Index
 |
The North Korea Situation. - What should be done? | ||
Discussion by dangerdan with 7 Replies.
Last Update: June 6, 2009, 12:29 pm | |||
 |
|||
North Korea has recently tested nuclear technology to virtual worldwide condemnation. It also announced a 50 year old truce with South Korea was over. They seem undeterred by any international sanctions. Possibly the most rogue nation-state on the planet, Kim Jong-Il has, according to the South Korean media, announced his youngest son - Kim Jong-Un - as his successor.
What are your views on North Korea? i.e. options like military intervention, Kim Jong-Ils departure,
What are your views on North Korea? i.e. options like military intervention, Kim Jong-Ils departure,
Wed Jun 3, 2009 Reply New Discussion
This just my opinion. Youknowwho just want to threat other countries so that he'll get some ca$h. US or UN should :
1. kidnap Youknowwho
2. send rambo, fbi, cia to spy and destroy the nuclear
sorry if this hurt some ppl's feeling
1. kidnap Youknowwho
2. send rambo, fbi, cia to spy and destroy the nuclear
sorry if this hurt some ppl's feeling
Wed Jun 3, 2009 Reply New Discussion
I'm sorry but who is "Youknowwho" are you referring to Kim Jong-Il? or Lord Voldemort? (jokes)
I assume your talking about Kim Jong-Il. I don't think kidnapping him is really an option, for a start getting into North Korea is a problem. Secondly getting anywhere near close enough to Kim Jong-Il is practically impossible.
Also, what about North Korea's sovereignty? The major problem in my opinion is that we don't know what the North Korean's think about Jong-Il or his foreign or domestic policy.
They may be very supportive of his aggressive foreign policy, on the other hand there could (probably are!) be abuses of human rights.
I'd have to agree that he probably is just doing it as some kind of a threat to the rest of the world.
I assume your talking about Kim Jong-Il. I don't think kidnapping him is really an option, for a start getting into North Korea is a problem. Secondly getting anywhere near close enough to Kim Jong-Il is practically impossible.
Also, what about North Korea's sovereignty? The major problem in my opinion is that we don't know what the North Korean's think about Jong-Il or his foreign or domestic policy.
They may be very supportive of his aggressive foreign policy, on the other hand there could (probably are!) be abuses of human rights.
I'd have to agree that he probably is just doing it as some kind of a threat to the rest of the world.
Thu Jun 4, 2009 Reply New Discussion
Sanctions won't work with this country, they are used to being fairly shut off. China hasn't bothered with much of the sanctions, which means a lot.
A lot of the rewards for deals are so big that they accept them, then break the agreement a few years later, then repeat.
A lot of the rewards for deals are so big that they accept them, then break the agreement a few years later, then repeat.
Fri Jun 5, 2009 Reply New Discussion
Yeah exactly sanctions don't work with them.
The fact that China and Russia are sympathetic to them is also a bit worrying in my opinion.
The fact that China and Russia are sympathetic to them is also a bit worrying in my opinion.
Fri Jun 5, 2009 Reply New Discussion
For anything to happen in relation to NK, the existing treaties relating to nukes need to be taken seriously by the main players, Russia and the USA. People can talk all they like about more sanctions against NK, but lets be serious, NK has been sanctioned back to an 1800's standard of living and the people have not revolted against their leadership and over thrown them, so all more sanctions will do is make them even more resolute to have nukes and play in the major leagues with all the other nuke owning nations.
Until the other nuke owning countries take the Non Proliferation Treatise and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty seriously, ratify them and take serious steps to disarming their own bombs, then scared backward nations, who have been bullied by the rest of the world for being communist like NK, will want to have some to make them feel less scared and more accepted by the worlds other big powers.
Until the other nuke owning countries take the Non Proliferation Treatise and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty seriously, ratify them and take serious steps to disarming their own bombs, then scared backward nations, who have been bullied by the rest of the world for being communist like NK, will want to have some to make them feel less scared and more accepted by the worlds other big powers.
Sat Jun 6, 2009 Reply New Discussion
i don't think that china government really has symphaty to north koreans. AFAIK, they do have some treaty that if one country is being attacked, than the other one giving support and help. If anything happens and north korea is attacked by US, china will get involved in the war. this could be the real reason why china doesn't want anything happen to north korea.
btw, the youknowwho probably want to get some economical assistance (again), that's why he threats other country (again). everytime they want to get (economical) assistance or other rewards, they'll break the aggreement. that's only my opinion
The fact that China and Russia are sympathetic to them is also a bit worrying in my opinion.
Link: view Post: 137396
btw, the youknowwho probably want to get some economical assistance (again), that's why he threats other country (again). everytime they want to get (economical) assistance or other rewards, they'll break the aggreement. that's only my opinion
QUOTE (dangerdan)
Yeah exactly sanctions don't work with them.The fact that China and Russia are sympathetic to them is also a bit worrying in my opinion.
Link: view Post: 137396
Sat Jun 6, 2009 Reply New Discussion
I'm a little confused as to why nobody will say his name lol.
Anyway, I completely agree that non-proliferation is the ultimate long term goal. However, it takes very strong leadership across many states (e.g. not just the US) to disarm your own nukes when ultimately others could keep theirs and then your country is defenceless. This is conversely how arms races like this in the first place begin, take the glaring example of the Cold War. Would you advocate US non-proliferation when other countries, again notably NK and Russia, could maintain theirs and instantly became the worlds hegemonic power.
Non-proliferation is something I completely agree with. Countries waste millions on defence rooted in fear. If all countries were to take a course of non-proliferation countries defence budgets could be halved (or more) overnight with little impact.
Of course this is a very idealist way of thinking about it, and the realist would argue that any nation that cuts its defence budget simply becomes more vulnerable to an outside threat, which in this world of increasingly global terrorism is a view you do have to give some weight to.
However, I do not think the use of nuclear weapons should or would ever really be considered as an option by anywhere. The bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII showed us the catastrophic effect these bombs can have. The two bombs that killed over 200, 000 people and razed both cities to the ground are now outdated by about 65 years.
Fury you raise a point that is often overlooked but in my opinion very important. "bullied by the rest of the world for being communist". There has been a trend in the Western world to impose democracy upon other countries, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are prominent examples. However, in his recent speech in Cairo President Obama said the USA would no longer seek to impose political systems on to other countries. And I quote "So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." -Barack Obama.
Anyway, I completely agree that non-proliferation is the ultimate long term goal. However, it takes very strong leadership across many states (e.g. not just the US) to disarm your own nukes when ultimately others could keep theirs and then your country is defenceless. This is conversely how arms races like this in the first place begin, take the glaring example of the Cold War. Would you advocate US non-proliferation when other countries, again notably NK and Russia, could maintain theirs and instantly became the worlds hegemonic power.
Non-proliferation is something I completely agree with. Countries waste millions on defence rooted in fear. If all countries were to take a course of non-proliferation countries defence budgets could be halved (or more) overnight with little impact.
Of course this is a very idealist way of thinking about it, and the realist would argue that any nation that cuts its defence budget simply becomes more vulnerable to an outside threat, which in this world of increasingly global terrorism is a view you do have to give some weight to.
However, I do not think the use of nuclear weapons should or would ever really be considered as an option by anywhere. The bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII showed us the catastrophic effect these bombs can have. The two bombs that killed over 200, 000 people and razed both cities to the ground are now outdated by about 65 years.
Fury you raise a point that is often overlooked but in my opinion very important. "bullied by the rest of the world for being communist". There has been a trend in the Western world to impose democracy upon other countries, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are prominent examples. However, in his recent speech in Cairo President Obama said the USA would no longer seek to impose political systems on to other countries. And I quote "So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." -Barack Obama.
Sat Jun 6, 2009 Reply New Discussion
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| Reply / Comment | Ask a Question? | Share / Bookmark | E-Mail a Friend |
 Robots More Intelligent Than People... Is this possible? Unfortunately Yes... (10)
|
(4) Green Technology lets save the world with green tech 
|