Kip Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Is this something we should be worried about? Could this be bigger than we think? Why are the Americans so up-tight about it? And correct me if I am wrong, but does the whole civilised world not know what a nuclear missile can do? So why test yet another one? Questions, questions eh...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Isn't it true that a H-bomb has never actually been used on developed land? The Japan A-bombs of the 2nd world war were around 20 kilotonnes IIRC, and modern H-bombs are anywhere up to 50 megatonnes and above!!!!!!! 2,500 times more powerful!!!!!!! Or do I not know what I'm on about again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 I don't know iether, all I know is they make a big mess of things when they go bang. My real point is - if we have learned so much about such weapons of mass desstruction - why test more? - we all know what they are capable of doing, or does North Korea live in a different time and space? And just why, after all the tests America has subjected us all to are they so anti? What are they actually affraid of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 What are they actually affraid of? That the N.Koreans are a bit..erm . "extreme" shall we say? We only know what they want us to know. The media twists the truth already twisted by the politicians and spin doctors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Its just North Korea and America standing at the urinals attempting to piss the highest hype by the media i reckon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 The media twists the truth already twisted by the politicians and spin doctors. So we may actually end up hearing the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 The Americans tested all their nuclear weapons back in the 40's, 50's and 60's. They required testing so that they could be precicely controlled. N Korea have developed their technology to a level where they can make bombs, and these require testing. So if the US were allowed to test, why can't the Koreans ? The biggest threat to the modern world at the moment, and always has been, is the U.S. (or its string of governments that should read). They nearly started WWIII with the Russians in Cuba, they are intent on securing oil reserves at all costs and now they feel it necessary to state who should and who shouldn't have nuclear weapons. It was always going to be the case that more and more countries would develop nuclear technology.... only a matter of time. They would either develop it themselves or it would have been sold to them for a healthy amount of money through dodgey corrupt government officials. What should be happening is the U.S. should be exploring opportunities to ban out right all nuclear weapons from all countries in the world.... re-create a level playing field. BUT then they are the perfect deterent ! Out of interest, does any one know if N Korea have big oil reserves ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 So we may actually end up hearing the truth? Who knows The biggest worry is that the N.Koreans aren't exactly know for their humanity policies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaf Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 lol, the yanks are bullies and wont stand up to anyone who is even remotely close to giving them a good hiding. they would rather pick on the smaller 3rd world countries who would like to develop themselves. as for china, they know about keeping the peace with other nations and havent even looked funny at any of their neighbours... that could change though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 pete - would you say that the US were good humanitarians? They still have a death row... similar to a lot of hard line communist/dictatorship countries. They are the world's biggest polluters by a fair good margin. They have some dodgey foreign policies to say the least. And they have Bush as a president. Not intending to offend any US citizens, its mainly the successive governments which are to blame IMO. I am not 100% sure where my own views on this lie... but I always find it interesting as to why the US seem to think they can dictate to other countries what they should and shouldn't do. Surely anything that needs to be said with regards to nuclear weapons should be done through the UN ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Is this something we should be worried about? Could this be bigger than we think? Why are the Americans so up-tight about it? Because these will be weapons they won't directly control. And correct me if I am wrong, but does the whole civilised world not know what a nuclear missile can do? Thanks to the Americans we all know. They've shown us twice. So why test yet another one? Ask the French, they were doing nuclear tests until very lately. Apparently it's easier to throw a nuclear bomb compared to throwing your weapons and surrendering. More brave too. I really enjoy the 'legitimised' non-proliferation policy. Very smart. It means that those who have nukes get to keep them, but those who haven't got them are not allowed to have them. Again a variation of the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra dan Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 So if the US were allowed to test, why can't the Koreans ? The biggest threat to the modern world at the moment, and always has been, is the U.S. (or its string of governments that should read). They nearly started WWIII with the Russians in Cuba, they are intent on securing oil reserves at all costs and now they feel it necessary to state who should and who shouldn't have nuclear weapons. It was always going to be the case that more and more countries would develop nuclear technology.... only a matter of time. They would either develop it themselves or it would have been sold to them for a healthy amount of money through dodgey corrupt government officials. What should be happening is the U.S. should be exploring opportunities to ban out right all nuclear weapons from all countries in the world.... re-create a level playing field. BUT then they are the perfect deterent ! Out of interest, does any one know if N Korea have big oil reserves ? you cant be serious, you think its a good idea korea has nukes?how do you justify them spending millions on them when thier people are starving? you think america nearly started ww111?what should they do then, let russia park nukes on the doorstep and say nothing? if you dislike america thats one thing, but dont throw common sense out the window Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Thanks to the Americans we all know. They've shown us twice. Have they? When? I've never seen one go off!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Ask the Japanese, I'm not sure they've forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz1 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 you cant be serious, you think its a good idea korea has nukes?how do you justify them spending millions on them when thier people are starving? you think america nearly started ww111?what should they do then, let russia park nukes on the doorstep and say nothing? if you dislike america thats one thing, but dont throw common sense out the window my thoughts too;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 dan - not throwing common sense out the window, just looking at things objectively. I'm not a person that believes the media hype, and I don't take things that are printed in papers or read out on news broadcasts to be pure facts. With regards to the WWIII comment, yeah maybe a bit over the top, but if the americans could have nukes parked on the border of the old East/West German border (which is as good as being on the old USSR border itself), then why couldn't the Russians return the compliment by having nukes in Cuba? The US government at the time played a very dangerous hard-line game which could have gone very wrong. anyway, that is history and this topic is for the present day. I am not saying that any country that develops nukes is a good or bad idea. Obviously the more countries that have them makes the world a more dangerous place.... but on the reverse side of that a nuke is considered the perfect deterent for one country to attack another... so does that make the world safer in that respect ? I don't know. Pakistan and India have new nuclear technology.... apart from a news frenzy on that a few years ago... why aren't america still threatening them two countries? Again I don't know, just lots of questions which cast doubts over the US's intentions when they make comments such as "you can choose to have a future or you can choose to have nuclear weapons".... a serious threat if you take that at face value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lust2luv Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Plus IIRC the US has been breaking international treaties by developing new battlefield nuclear weapons in recent years (so called "bunker busters"). And I don't think either they or the CIS have disarmed as much as they declared they would in the START treaty. And they refuse to sign up to a ban on chemical / biological weapons, since they maintain possibly the world's biggest stockpile. And they hold people indefinitely without trial or basic human rights. But they aren't communist. So that's all alright then. A bit two faced. Then again, the leader of North Korea is a nutjob! Then again again, the leader of the US is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 pete - would you say that the US were good humanitarians? Not especially...but in comparison to what the media would have you believe goes on out there they're not really in the same league. I'll look up some references if I can be arsed later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 The Americans are not humanitarians, they never claimed to be and nobody would expect any country to go against their own national economic interests. They are just not very good at playing the game of international diplomacy. Certainly not as good as other players who've been around for many centuries before them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra dan Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I am not saying that any country that develops nukes is a good or bad idea. Obviously the more countries that have them makes the world a more dangerous place.... but on the reverse side of that a nuke is considered the perfect deterent for one country to attack another... so does that make the world safer in that respect ? I don't know. Pakistan and India have new nuclear technology.... apart from a news frenzy on that a few years ago... why aren't america still threatening them two countries? Again I don't know, just lots of questions which cast doubts over the US's intentions when they make comments such as "you can choose to have a future or you can choose to have nuclear weapons".... a serious threat if you take that at face value. i agree in an ideal world no one would have them,i think at least in the case of Pakistan and India they are only threatening each other, bit like Russia and the US were. its more worrying when madmen like those in korea and iran have them. i dont doubt they would use them on anyone that upset them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra dan Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 The Americans are not humanitarians, they never claimed to be and nobody would expect any country to go against their own national economic interests. They are just not very good at playing the game of international diplomacy. Certainly not as good as other players who've been around for many centuries before them... spot on. they look after themselves first, and dont care about whose toes they tread on. not saying thats right, but i wish this country would put its people first instead of doing the decent thing all the time and getting shit on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 spot on. they look after themselves first, and dont care about whose toes they tread on They do say that as well. What else do you think they mean when they talk about protecting the 'American way of life'? National interests always come first, the Americans are just rookies that admit it publicly. ... not saying thats right, but i wish this country would put its people first instead of doing the decent thing all the time and getting shit on. Ha ha, they've fooled you, haven't they? By pretending to care for the world and the 'weak' and the general 'good' etc, the old foxes create goodwill all over the globe, while scheming and plotting and backstabing and avoiding to get their hands dirty. That's how it's done, the Americans should look and learn - but they're too arrogant for that. Oh well, what goes round, comes round... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I didn't realise until this morning according to Sky One News who are pumping my brain with wwestern belief, that if you buy a radio (if you can get one!) it's fixed to only receive one radio station. It's not just Korea though. link If you buy a tv the frequency range is only for n.korea channels. So no receiving anything from s.korea. They have to cut power from their capital city at night due to power demand they can't sustain, yet they have enough money to invest into tools of war. They still run death camps and slavery, there is widespread starvation. Their leader Kim Il-sung has been dead for several years, his son Kim Jong-il (The bad guy from Team America) suceeded him but is little other than a figure head for his deceased father. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 Morning Pete, must admit I did think it a little strange to hear they are accepting huge amounts of humanitarian aid, yet able to pump billions into W.M.D. Somehow me thinks they have their priororties a tad wrong, mind you don't most governments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Morning Pete, must admit I did think it a little strange to hear they are accepting huge amounts of humanitarian aid I can't see that continuing now, which is sad as it's the people that will suffer due to their own governments actions. Back in '04 the US promised more aid if they halted their nuclear program. Have a read of this which highlights past humanitarian aid to N.Korea from the US. What worries me is how the ham fisted Americans will react now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.