Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mortin21]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689837230&call_pageid=970599119419
A Toronto Star article by Thomas Walkom
Maybe North Korea not so crazy after all
Reaction to nuclear test over the top
Oct. 14, 2006. 01:00 AM
THOMAS WALKOM

[Moldy Rutabaga]

[Octavius Hite]

The problem is that NO country should have nuclear weapons. 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. Or when a country like Pakistan, who if not for one man (Mushariff), would have sold the technology not only to NK but to Libya, Iran, Iraq, bin Laden, etc etc say that they are appalled is just so offensive.

Again, no country should have them, if the US got rid of them then maybe they could lecture people, but because they don't they lose any credibility.

Those of us who are truly against these weapons want no one to have them. However, most of the right-wing nuts on this board just want the US to have them because then they could live out their facist we want America to really rule the world and show everybody how stupid they have been fantasy they secretly hold.

[Privateer]

[Octavius Hite]

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".

[Moldy Rutabaga]

Back in Philosophy class, I remember the standard question: 'Is it okay to steal food if your children are starving?' What the discussion generates is the problematic idea that sometimes ethics contradict each other, and we have to rank which ethic is higher, honesty or parenting.

Here I think we have the same problem: the survival of our species against equality. To me there's no contest; I'll take the inequality and hypocrisy of US/China/Rich-guy-country having nuclear weapons against a free-for-all proliferation.

Yes, the USA has not always had a very clean track record. But think this through; if the USA, a constitutional democracy with some checks and balances and a relatively free press, has used nuclear weapons twice and considered their use on other occasions, what would a closed, dictatorial, ideology-driven state have done in the last sixty years with nuclear weapons? I have a bad feeling we're going to find out eventually.

Of course the ideal scenario is that everyone scrap their weapons and stop being hypocrites. But the idea that if the Americans stop being a nuclear power they'll be on higher moral ground to argue that other states do the same is fanciful; do we really think that such states will reciprocate and do the right thing when they have nuclear weapons and the Americans don't anymore?

The knowledge is out there; the tools are out there; there is no going back now. We can either have everyone using the weapons or else the major powers trying to contain their use through diplomacy or the threat of counterattack.

Ken:>

[Leslie Cheswyck]

Mommy, why can't I go on the big ride?

[Junior]

Is it possible that the US has benefitted from North korea's existence all these years? I mean, it has served to limit the East Asian economy. If north Korea was free, there would be no brakes whatsoever and the US would begin its slide down the rankings.

[Octavius Hite]

Moldy, your argument fails for a few reasons. 1. The reason I am singling out the US is they are the most vocal country calling for everyone to disarm, not my own anti-american sentiment. However, even at their most sincere, they have never given even a slight hint that they would ever even consider doing the same even if the rest of the world verifiable abondoned WMD now and forever I believe and anyone with a brain knows the US and the Israelis would never get rid of them.

2. Again, only the US has evered used them, thus I (and most thinking people) see this as sticking point of deep hypocrisy.

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, the day that the Mullahs take over and give Musharif the chop is a dangerous day and reason the US should stop them. Not to mention they sold the technology to more than 1 country. Israel has the US and Europe saying they will defend it and yet it develops nukes thereby causing every Arab to want one.

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.

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.

[Gopher]

[dogbert]

@OP:

Why can't children have matches?

[Octavius Hite]

Gopher, duh,:

Hiroshima, Japan, August 6, 1945 60,000 dead.

Nagasaki, Japan, August 9, 1945 70,000 dead.

Now, I'm not sure, sometimes my mind slips, but I am pretty sure those were American bombs that were dropped.

Also, I have a question for you:

If a nuclear armed country invades another country, should the invading country be subject to sanctions?

[Gopher]

[seoulunitarian]

[cdninkorea]