N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapons

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear Test
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geopolitical implications of North Korea's threats to test nuclear weapons and the broader context of nuclear proliferation, particularly in relation to Iran and Libya. Participants explore the motivations behind these nations' actions and the effectiveness of international responses to nuclear threats.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that North Korea and Iran are acting to protect themselves in a world where they perceive threats from more powerful nations.
  • There are humorous proposals about inciting conflict between North Korea and Iran as a strategy to divert attention from their nuclear ambitions.
  • Some argue that the Iraq war has failed to discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, citing Libya's agreement to dismantle its WMD program as a counterpoint.
  • Participants discuss the implications of one country disarming while others pursue nuclear capabilities, questioning whether this leads to greater security or increased proliferation.
  • Some express the view that if one country possesses nuclear weapons, then all should, challenging the notion of trustworthiness among nations.
  • There are extreme hypothetical suggestions about universal nuclear armament as a means of achieving global peace, reflecting a satirical take on the issue.
  • Discussions also touch on the perceived hypocrisy of nuclear disarmament efforts led by nations that have previously used nuclear weapons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the implications of nuclear proliferation or the effectiveness of current international policies. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the motivations and consequences of nuclear armament.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the motivations of states and the effectiveness of military interventions, which are not universally accepted. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives on trustworthiness and the ethics of nuclear weapons.

Physics news on Phys.org
Excellent. In this environment of rogue states ignoring the international community and wandering around attacking other states without reason or justification, less wealthy/powerful states such as Iran and North Korea must do everything they can to protect themselves.
 
Adam said:
Excellent. In this environment of rogue states ignoring the international community and wandering around attacking other states without reason or justification, less wealthy/powerful states such as Iran and North Korea must do everything they can to protect themselves.

good one Sandler :smile:
 
Hey, I'm quite serious.
 
selfAdjoint said:
Could we get them mad at each other? :rolleyes:
Good thinking SelfAdjoint, internecine is the right approach. We sit back and watch the slaughter. But how do we get them mad at each other. I guess Kim Jong-il could invite all the Iranian leaders over for a kosher chicken dinner and then have our mole in North Korea switch the chicken for pork chops.
 
Well, this situation is a good demonstration of the brilliant success that this Iraq war has had on discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
 
Pyrovus said:
Well, this situation is a good demonstration of the brilliant success that this Iraq war has had on discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.
 
Robert Zaleski said:
Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

Ergo Hoc Proctor Hoc I guess.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
faust9 said:
Ergo Hoc Proctor Hoc I guess.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
Non Placet! Martin Indyk is a Leftist working for a Left-Wing think tank. If I provided you with a Heritage Foundation Op-Ed, would you accept it as fact?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Robert Zaleski said:
Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

So one country attempting the appeasement route by giving up their WMD and two countries deciding to increase their WMD stocks in order to have something to deter a US attack with adds up to less WMD?
 
  • #12
Pyrovus said:
So one country attempting the appeasement route by giving up their WMD and two countries deciding to increase their WMD stocks in order to have something to deter a US attack with adds up to less WMD?
Would you prefer having three countries increasing their WMD stock?
 
  • #13
I'd much rather have one country with real WMD (Libya) and one with fictitious WMD (Iraq) than have two countries churning out WMD as a result of an attempt to eliminate fictitious WMD. Let's face it, the whole idea of "if we invade Iraq because of WMD it will intimidate other nations into giving up WMD" lost all credibility when the US invaded without bothering to prove that there actually were any there. What message does that send to states fearing a US invasion? Something along the lines of "if we want to attack you, we'll do so regardless of whether or not you have WMD". Is it surprising that states like North Korea and Iran have decided that they have nothing to lose by developing more WMD, so that they might be able to deter the US from attacking, rather than disarming and simply relying on America's goodwill to not invade them? Let's face it, the real reason why the US wants "rogue states" (i.e. countries it doesn't like) to disarm is so that if it does decide to invade them, they won't be able to put up much of a fight. The US might think twice about invading somebody if it means sacrificing New York City and Washington, which is a real hinderance to the flexing of the imperialist muscle. The US doesn't like WMD because they behave as something of an equalizer - they allow a small state to do considerable damage to even a superpower like America should a war take place. The US would much rather be able to fight wars without having to think about the consequences.
 
  • #14
Pyrovus said:
I'd much rather have one country with real WMD (Libya) and one with fictitious WMD (Iraq) than have two countries churning out WMD as a result of an attempt to eliminate fictitious WMD. Let's face it, the whole idea of "if we invade Iraq because of WMD it will intimidate other nations into giving up WMD" lost all credibility when the US invaded without bothering to prove that there actually were any there. What message does that send to states fearing a US invasion? Something along the lines of "if we want to attack you, we'll do so regardless of whether or not you have WMD". Is it surprising that states like North Korea and Iran have decided that they have nothing to lose by developing more WMD, so that they might be able to deter the US from attacking, rather than disarming and simply relying on America's goodwill to not invade them? Let's face it, the real reason why the US wants "rogue states" (i.e. countries it doesn't like) to disarm is so that if it does decide to invade them, they won't be able to put up much of a fight. The US might think twice about invading somebody if it means sacrificing New York City and Washington, which is a real hinderance to the flexing of the imperialist muscle. The US doesn't like WMD because they behave as something of an equalizer - they allow a small state to do considerable damage to even a superpower like America should a war take place. The US would much rather be able to fight wars without having to think about the consequences.

So do you want these countries to get WMD or not? Thats what it boils down to. I don't care how much youre pissed off at this war in Iraq, snap out of it.
 
  • #15
If one country has nukes, then I think all should. The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic. Especially when the major source of the push to disarm other nations is the only nation to actually nuke cities. On the other hand, it would be even better if that dangerous nation would totally disarm, which would allow the others to disarm safely.
 
  • #16
Adam said:
The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic.
Just for clarity, are you saying you believe all countries are equally trustworthy?
 
  • #17
Adam said:
If one country has nukes, then I think all should.

I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).
 
  • #18
studentx said:
I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

I agree, I want a nuke too!
 
  • #19
Me too! Me too! and then one day...when my PMS is particularly unmanageable and I just want to send the whole lot of you ta hell...BHAHAHAHAHA KABOOOM~! CYA!
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
Just for clarity, are you saying you believe all countries are equally trustworthy?

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.
 
  • #21
studentx said:
I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

Indeed. Let's all get nukes. Everyone will be too scared to say or do anything at all. We will have peace at last. It's just like owning a gun, the exact same sort of society, but on a larger scale. Arm everyone.
 
  • #22
what if i get 2 nukes?
 
  • #23
Even better.
 
  • #24
It's not like anyone ever blew himself up on purpose now, right?
 
  • #25
Waiter, I'd like to have two neutron bombs with a side order of mustard gas. Oh yah, give me some of that delightful serin gas too. Could you put that in one of those 32 oz. Big Glup canisters for me? Thank You.
This brought back memories of Dr. Strangelove. As a sidebar, one of the roles Peter Sellers played in the movie was United States President Merkin Muffley. If you want a good laugh, look up the word 'merkin' in the dictionary.
 
  • #26
Adam said:
I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.
So the crux of you argument is that since the first, only, and last nukes ever used were by us then we should arm countries with dictators? One man with a nuke, in essence?

Do you honestly think that if we hadn't used them, no one else would have? The same thing would have happened. It would have been detonated once somewhere, and the world would think "oh crap, this is awful" and revert to the same thing we have now - a stabilzed stalemate.
 
  • #27
phatmonky said:
So the crux of you argument is that since the first, only, and last nukes ever used were by us then we should arm countries with dictators? One man with a nuke, in essence?
No.

I'm saying precisely what I have already said. Every nation on Earth (not merely dictatorships, but EVERYONE) is more trustworthy than the USA, when it comes to nukes. History is the reason. The USA has nuked cities full of people. Nobody else has.

Do you honestly think that if we hadn't used them, no one else would have? The same thing would have happened. It would have been detonated once somewhere, and the world would think "oh crap, this is awful" and revert to the same thing we have now - a stabilzed stalemate.
I really don't care how you justify it to yourself.
 
  • #28
Adam said:
The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic.

Since when did Australia have nukes?
 
  • #29
I don't believe the Australians have nuclear weapons. Why would they need them. The British would come to the aid of Australia if it was in deep peril. The United States is also obligated to defend Australia as part of the ANZUS Treaty. I assume the defense of Australia would include the use of nuclear weapons if conditions warranted their use.
 
  • #30
loseyourname said:
Since when did Australia have nukes?

I never said Australia has nukes.
 

Similar threads

News North Korea - another nuclear weapon test
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
News North Korea - Suspicious Seismic Activity
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
News North Korea to halt nuclear activities
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
News What is North Korea's stance on US food aid and NGOs?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
News Nuclear test successful in N. Korea
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Radioactive timebomb in Russian nuclear dump that could threaten Europe?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Will North Korea and the US both get what they want?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
News North Korea Nuclear Test Draws Global Criticism
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Green Solution to a Political Problem?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K