North Korea and its missile launches

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter J77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Missile
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around North Korea's missile launches and the implications for international relations, particularly concerning the United States and its response to perceived threats. Participants explore the motivations behind political statements regarding these threats, the stability of North Korea's leadership, and the broader context of nuclear weapons policy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the necessity of political reassurances regarding North Korea's missile threats, suggesting it may be a routine response to public concern.
  • Others argue that such reassurances could set a precedent for future threats, indicating a need for transparency from political leaders.
  • A participant raises concerns about the credibility of political leaders, particularly in the context of past statements regarding Iraq and Iran.
  • There is speculation about Kim Jong-il's mental stability and intentions, with some suggesting he may not be suicidal but rather seeking to elevate North Korea's status.
  • Participants discuss the perceived double standards in U.S. nuclear policy, particularly regarding its stance on other nations developing weapons of mass destruction.
  • Some express skepticism about the effectiveness of North Korea's military capabilities, suggesting that the country is not in a position to back its missile launches with substantial military power.
  • There are differing views on the implications of North Korea's actions for regional security, particularly concerning Japan and South Korea.
  • The discussion includes reflections on the historical context of U.S. military presence in Europe and its implications for global power dynamics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on North Korea's missile launches and the U.S. response, with no clear consensus on the implications or motivations behind these actions. Disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of U.S. nuclear policy and the stability of North Korea's leadership.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various political statements and historical contexts, but there are unresolved assumptions about the motivations behind North Korea's missile tests and the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy.

J77
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
1
North Korea's thrown its seventh missile in the air.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5149512.stm

None of them got very far.

Heard that GWB has reassured the American people that there is not a threat.

I thought this quite strange and thought - as there are a lot of US posters here - do the American people really need to be reassured that North Korea's missiles don't pose a threat to them?.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why not? The DPRK puts on an air show, some people might think there's a real danger, so a politican goes on air to explain there's not. Quite ordinary.

More relevant - why has the said politician been doing the exact opposite with Iraq, and now Iran? Trying to terrify the nation over non-existant threats?
 
The way I see it, if you make a deal about there being no threat. You're setting the game up for the future when there may be a threat. Thinking a bit more, it probably stems from the need to make the public think they're getting all the facts before (and if) a big event takes place.

Following your second point, why waste the opportunity of quoting Hicks:
“People say "Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world". Yeah, maybe, but you know what, after the first 3 largest armies, there's a REAL big ****ing drop-off. The Hare Krishnas are the 5th largest army in the world, and they've already got all our airports.”

edit: I can't believe the next two posts following this one :smile: :smile:
 
Last edited:
Fourth? How do you fit China, India, Pakistan, NK, SK and USA (and maybe Russia, Iran and Myanmar) in 3 spots?

As for the OP, it is the expected (well if it's not true, it's not like he's going to tell the people to panic) thing to do. How much credibility it carries is another question - a large part of the population is not particularly likely to trust the words of this President.
 
UK, France, Israel, Greece, Turkey... I am sure are bigger than the Hare Krishnas
 
You can bet yor boots that the multiple missile launch by NK will give our missile defense system a boost in funding.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=June&x=20060621173431idybeekcm0.2920038

After all North Korea is still a member of Bush's axis of evil. Although NK is not a great threat to the USA at this time, Japan and South Korea are not going to see things that way. And if the North Koreans ever get that longer range missile to function, the USA will be faced with a real problem.

NK does have nukes and apparently a way to deliver them, add to that the mental instability of that little maniac who controls the country and we do have a global problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I can't consider Kim Jong-il to be mentally stable by any means, he doesn't strike as suicidal either.
 
kyleb said:
While I can't consider Kim Jong-il to be mentally stable by any means, he doesn't strike as suicidal either.

I would guess that crazy lil Kim has a bunker he thinks he can survive in.
 
And who can recognize the double standard, the USA the only country that actually used the atomic bomb, twice, telling other countries that developing weapons of mass destruction is a bad thing.
No, only the USA, and of course Israel, since "Israel is our friend", ought to have them.
Welcome to the ironic morality of the current US administration.
 
  • #10
edward said:
I would guess that crazy lil Kim has a bunker he thinks he can survive in.
I don't see any evidence to suggest he is that naive.
 
  • #11
Hes trying to make North Korea a superpower, but in the process ticking off every country. It looks like to me he brought attention to himself to fast with these missiles, i don't think they have the military to back it up yet and also North Korea is a poor country, a lot of people are starving over there. Hes just asking to be taken out.
 
  • #12
That reminds me of this little guy at the local gym who has a kinda a crazy look in his eye and has been getting rather frisky with the speed bag lately. I suppose you'd say he is just asking for a good old-fashioned beat down as well, eh?
 
  • #13
You are assuming i meant killed, and do you think what he is doing is right? I think he's the reason North Korea is where its at now.
 
  • #14
MeJennifer said:
And who can recognize the double standard, the USA the only country that actually used the atomic bomb, twice, telling other countries that developing weapons of mass destruction is a bad thing.
No, only the USA, and of course Israel, since "Israel is our friend", ought to have them.
Welcome to the ironic morality of the current US administration.
Really? U.S. policy is that "Only USA and Israel may have WMD?" :rolleyes:

I'm sure there are reasonable arguments for (and against) the position that there is a double standard. If you want to believe there's a double standard, at least base it on one of those, rather than the sort of inane rhetoric in the quote above. :frown: (Of course, it would be better to listen to the arguments and then form your opinion)

Oh, and FYI, double standards aren't inherently bad things.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Hurkyl said:
Really? U.S. policy is that "Only USA and Israel can have WMD?"
Pretty much.

The only other countries who have them are either in Europe and then there is China and Israel.

The US army is still in Europe 60 years after the war, can you believe it! The European countries simply have to follow the USA in everything, NATO is controlled by the USA.

So there is no risk there and standing up against China is apparently not something they wish to risk.

So who else got nukes? Well perhaps India got one and Russia but they are not a real players.
 
  • #16
Theons said:
You are assuming i meant killed, ...
I figure there would be a lot of people killed, unless you have a non-violent plan in mind when you suggested taking him out?
Theons said:
...and do you think what he is doing is right?
As in testing missiles? I'd rather he didn't feel compelled to, but all the same I can understand why he is.
Theons said:
I think he's the reason North Korea is where its at now.
How do you mean specifically, and are you speaking in comparison to where it was under his father?
 
  • #17
Well getting him out of office would most likly result in death, but not him which is what i meant. With the missile testing, i don't think he had any right shooting them where he did, certainly didnt have Japans promission. Where its at now by how he's exileing them from the other countrys by doing things like this, and he has to have play in the fact its a starving country.
 
  • #18
MeJennifer said:
The US army is still in Europe 60 years after the war, can you believe it! The European countries simply have to follow the USA in everything, NATO is controlled by the USA.
Really? I didn't realize Europe was a colony of the US.

(Incidentally, if you're interested, Wikipedia has a list of countries with nuclear weapons, and an article on the non-proliferation treaty)


Okay, so you're saying US policy is "Only the US and Israel may have nukes... but we don't really mind if our puppets in France and Britain have them, nor do we mind if those irrelevant countries (Russia, India, Pakistan) have them. But by golly, we need to keep them out of Kim's hands!"?

(er wait... why again is it a bad thing that don't like Kim having nukes?)
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Hurkyl said:
Really? I didn't realize Europe was a colony of the US.

(Incidentally, if you're interested, Wikipedia has a list of countries with nuclear weapons, and an article on the non-proliferation treaty)


Okay, so you're saying US policy is "Only the US and Israel may have nukes... but we don't really mind if our puppets in France and Britain have them, nor do we mind if those irrelevant countries (Russia, India, Pakistan) have them. But by golly, we need to keep them out of Kim's hands!"?

(er wait... why again is it a bad thing that don't like Kim having nukes?)
Well the way i think of it as, we are at a point where we are trying to get rid of nukes. To have them start pressureing it and when we told them to stop enriching urainum for them to keep on doing it, and now firing missiles into Japan's sea without warning or permission, it makes you wonder what they are up to and why they are trying so hard to get nukes, i don't think they are under threat by any country are they? Are they planing on useing these nukes there trying to create? Or are they just trying to become a superpower? If they are, there going about the wrong way of doing it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
North Korea is just digging a deeper and deeper hole...
 

Similar threads

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
Mystery Missile Launch in California
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
10K
News North Korean satellite launch fails
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
News What is North Korea's stance on US food aid and NGOs?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
News Undercover BBC journalist uses students as cover in North Korea
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Kim Jong-un, China's Deng Xiaoping & North Korea's Reforms
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News What Secrets Does ESCAPING NORTH KOREA Reveal About Life Under Kim Jong-il?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
North Korea about to launch ICBM test and/or space satellite
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
16K