North Korea to halt nuclear activities

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rootX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around North Korea's reported agreement to suspend uranium enrichment and nuclear activities, as well as long-range missile tests. Participants explore the implications of this development, including motivations behind North Korea's actions, the potential for compliance, and the broader geopolitical context. The conversation touches on themes of international relations, food security, and the historical context of nuclear deterrence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express optimism about the potential for inspectors to effectively monitor North Korea's compliance with the suspension of nuclear activities.
  • Others are skeptical, suggesting that North Korea may not be truthful about its intentions and could resume activities once it has stabilized its food supply.
  • One viewpoint suggests that the high costs of maintaining nuclear weapons, which may be seen as ineffective, could lead North Korea to reconsider its military strategy.
  • Another participant argues that nuclear weapons serve as a political tool for North Korea, leveraging international aid in exchange for halting weapons development.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for North Korea to sell nuclear technology to non-state actors, such as terrorist groups.
  • Some participants discuss the parallels between North Korea's food supply issues and historical economic challenges faced by other nations, questioning the effectiveness of government policies and international sanctions.
  • There is a suggestion that the U.S. also relies heavily on international trade for food security, drawing comparisons to North Korea's situation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on North Korea's motivations or the implications of its agreement to suspend nuclear activities. Some agree on the potential for political maneuvering, while others emphasize the humanitarian aspects of the food crisis.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding North Korea's internal dynamics and the impact of international sanctions are acknowledged. Participants note the difficulty in assessing the true motivations behind North Korea's actions due to the regime's secrecy and propaganda.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying international relations, nuclear policy, food security issues, and the historical context of state behavior in response to sanctions.

rootX
Messages
478
Reaction score
4
Physics news on Phys.org
I am more inclined to think the North Koreans are lying.
 
They will resume their activity once their country stockpiles enough food I'm sure.
 
With some hope, I wonder if they came to the same conclusion I have, It's too expensive to have weapons that are basically useless. MAD is so last century.
Bombing/killing thousands or more with one drop is not 'precision military targeting' and is not acceptable to the world at large anymore. ( if it ever was )
 
Alfi said:
With some hope, I wonder if they came to the same conclusion I have, It's too expensive to have weapons that are basically useless. MAD is so last century.
Bombing/killing thousands or more with one drop is not 'precision military targeting' and is not acceptable to the world at large anymore. ( if it ever was )

That's not even remotely close to why they're doing this. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate blackmail tool on the world stage. No one seriously expects North Korea to nuke anyone because everyone knows that within a couple of days, the country would cease to exist from retaliation by the US. It's just political BS. "Give us more food for our (literally) starving population or we're going to make weapons". The world would rather give them food and money than have them make weapons, even if everyone is fairly sure they wouldn't use them. Why risk it? Of course, we also worry that they could sell them to countries who don't feel nuclear weapons are useless (which they absolutely are not).

Their country is so screwed up that this is probably the only way they can feed their population.
 
Pengwuino said:
That's not even remotely close to why they're doing this. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate blackmail tool on the world stage. No one seriously expects North Korea to nuke anyone because everyone knows that within a couple of days, the country would cease to exist from retaliation by the US. It's just political BS. "Give us more food for our (literally) starving population or we're going to make weapons". The world would rather give them food and money than have them make weapons, even if everyone is fairly sure they wouldn't use them. Why risk it? Of course, we also worry that they could sell them to countries who don't feel nuclear weapons are useless (which they absolutely are not).

Their country is so screwed up that this is probably the only way they can feed their population.

I would feel remiss to not point out the U.S. is as dependent as North Korea on international trade to feed our populace as well. The sanctions imposed on North Korea have severely limited its trade to a few rogue nations circumventing it. If similar sanctions were imposed on the U.S., I expect there would be similar economic devastation ... the fuel shortages of the 1970s caused by OPEC to punish the U.S. would pale by comparison.

I know you did not explicitly state that N.K. leadership is competent because they can't take care of their people without help from the outside world compared to U.S. leadership, but I felt your statement implied this and hope you concur there is not, necessarily, an absolute objective truth to that assessment.
 
isn't the problem with a rogue state like N Korea have nuclear weapons the fact that it could just go and sell them to rogue subnational groups?

like, y'know, terrorists?
 
HowardVAgnew said:
I would feel remiss to not point out the U.S. is as dependent as North Korea on international trade to feed our populace as well. The sanctions imposed on North Korea have severely limited its trade to a few rogue nations circumventing it. If similar sanctions were imposed on the U.S., I expect there would be similar economic devastation ... the fuel shortages of the 1970s caused by OPEC to punish the U.S. would pale by comparison.

I know you did not explicitly state that N.K. leadership is competent because they can't take care of their people without help from the outside world compared to U.S. leadership, but I felt your statement implied this and hope you concur there is not, necessarily, an absolute objective truth to that assessment.

I just started thinking about this as I left the thread to do some other things. What exactly is the problem with the food supply in NK? Has the land become incapable of supporting the populace? Has their isolationist tendencies prevented them from acquiring the technology capable of producing the food necessary from the land they have to support the country? Is the government intentionally putting policies in place that prevent their agriculture from doing its job?

As you stated, the US has/had a similar problem and there certainly were multiple reasons for this, many of them not caused by the government. I wonder what's the case with NK.
 
  • #10
Alfi said:
With some hope, I wonder if they came to the same conclusion I have, It's too expensive to have weapons that are basically useless. MAD is so last century.
Bombing/killing thousands or more with one drop is not 'precision military targeting' and is not acceptable to the world at large anymore. ( if it ever was )

Hopefully, they would stop wasting their money on military spending and ACTUALLY try to feed their people. So I really like where this is heading, but then again, that may be very unlikely knowing North Korea.
 
  • #11
Pengwuino said:
I just started thinking about this as I left the thread to do some other things. What exactly is the problem with the food supply in NK? Has the land become incapable of supporting the populace? Has their isolationist tendencies prevented them from acquiring the technology capable of producing the food necessary from the land they have to support the country? Is the government intentionally putting policies in place that prevent their agriculture from doing its job?

As you stated, the US has/had a similar problem and there certainly were multiple reasons for this, many of them not caused by the government. I wonder what's the case with NK.

Much of this is theoretical conjecture, of course, but if one agrees there could be at least some few similarities between North Korea today and the USSR prior to its breakup, then there actually is a historic predecessor to communism versus capitalism. I think a lot of Americans arrogantly presume capitalism is better and more capable of delivering needed goods, such as food, where they are needed to go, to those that need food, but the transition of Russia from communism to capitalism was rife with examples I think justify at least some doubt in such assertions.

I think the problems incurred in North Korea (from what little we know based on the few that have escaped, given the dictatorial control over what information gets out about conditions there) attributable to the government would be more in their isolationism earning their spot, and not necessarily internal production and distribution. There are probably areas here or there where they could make production and distribution of food and other basics more efficient here or there, its their inability to trade what they can produce surpluses of for resources they are deficient in, plus the dichotomy of opulence squandered by their elite over their poor (which is a dichotomy that I feel also harms the U.S.) I think, that is the largest factor, and part of that blame probably lays with us. North Korea did not care to be friends, and thanks to what I believe is our own Western xenophobia and intolerance to communism, we seemed a bit earnest to punish them with sanctions.

I in no way would defend nor justify the harm the North Korean government has caused its people, but I do feel a lot of my "fellow" Americans are a bit arrogant and ignorant in denying our own responsibility for the state of things for the masses of the North Korean people suffering in their dire economic situation.
 
  • #12
HowardVAgnew said:
intolerance to communism,
But you are tolerant?
 
  • #13
mheslep said:
But you are tolerant?

I view myself as, generally more tolerant than most to most things, but intolerant toward intolerance and not blindly loyal or patriotic to elements of popular culture.
 
  • #14
mheslep said:
But you are tolerant?

Why wouldn't someone be tolerant of it? If mexico decided to become communist and the people there supported it, why would we try and stop them? To me there is no reason why a capitalist society and a communist one can't get along. As long as one is not trying to impress their views upon the other.
 
  • #15
JonDE said:
Why wouldn't someone be tolerant of it? If mexico decided to become communist and the people there supported it, why would we try and stop them? To me there is no reason why a capitalist society and a communist one can't get along. As long as one is not trying to impress their views upon the other.

No good reason, no, but that's what we did in Viet Nam. The Communists had popular support, but France and the U.S. refused to let the democratic process possibly choose communism, and just accusing a U.S. citizen of ideologically believing in communism was grounds for serious repercussions with McCarthy.
 
  • #16
HowardVAgnew said:
I view myself as, generally more tolerant than most to most things, but intolerant toward intolerance and not blindly loyal or patriotic to elements of popular culture.
I meant tolerant of communism.
 
  • #17
JonDE said:
Why wouldn't someone be tolerant of it? If mexico decided to become communist and the people there supported it, why would we try and stop them? To me there is no reason why a capitalist society and a communist one can't get along. As long as one is not trying to impress their views upon the other.
That is to misunderstand communism. The 'people' do not have the option to support or oppose a communist government. Furthermore Marxist/Leninist communism is not content to stay within its borders. By admission it seeks dominion over competing ideologies.
 
  • #18
mheslep said:
That is to misunderstand communism. The 'people' do not have the option to support or oppose a communist government. Furthermore Marxist/Leninist communism is not content to stay within its borders. By admission it seeks dominion over competing ideologies.

You are mixing words here. By saying that people cannot choose communism is the same as saying that we don't choose to live in a democracy or republic. I meant if the people choose to set up a communist government. It is even more wrong when you look at Nepal, whose parliament has a communist majority.
Inevitably IMO it is human nature to try and spread your beliefs to others, whether its religion or government ideals. That doesn't mean that we cannot live peacefully with our neighbors, without trying to force our ideals on them or vice versa. Since the cold war has ended, the capitalist vs communist war is all but at an end, despite there being many Communist countries still around, yet me maintain peace.
 
  • #19
mheslep said:
That is to misunderstand communism. The 'people' do not have the option to support or oppose a communist government. Furthermore Marxist/Leninist communism is not content to stay within its borders. By admission it seeks dominion over competing ideologies.

Communism and democracy are no more mutually exclusive than capitalism and democracy must be "if one then the other as well." There is no inherent "people may not vote" on policies affecting the public whole. At a basic level, communism simply refers to "a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production." (source: Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) Marxist-Leninist is merely one interpretation of this.

There is no inherent imperialism to communism.
 
  • #20
mheslep said:
I meant tolerant of communism.

I am no less tolerant toward communism than capitalism. I am, most definitely, intolerant to witchhunts of the sort committed by the United States government against supposed "communist sympathizers" in the mid-twentieth century spearheaded by McCarthy. Last decade, there were similar rattlings against anyone with pacifistic, pro-environmental or other 'evil liberal' leanings as being terrorists. I quite firmly believe persecuting and especially prosecuting a person for their supposed political views -- whether the accusation of their political view is correct or not -- is a "thought crime" and the persecution/prosecution itself is an unjust act that should have no place in any society purporting to respect freedom.
 
  • #21
We probably shouldn't be using the terms communism, capitalism, or democracy to refer to what exists today, or has ever existed in the past. So, if we can get past the nonreferring, but ideologically compelling, terminology, one question wrt the thread title seems to be whether or not anybody can trust anything the government of North Korea says. And wrt that my opinion is ... no.
 
  • #22
ThomasT said:
We probably shouldn't be using the terms communism, capitalism, or democracy to refer to what exists today, or has ever existed in the past. So, if we can get past the nonreferring, but ideologically compelling, terminology, one question wrt the thread title seems to be whether or not anybody can trust anything the government of North Korea says. And wrt that my opinion is ... no.

I wouldn't trust them completely. But it is a new leader and he may be different from his father and his father. I hope they aren't just giving them all the food in one lump sum, but slowly over the course of a year or two, to ensure that the inspectors are given an opportunity to really look into what is going on over there.
 
  • #23
HowardVAgnew said:
...I am, most definitely, intolerant to witchhunts of the sort committed by the United States government against supposed "communist sympathizers" in the mid-twentieth century spearheaded by McCarthy.
Doesn't sound like you know much of the history of the time. McCarthy was one small part, though he features heavily in the story of time. There were literally hundreds of Soviet agents in the US at one point, many of them US citizens, dozens of them holding high ranking positions in the US government.

Last decade, there were similar rattlings against anyone with pacifistic, pro-environmental or other 'evil liberal' leanings as being terrorists.
By elected officials? No. Perhaps you mean the current VP of the US and Rep
Mike Doyle.

Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz1o65WL2xm
 
Last edited:
  • #24
mheslep said:
N. Korea, the current topic, is ML communism. You're misinformed. Spend some time on the Manifesto.

You seem to have a knack for selective focus, using the generic word "communism" when you mean a specific interpretation of Marxist-Leninist communism and then calling me mis-informed for describing communism in general when that's the term you've been mis-using, with no specifier. I cited a source for the definition of generic, non-specific communism, yet I'm "mis-informed" for abiding that definition when you fail to specify a variety of communism. If you use the word "communism" and define it as having such characteristics as being forced against will, you are describing all forms of communism as having that. If you only intend to mean a specific variety, like Marxist-Leninist, then it is sloppy and/or intellectually dishonest on your part to use the broader term "communism" and not specify the specific subset and not a personal "misinformed" failing on my part for going by the term you actually used instead of the term you meant to use.
 
  • #25
I challenge you to produce a single example of a true communist society. What western capitalists fought is the militaristic expansion of the Marxist ideology wielded as a tool by totalitarian governments to control their own people and attempt by force to control others. While most western governments are imperfect and constantly struggling to meet the needs of their people while also trying to be "fair", attempting to reach utopian society using violence and oppression could never result in true communism.

Even the most purely intentioned revolutions succumbed to totalitarian rule by dictators. In a true communist society their would be no elite rule over the people and fair distribution of resources to all regardless of education and popular status. That will never ever happen in the real world.
 
  • #26
Pattonias said:
I challenge you to produce a single example of a true communist society. What western capitalists fought is the militaristic expansion of the Marxist ideology wielded as a tool by totalitarian governments to control their own people and attempt by force to control others. While most western governments are imperfect and constantly struggling to meet the needs of their people while also trying to be "fair", attempting to reach utopian society using violence and oppression could never result in true communism.

Even the most purely intentioned revolutions succumbed to totalitarian rule by dictators. In a true communist society their would be no elite rule over the people and fair distribution of resources to all regardless of education and popular status. That will never ever happen in the real world.

by your own words you have also shown that communism does not work, because, like you said, give an example of a situation where a group of people who were aiming at creating a communist nation actually succeeded at creating a prosperous communist nation.

It just hasn't ever worked. You can play the "what if" game until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that communism has always ended in failure.
 
  • #27
SHISHKABOB said:
but it won't change the fact that communism has always ended in failure.

China?
 
  • #28
MarcoD said:
China?

>china
>communist

come on. At best they are *nominally* a communist nation. Even then, I would only call them successful at a international level. The people in China are living horrible horrible lives. Compare situations in China to those of workers in the USA before the Great Depression.

I do not consider China to be successful.
 
  • #29
SHISHKABOB said:
>china
>communist

come on. At best they are *nominally* a communist nation. Even then, I would only call them successful at a international level. The people in China are living horrible horrible lives. Compare situations in China to those of workers in the USA before the Great Depression.

I do not consider China to be successful.

Yeah well. France is at best *nominally* a capitalist nation. And the Chinese experiment didn't end yet. I don't really think it makes a lot of sense to discuss these abstract concepts anyway. It's so twentieth century; I think we're passed that.
 
  • #30
I can concede that pure capitalism is just as much and pipe dream as pure communism. I think as impure capitalist approach has had more successes than impure communism when the welfare of the people are concerned.

And don't think I'm supporting communism as I appreciate being awarded when I work hard.

Oh yeah, a thread having something to do with North Korea...
 

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
2K
News How Will North Korea's Rocket Launch Impact South Korea and Global Stability?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
News Is North Korea's Leadership Turning More Ruthless?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
News North Korea Tensions: 48 Hr Ultimatum from North
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
News Kim Jong-un, China's Deng Xiaoping & North Korea's Reforms
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News What is North Korea's stance on US food aid and NGOs?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
News North Korean satellite launch fails
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
News Undercover BBC journalist uses students as cover in North Korea
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?
  • · Replies 153 ·
6
Replies
153
Views
14K