|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I will restate my position that a military attack on Japan is highly unlikely and if undertaken would be done in conjunction with an attack on South Korea. |
I wouldn't be surprised if some half-way measure was taken by North Korea. A lesser attack, say, a ship full of explosives - non-nuclear, on a Japanese port, or shipping interests. Or some kind of 'accident'. Not saying that it is likely, but it's a danger. Not quite enough to warrant a large-scale response - not while Seoul is still held hostage by artillery. But, just enough to poke at Japan if NK wants too.
Japan might have sensed that too and insisted on no NK ships entering it's ports as a punitive (defensive?) sanction. |
This is very different to a strike by Rodong missiles, a naval assault, an airstrike or mobilization of the infantry against Japan. Besides, the North Korean threats were made after the Japanese government called for a ban on port calls of North Korean vessels meaning an "accident" involving a ship packed with explosives would never be seen as such.
White Elephant has been talking of an assault involving chemical and biological weapons which would be a hugely disproportionate response to sanctions and definitely would result in a war on the peninsula - something not even Kim Jong il is crazy enough to want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Like a Rolling Stone
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 872
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can't we just negoitate a peace for everyone? 
Why do you all want a big war?
I say, make tea, not war   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nawlinsgurl
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 363
Location: Kanagawa and feeling Ok....
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
FYI-Ships deploy everyday, sometimes for a day, sometimes for months. I'm on the Navy base here in Kanagawa everyday and we see ships come in and out. So if they deploy it doesn't mean there's an imminent war. Someone stated earlier "if US Navy ships deploy thats a sign of war."
It's not. On a US base abroad, its a daily thing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
White_Elephant
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nawlinsgurl wrote: |
FYI-Ships deploy everyday, sometimes for a day, sometimes for months. I'm on the Navy base here in Kanagawa everyday and we see ships come in and out. So if they deploy it doesn't mean there's an imminent war. Someone stated earlier "if US Navy ships deploy thats a sign of war."
It's not. On a US base abroad, its a daily thing. |
This is what I said:
| Quote: |
| One sign I'm lookin out for is the US Navy battleships. If those get deployed over here in significant numbers, there WILL be a war. First word of those being deployed and I am so out of this region. |
I'm talking about the United States government deploying significant numbers of Navy battleships to the Pacific region in response to the nuclear tests. I'm not talking about routine, regular deployments. Also, I'm not talking about just any ole ships. Nor am I talking about Navy ships that dock to reload up on fuel and supplies either. Obviously, this is common sense here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ndorfn
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 126
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
| ndorfn wrote: |
I think nuclear weapons should be banned, full stop.
|
Yes, and may I add that we should have World peace and everyone should be happy and death should be abolished.
I think if the USA was less of a bully and got rid of its nuclear weapons then every other country would do the same and if nuclear weapons were banned that would solve everything because no one can get hold of something banned. |
Sarcasm is the lowest form of shwit sunshine. My point remains the same, there are a bunch of pots running around calling everyone black.
Like Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ndorfn wrote: |
| Sarcasm is the lowest form of shwit sunshine. |
I know, but I love it anyway.
I think my point was that you can ban nuclear weapons if there is any kind of political will to do so but how can it be enforced?
There are plenty of nations that are taking a hypocritical stance but there are only two options outside of this hypocrisy.
Either, no one can have them or everyone should be allowed them. Given that nuclear weapons cannot be prevented now that they and the technology exists a ban is never going to be enforcable.
I hate to say this but I think we are sliding towards the apocalypse, the only thing that is practical is to delay this slide as much as possible. If hypocrisy is the price of this delay then so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One might turn that around and say that more nukes out there means less chance of the apocalypse. Remember, nukes are a defensive weapon, not an offensive one....except of course for their introduction in August of 1945.
Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we haven't seen a conflict like WWI or WWII...where casualties were measured in the tens of millions. Nukes restrain, to some degree, adventurism and total all-out war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
One might turn that around and say that more nukes out there means less chance of the apocalypse. Remember, nukes are a defensive weapon, not an offensive one....except of course for their introduction in August of 1945.
Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we haven't seen a conflict like WWI or WWII...where casualties were measured in the tens of millions. Nukes restrain, to some degree, adventurism and total all-out war. |
This is true enough. The only problem with this thesis is that MAD works when few players are involved. To say that a war on the scale of WW1 or WW2 has been averted because of nuclear weapons is true. But we are talking about a very limited timescale of less than one hundred years. Wars on the scale of WW1 and WW2 had never occurred until the twentieth century. Methods of mass extermination have recently increased in a somewhat exponential way.
All kinds of weapons have prevented people from starting fights. This is the same rationale that some people use in the US for preventing gun control. Yet, we have plenty of evidence for saying that when these weapons are allowed to be owned by anyone then someone will use them. MAD will work when rational agents are involved, but saying that the more nuclear weapons there are the safer we will all be forgets an important consideration: That someone will use them irrationally.
60 years is hardly a good enough timescale to merit the assertion that nuclear weapons prevent war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Granted...60 years isn't enough time to say that nukes prevents all out war. But, neither can we say it leads to the apocalypse.
| Quote: |
| That someone will use them irrationally. |
That is interesting. What would you call an irrational use of a nuclear weapon? Saddam once used chemical weapons on the Kurds, and no one called him on it. I'm sure he deemed their use rational at the time....since it served him some limited purpose. If the Kurds had had any kind of weapon system to counter that threat, or to assure retalliation, then the rationale for gassing the Kurds would have evaporated. Some other less massively destructive tactic would have been used.
Dont get me wrong here...I'm not saying everyone should have WMD. I'm just looking at how their limited proliferation doesn't mean the End is Nigh. At worst, it means those in the nuclear club lose some advantage held over those 60 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
Granted...60 years isn't enough time to say that nukes prevents all out war. But, neither can we say it leads to the apocalypse.
| Quote: |
| That someone will use them irrationally. |
That is interesting. What would you call an irrational use of a nuclear weapon? Saddam once used chemical weapons on the Kurds, and no one called him on it. I'm sure he deemed their use rational at the time....since it served him some limited purpose. If the Kurds had had any kind of weapon system to counter that threat, or to assure retalliation, then the rationale for gassing the Kurds would have evaporated. Some other less massively destructive tactic would have been used.
Dont get me wrong here...I'm not saying everyone should have WMD. I'm just looking at how their limited proliferation doesn't mean the End is Nigh. At worst, it means those in the nuclear club lose some advantage held over those 60 years. |
First of all, I am again largely in agreement with what you have written. What I say about the apocalypse is largely hyperbolic, but I think that is almost certainly the end result of large-scale proliferation.
My concern is that a country strapped for cash as North Korea is may well see the sale of its new commodity as a way to earn much needed cash. It seems to me that the temptation to do otherwise may be too strong. It may also be too strong of a temptation to worry about just who these weapons are sold to. It could be that these weapons could fall into the hands of those who would use them in an irrational way.
OK, I take your point that what may seem irrational to me won't necessarily seem irrational to someone else. A jihadist (just for argument's sake) may not see apocalyptic martyrdom as irrational but it could be enough to provoke a terrible conflict.
The use of Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds doesn't really further your argument as it was rational for the reasons you have spelt out (the Kurds had no effective countermeasure). If you use this argument you may as well say that the use of nuclear weapons by the US against Japan was irrational when it clearly wasn't (horrible, yes I think so, irrational, no).
It is tempting to say that new members of the nuclear club wipe out the advantage of the nuclear club in the same way that the dreadnought wiped out the British navy's dominance over the German navy prior to WW1, but the difference is that when the nuclear weapons start flying when can any of the nuclear players pull back and request rational dialogue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the very nature of nukes means once they are used, there is no later dialogue much beyond caveman grunting. That in itself makes them difficult to compare against other developments like the crossbow, the catapult, the dreadnought...which were big advances, but still limited when compared to the One Red Button and a million shadows etched in the sidewalk. The nukes won't start flying anytime soon.
| Quote: |
| My concern is that a country strapped for cash as North Korea is may well see the sale of its new commodity as a way to earn much needed cash. It seems to me that the temptation to do otherwise may be too strong. It may also be too strong of a temptation to worry about just who these weapons are sold to. It could be that these weapons could fall into the hands of those who would use them in an irrational way. |
I agree, except on the word irrational. And the most rational response so far has been to try to prevent NK from selling the hardware or knowledge. On this, China has no choice but to agree to some sanctions.
| Quote: |
| If you use this argument you may as well say that the use of nuclear weapons by the US against Japan was irrational when it clearly wasn't (horrible, yes I think so, irrational, no). |
It wasn't irrational, and neither was use of chemical weapons by Saddam. They were tools to use because they served particular needs...nothing more. I suppose one could take the long view and say that ultimately, using chems brought Saddam down since they were part of the justification to go in in 2003 and take him out. Or that using nukes against Japan in 1945 ultimately created the proliferation that exists today. Iran usually cites that when pushed.
| Quote: |
| when the nuclear weapons start flying |
Let me ask you...in the 21st century, which is more irrational -to be the first to use a nuke, or the second? See, I think that even if NK hits Japan with one, they will provoke no nuclear response. That's what makes NK very dangerous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, I want to point out that I am not really in disagreement with most of what you say Guy. Except that you are using some kind of "rational relativism" (I've just made that phrase up) to say the nuclear weapons won't start flying anytime soon. I think I was wrong to use the word "rationality" when it comes to eschatologists (or millenarianists or whatever word you would like to use).
| Quote: |
And the most rational response so far has been to try to prevent NK from selling the hardware or knowledge. On this, China has no choice but to agree to some sanctions.
|
I firmly believe, no matter what other people believe, that China did not want to see North Korea behaving like some attention-seeking teenager.
| Quote: |
| Let me ask you...in the 21st century, which is more irrational -to be the first to use a nuke, or the second? See, I think that even if NK hits Japan with one, they will provoke no nuclear response. That's what makes NK very dangerous |
First of all, North Korea would be crazy to fire off a nuclear weapon at Japan. Second, the "irrationality" of Japan retaliating in kind would not be the more foolish option.
You misunderstand what I am saying if you think I believe that North Korea would resort to these tactics. The concern is not what the North Koreans could do but the price of their technology selling on the black market. It is for this reason that I support hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of a disgusting regime in the White House.
Last edited by furiousmilksheikali on Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
White_Elephant
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
| See, I think that even if NK hits Japan with one, they will provoke no nuclear response. That's what makes NK very dangerous. |
I get this feeling too because China and Russia will threaten to respond back and come to the aid of N. Korea. These countries don't want nuclear bombs-a-blazing in their back yard, millions of N. Korean refugees etc. N. Korea knows this is their wild card they can play at any time. They aren't scared of the USA. This is obvious. That's what makes them dangerous. They have all the potential of provoking another cold war arms race. They have mines capable of producing nuclear materials and many countries/terrorists want those resources. N. Korea is happy to sell them. With sanctions they NEED to sell them to the highest bidder. Who is that going to be? Osama? Yes, N. Korea is nothing to sneeze at right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the last I heard, Japan was still under the United States' nuclear umbrella. A clear cut nuclear attack on Japan would, I'm convinced, result in a nuclear response.
But I'm less worried about that than the scenario suggest above in which a desperate North Korea strapped for cash is willing to sell some of its new technology to the highest bidder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shuize wrote: |
Well, the last I heard, Japan was still under the United States' nuclear umbrella. A clear cut nuclear attack on Japan would, I'm convinced, result in a nuclear response.
But I'm less worried about that than the scenario suggest above in which a desperate North Korea strapped for cash is willing to sell some of its new technology to the highest bidder. |
This is all missing the bigger picture. I read in the Yomiuri today that sanctions on North Korea are going to raise the price of "autumn staples" such as matsutake mushrooms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
