|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| The problem is that NO country should have nuclear weapons. |
Ideally, no country should need them. Ideally, no police officer would need a gun, either. But the reality is that, for self-defence purposes, some countries need nuclear weapons and some people need guns. . |
I'd suspect that North Korea and KJI are using the same logic - especially the self defence argument.
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
So when a country like the US says they are appalled even when they invented the damn things, have the most advanced stockpile, and the only country to ever use one against another country it seems a little stupid. |
The US is a legitimate, free country who can be trusted with having nuclear weapons; they have demonstrated that they deserve this trust. North Korea is (arguably) the most oppressive country in the world, and continues to commit what could be interpreted as acts of war against others (production of counterfeit currency, for example). It has no right to exist, and neither does any country who controls every aspect of its citizens lives at the point of a gun.. |
Sure, the Norks are provocative and aren't 'playing by the rules', but it's a hard ask to convince them that they have, "no right to exist". Are you saying, North Korea can now be "legitimately" attacked and overthrown?
It's all a bit irrelevant considering the past 50 years hasn't seen much in the way of overt attempts at regime change. NK now has a larger military deterrent than before, so it's increasingly unlikely that there will be a preemptory US/SK attack. The OP's article is making the point that NK has just made their position all the more tenable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cwemory
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Location: Gunpo, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Octavius (and others) always allege that "only the U.S. has ever used them." I am not certain of what exactly they are getting at. If they are saying that only the U.S. has demonstrated aggressiveness with nuclear weapons, then that is not true.
|
Not arguing, just curious, but what other nations have used nuclear weapons? Outside of testing, I always assumed it was only the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manlyboy
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
More weapons, more danger. Less weapons, less danger.
Lock the thread now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
America should have them in case Aliens attack us and England should have them because you can't trust the French (or the Germans).
Everyone else can piss off, espeically Pakistan who I trust less than NK not to use them.
[/quote]I'd suspect that North Korea and KJI are using the same logic - especially the self defence argument.
| Quote: |
Yes, well this is how the west is in a pickle.
Iraq had no nukes...so Iraq was easy prey.
The North has nukes so if nothing happens to the North and they keep on keeping on then you've given a green light to Iran ect.....so the message will be to dictatorships 'nuke up or end up like Saddam'.
But how to slap North Korea down...who knows? Sanctions have failed, talks have failed, invasion is difficult with the Iraq thing taking up too much time, nuke them first and you've lost the moral high ground.
I really think the west is at a loss how to handle this. It's an impossible situation. |
Last edited by Neil on Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:27 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mortin21
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
kind of funny that this post has led to this; I actually started it in mocking sarcasm to the Toronto Star (follow the original link) which stated that NK deserved nukes just as much as US, UK, etc did but in the same article stated how it had used rogue methods to achieve its means
I notice a lot of posts stating that America shouldn't have them either, and this is the reason countries continue to build them, and that if America did away with them they would be justified in seeking non-proliferation.
However, America does have nukes as do Pakistan, Russia, and NK now; they do exist. No point in stating whether or not we should have them as completely getting rid of them would be detrimental to society. Sure other advanced nations that followed similar methods of politics, trade, economics, etc... would see it in their best interests to rid themselves of nukes in order to continue on among the nations elite. However, as seen with NK, with strict guidelines comes though nations which will cross the line. NK has repeatedly shown that it is not among these nations and does not follow such guidelines... and they are not alone. It should be enough to say that if they cannot even feed their own people, developing nukes in an aggressive manner should be way out of the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| But its ok for the US, Israel, France, Britain and China???? You see, thats why NK and Iran dont and never will listen to the US or the UN, just like when you were a teenager all people hate: "Do as I say, not as I do". |
You sound like you're still thinking like a teenager and you seem to have ignored my point completely. It's very simple.
It's ok for the US, France, and Britain to have nukes because we're on the same side. I'd rather Israel didn't have them but at least they're never going to use them against my country. China shouldn't have them but there's nothing we can do about that now.
Unless you can guarantee that North Korea and Iran are never going to use nukes against my country, or start WW3, then why should I listen to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwemory wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Octavius (and others) always allege that "only the U.S. has ever used them." I am not certain of what exactly they are getting at. If they are saying that only the U.S. has demonstrated aggressiveness with nuclear weapons, then that is not true.
|
Not arguing, just curious, but what other nations have used nuclear weapons? Outside of testing, I always assumed it was only the U.S. |
Please note that I did not employ the verb "used." I specifically and expressly said "demonstrated aggressiveness with nuclear weapons" and I cited Castro's cable to Moscow asking the Soviets to nuke the U.S. to show what I meant.
I will cite another example: India and Pakistan (and presumably Iran, too) seem to be relying on nuclear weapons to assert their nationalism. These are completely different (and puerile) reasons than those which led the U.S., the Soviets, and Great Britain to develop and stockpile nukes.
It is not a matter of states X, Y, and Z have them...so why can't everybody else? We are talking about thermonuclear devices, man. Can you and the others here really not see the issues that are at stake?
People with a felony conviction, a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction, and/or mental instability may not legally buy firearms in the U.S. Do you think that it is fair that because the law-abiding, stable citizens may have guns, then therefore everyone else should too?
In any case, I write in a very specific, nuanced style. Please read it that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwemory
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Location: Gunpo, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| cwemory wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Octavius (and others) always allege that "only the U.S. has ever used them." I am not certain of what exactly they are getting at. If they are saying that only the U.S. has demonstrated aggressiveness with nuclear weapons, then that is not true.
|
Not arguing, just curious, but what other nations have used nuclear weapons? Outside of testing, I always assumed it was only the U.S. |
Please note that I did not employ the verb "used." I specifically and expressly said "demonstrated aggressiveness with nuclear weapons" and I cited Castro's cable to Moscow asking the Soviets to nuke the U.S. to show what I meant.
I will cite another example: India and Pakistan (and presumably Iran, too) seem to be relying on nuclear weapons to assert their nationalism. These are completely different (and puerile) reasons than those which led the U.S., the Soviets, and Great Britain to develop and stockpile nukes.
It is not a matter of states X, Y, and Z have them...so why can't everybody else? We are talking about thermonuclear devices, man. Can you and the others here really not see the issues that are at stake?
People with a felony conviction, a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction, and/or mental instability may not legally buy firearms in the U.S. Do you think that it is fair that because the law-abiding, stable citizens may have guns, then therefore everyone else should too?
In any case, I write in a very specific, nuanced style. Please read it that way. |
Thank you for the clarification |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 2. Again, only the US has evered used them, thus I (and most thinking people) see this as sticking point of deep hypocrisy. |
I agree; I've only stated that hypocrisy is better than everyone being dead.
| Quote: |
| 3. Many of the states that the UN and the US allows to have these weapons are either not democratic or likely to be attacked and consider using them in a retaliatory way. Pakistan can hardly be considered a sane player |
That's true. But Russia has had them for a long time and acquired them in different circumstances, and the states was not happy about Pakistan having them, but seems to grit their teeth and accept it as they are needed as an ally. I don't necessarily agree with all that, but it is realpolitik, I suppose.
| Quote: |
| 3. You guys keep thinking that states should act like sane individual grownups, but our past history shows us that is neither likely or in many cases possible so thats why no one should have them. |
I agree again; no one should have them. But as long as there's no way anyone can prove that the other guys have also disposed of them, the Americans would be fools to disarm. It also assumes that it's everyone vs. the USA. At best, the USA disarming would make them irrelevant, as countries continued to join the nuclear club to attain parity with Russia/China/whoever.
| Quote: |
| 4. Finally the US could get rid of them and still maintain the ability to develop them within 30 days if not sooner so just keep the knowledge around but dont build, store, stockpile, or test them every again. |
I'm not sure what the difference would be, other than tactical. And, again, it's realpolitik; other countries would just argue that the Americans are lying to justify their own nuclear intentions.
In the distant future, perhaps there will be some form of world government with enough power to ban these weapons permanently. Hopefully humanity survives long enough to create such organization.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nasigoreng
Joined: 14 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes. |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
