can't any other nation pre-emptively stike any other nation.

Why is it that some people can only find a solution in violence?

 

[kyleb]

We precognitively struck Iraq, preemptive requires an imminent threat.

 

[devil-fire]

besides talks of preemptive strikes from japan, it seems to me north korea has been doing quite well as a result of their nuclear program. as said above, they get a lot of forign aid seemingly to keep them calm and out of trouble and the more posturing they do, the more aid they are getting.

to say NK is going about their bid for power in entirly the wrong way is something time will ultimatly tell because after all, nor many countrys have become vary powerfull by becomes everyone's friend (US, as well as france, russia and china) have done a lot of shady business for self benifit. being imoral for self gain has got to be truly the oldest trick in the book.

if north korea can protect their nuclear weapons program while it is in this vulnerable stage, they would have made a remarkable advancment for their country, more so while the rest of the world is uneasy regarding the intentions of the leader. i say this because they will be givin even more aid from the rest of the world in exchange for not being extorted (i think a rich country like the usa would prefer to give aid before being extorted for it and thus forced to take military action that would cost more money anyway)

i think what we will actualy see happen in the future is the media in the west making the north korea look like they are A) evil and need to be straightened out B) unpredictable and are a threat and C) vulnerable to a fierce, calculated attack. Or hear vary little about the whole situation and have what is reported to be downplayed in interviews with government officals

 

[selfAdjoint]

We precognitively struck Iraq, preemptive requires an imminent threat.

Nice one! The "precog" war!

 

[Wishmaster]

I fear Iran a little more than North Korea.

 

[BobG]

What could they possible want with nukes besides to have people fear them and to use them to threatin to help them become a superpower? There is none. Now i think if they had tried getting them years ago it wouldn't be such a big deal with some of the other countrys who got them. The countrys that had nukes back then actually had reasons for them, self defense and counter-attacks. Just imagin if every country had nukes, espically a lot of these middle east ones who are constantly having civil wars, with some of the crazy leadership over there what's stoping them from shooting a missile that will demolish there enemy?

Saddam Hussein was convinced that it was Iraq's chemical weapons and threat of missiles landing in Tehran that convinced Iran not to invade Iraq at the end of the Iraq-Iran war. In fact, he was convinced it was the threat of chemical weapons that kept the US from invading Iraq at the end of the first gulf war.

Which is what helped to create the mess we're currently in. Hussein couldn't get caught with evidence of chemical weapons since he hoped to have the sanctions from the first war stopped. Then again, he couldn't let the world know for sure that he'd disposed of his weapons. Considering Iraq's position, would he really want to be banking on the UN or the US to come to his aid if Iran decided a militarily weakened Iraq with no chemical weapons made a tempting target? All things considered, we would have had to step in, but I'm not sure how confident Hussein would have been about that.

Of course, Hussein might have thought having chemical weapons would prevent the world from reacting to his invasion of Kuwait. The idea of countries making miscalculations is what really worries the world about the spread of weapons of mass destruction - especially if the world has little faith in a country's decision makers.

 

[pcorbett]

I am wondering if North Korea is able to continue their nuclear weapons program, then is another country going to then wind up being nuked?

Well, it depends. If North Korea has a nuclear device, let's say it's only deliverable by horse-drawn carriage...would you consider that a threat?