Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapons

  1. Jun 25, 2004 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 25, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

  4. Jun 25, 2004 #3
    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.
  5. Jun 25, 2004 #4
    good one Sandler :rofl:
  6. Jun 25, 2004 #5
    Hey, I'm quite serious.
  7. Jun 25, 2004 #6
    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.
  8. Jun 27, 2004 #7
    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.
  9. Jun 27, 2004 #8
    Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.
  10. Jun 27, 2004 #9
    Ergo Hoc Proctor Hoc I guess.

    http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  11. Jun 27, 2004 #10
    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: May 1, 2017
  12. Jun 30, 2004 #11
    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?
  13. Jun 30, 2004 #12
    Would you prefer having three countries increasing their WMD stock?
  14. Jul 1, 2004 #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.
  15. Jul 2, 2004 #14
    So do you want these countries to get WMD or not? Thats what it boils down to. I dont care how much youre pissed off at this war in Iraq, snap out of it.
  16. Jul 2, 2004 #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.
  17. Jul 2, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Just for clarity, are you saying you believe all countries are equally trustworthy?
  18. Jul 2, 2004 #17
    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!).
  19. Jul 2, 2004 #18
    I agree, I want a nuke too!
  20. Jul 2, 2004 #19


    User Avatar

    Me too! Me too! and then one day...when my PMS is particularly unmanageable and I just want to send the whole lot of ya ta hell....BHAHAHAHAHA KABOOOM~! CYA!
  21. Jul 2, 2004 #20
    I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook