The summary is just wrong... Nobody is suggesting (except the person writing this summary) that the payload of this rocket was anything more than a communications satellite.
What the international community is concerned about is that this really isn't about the satellite and is instead just an excuse to test better ICBMs.
North Korea is banned from launching ICBMs but allowed to conduct space exploration.
Multiple wrongs do not make a right, and you can't undo history. Putting effective ICBMs in the hands of someone like Kim Jong Il is insanely irresponsible.
The childish "you do it, so can I can too" approach you're taking is precisely that: indicative of a severely socially maladjusted person with no grasp of the severity of this situation. Let me take a quote from your post and modify it to suite this situation: until you've got better than a third grade education in these matters, shut the fuck up.
Except it would make sense for us to "destroy" ours before we enforce our own hypocritical policies.
If it was simply something we "did" in the past, then it's one thing, but our foreign policy requires us to basically tell everyone else what to do because somehow we're better then them.
I'll support us destroying our nuclear stockpile just as soon as I have 100% assurance that the rest of the nuclear-equipped nations are doing the same, simultaneously.
Obviously, this is never going to work. The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. What's important now is determining the likelihood that an aggressive nation bent on insane policy will use nuclear weapons on their neighbors... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea.
Right, the US is running around making sweeping genocidal threats. You're living in a fantasy land. How's the view from there? Whenever you're ready to join the world of the sane, let me know. I'll have your meds ready for you, kid.
Right, the US is running around making sweeping genocidal threats.
Nope, no one ever said anything about making genocidal threats. Your post said "What's important now is determining the likelihood that an aggressive nation bent on insane policy will use nuclear weapons on their neighbors... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea". To which I replied that the US can also be described as being an aggressive nation bent on insane policy. As for the likelihood that the US will use nuclear weapons on their neighbours, I make no comment other than to point out that the
As for the use of nuclear weapons, all it took was once for the whole world to realize we should avoid such a situation at all costs. You're describing events that took place nearly a century ago and attempting to draw some sort of rational parallel to modern military tactics. That's insane at face value.
Like I told another poster, if you honestly believe North Korea represents a better life for you and your family I'll gladly buy you a one way plane ticket to the capital. Have fun expressing your politi
As for the use of nuclear weapons, all it took was once for the whole world to realize we should avoid such a situation at all costs.
Once? You know that the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese cities on 2 separate occasions don't you?
You're describing events that took place nearly a century ago and attempting to draw some sort of rational parallel to modern military tactics. That's insane at face value.
Not really - I'm pointing out that the US really has no business telling people they can't have nuclear weapons whilst they are continuing to arm themselves with these weapons. If the US was really interested in peace rather than control, they would disarm themselves - then other nations might actually listen. At the moment it is more of a "do as I say, not do as I do" situation with the added threat tha
Again, you have no grasp whatsoever of how these things work. Yes, buddy, I am keenly aware of the fact that two bombs were dropped on Japan. It's still one terrible event in my mind.
You seem stuck on the issue of "hypocrisy." Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actua
You seem stuck on the issue of "hypocrisy." Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actually taking their missiles apart would be insanity.
This is exactly my point. The US (and all the other nuclear nations) feel that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves just in case one of the other nuclear nations decide to attack, even though none of the nuclear nations have been especially aggressive against each other for quite some time.
In light of this, why wouldn't the non-nuclear nations want to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves against attacks from these same nations. Especially since some of these nations are actively being aggre
Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actually taking their missiles apart would be insanity.
Right, so the US has nuclear weapons now and won't disarm because then it'd be at the mercy of the countries that still have them. Equally, Korea wants to have nuclear weapons because otherwise it's at the mercy of the countries that already have them. The reasoning is identical.
North Korea already has nuclear weapons capability, if their 2006 test is legitimate, which independent observers believe it was. While the test may have been a partial fizzile with a yield of about a kiloton, it's unlikely that they'll get it wrong again. At this point, trying to get NK to unilaterally disarm without the use of force is pretty much a lost cause. A better long run strategy is to just let NK have a limited nuclear weapons program, so long as it it subject to some kind of arms limitation tr
You're having a hard time understanding the concept that more nuclear weapons, in the hands of more countries, makes it all the more likely that somebody will do something stupid.
You're having a hard time understanding the concept that more nuclear weapons, in the hands of more countries, makes it all the more likely that somebody will do something stupid.
No, actually I'd agree with that statement. But "hey you guys keep not having them while we keep having them" is no more realistic than "okay, we'll give up ours while you guys keep yours".
However great it would be for fewer countries to have them, the pretence that the other countries don't need them for deterrence but that we do because otherwise people might threaten *US* (OMG)... it's silly, it's absurd, it's self-serving and it's not going to convince anyone. I don't have a good solution but I don't se
Not really - I'm pointing out that the US really has no business telling people they can't have nuclear weapons whilst they are continuing to arm themselves with these weapons.
Yes they can because they have more weapons and power then the other countries they're trying to enforce. However much you WANT that to be different doesn't matter, this is the reality of the world we live in and this is how stuff gets done.
Huh... You might wanna take a look at my upper post that has a quote from "The Assault on Reason" pal. Then you can also ask Al Gore about the view he has from fantasy land and perhaps he'll even consider joining the world of the sane and take the meds you're prescribing...
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.
-- Sagan
Summary is hopelessly wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary is just wrong...
Nobody is suggesting (except the person writing this summary) that the payload of this rocket was anything more than a communications satellite.
What the international community is concerned about is that this really isn't about the satellite and is instead just an excuse to test better ICBMs.
North Korea is banned from launching ICBMs but allowed to conduct space exploration.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Banned by who? The countries which already have them? Where do one sign up?
Whatever it's about environment, peoples rights, weapons or whatever the same rules apply: Clean up in your own backyard or shut the fuck up!
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
The childish "you do it, so can I can too" approach you're taking is precisely that: indicative of a severely socially maladjusted person with no grasp of the severity of this situation. Let me take a quote from your post and modify it to suite this situation: until you've got better than a third grade education in these matters, shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Except it would make sense for us to "destroy" ours before we enforce our own hypocritical policies.
If it was simply something we "did" in the past, then it's one thing, but our foreign policy requires us to basically tell everyone else what to do because somehow we're better then them.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, this is never going to work. The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. What's important now is determining the likelihood that an aggressive nation bent on insane policy will use nuclear weapons on their neighbors... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea.
Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... (Score:-1, Troll)
an aggressive nation bent on insane policy ... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea.
And the US...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Right, the US is running around making sweeping genocidal threats.
Nope, no one ever said anything about making genocidal threats. Your post said "What's important now is determining the likelihood that an aggressive nation bent on insane policy will use nuclear weapons on their neighbors... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea". To which I replied that the US can also be described as being an aggressive nation bent on insane policy. As for the likelihood that the US will use nuclear weapons on their neighbours, I make no comment other than to point out that the
Re: (Score:2)
Like I told another poster, if you honestly believe North Korea represents a better life for you and your family I'll gladly buy you a one way plane ticket to the capital. Have fun expressing your politi
Re: (Score:2)
As for the use of nuclear weapons, all it took was once for the whole world to realize we should avoid such a situation at all costs.
Once? You know that the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese cities on 2 separate occasions don't you?
You're describing events that took place nearly a century ago and attempting to draw some sort of rational parallel to modern military tactics. That's insane at face value.
Not really - I'm pointing out that the US really has no business telling people they can't have nuclear weapons whilst they are continuing to arm themselves with these weapons. If the US was really interested in peace rather than control, they would disarm themselves - then other nations might actually listen. At the moment it is more of a "do as I say, not do as I do" situation with the added threat tha
Re: (Score:2)
You seem stuck on the issue of "hypocrisy." Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actua
Re: (Score:2)
You seem stuck on the issue of "hypocrisy." Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actually taking their missiles apart would be insanity.
This is exactly my point. The US (and all the other nuclear nations) feel that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves just in case one of the other nuclear nations decide to attack, even though none of the nuclear nations have been especially aggressive against each other for quite some time.
In light of this, why wouldn't the non-nuclear nations want to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves against attacks from these same nations. Especially since some of these nations are actively being aggre
Re: (Score:1)
Let me help you out: nuclear disarmament is impossible, because there is no way any one nation can be absolutely assured that all other nations are simultaneously dismantling their stockpiles. To dismantle your own missiles and assume another nation was good to their word and actually taking their missiles apart would be insanity.
Right, so the US has nuclear weapons now and won't disarm because then it'd be at the mercy of the countries that still have them. Equally, Korea wants to have nuclear weapons because otherwise it's at the mercy of the countries that already have them. The reasoning is identical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're having a hard time understanding the concept that more nuclear weapons, in the hands of more countries, makes it all the more likely that somebody will do something stupid.
No, actually I'd agree with that statement. But "hey you guys keep not having them while we keep having them" is no more realistic than "okay, we'll give up ours while you guys keep yours".
However great it would be for fewer countries to have them, the pretence that the other countries don't need them for deterrence but that we do because otherwise people might threaten *US* (OMG)... it's silly, it's absurd, it's self-serving and it's not going to convince anyone. I don't have a good solution but I don't se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think we're at least broadly in agreement then :) Thanks for the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes they can because they have more weapons and power then the other countries they're trying to enforce. However much you WANT that to be different doesn't matter, this is the reality of the world we live in and this is how stuff gets done.
Re: (Score:1)