http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050210/D885LA8G2.html

[quote]
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Thursday announced for the first time that it has nuclear arms and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying it needs the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

The communist state's pronouncement dramatically raised the stakes in the two-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea's nuclear program through six-nation talks.

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

The claim could not be independently verified. North Korea expelled the last U.N. nuclear monitors in late 2002 and has never tested a nuclear bomb, although international officials have long suspected it has one or two nuclear bombs and enough fuel for several more.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said North Korea should return to disarmament talks and avoid a path toward further international isolation. She said the world "has given them a way out and we hope they will take that way out."

"The North Koreans have been told by the president of the United States that the United States has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea," Rice told a news conference in Luxembourg. "There is a path for the North Koreans that would put them in a more reasonable relationship with the rest of the world."

Previously, North Korea had reportedly told U.S. negotiators in private talks that it had nuclear weapons and might test one of them. The North's U.N. envoy said last year that the country had "weaponized" plutonium from its pool of 8,000 nuclear spent fuel rods. Those rods contained enough plutonium for several bombs.

But Thursday's statement was North Korea's first public acknowledgment that it has nuclear weapons.

North Korea's "nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances," the ministry said. It said Washington's alleged attempt to topple the North's regime "compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people."

Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks in Beijing aimed at persuading the North to abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards. No significant progress has been made.

A fourth round scheduled for last September was canceled when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.

South Korea said Thursday the North's decision to stay away from talks was "seriously regrettable." Foreign Ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-hyung said "we again declare our stance that we will never tolerate North Korea possessing nuclear weapons."

In recent weeks, hopes had risen that North Korea might return to the six-nation talks, especially after Bush refrained from any direct criticism of North Korea when he started his second term last month.

On Thursday, North Korea said it decided not to rejoin such talks any time soon after studying Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches and after Rice labeled North Korea one of the "outposts of tyranny."

"We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks," the ministry said.

Still, North Korea said it retained its "principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged."

Such a comment has widely been interpreted as North Korea's negotiating tactic to get more economic and diplomatic concessions from the United States before joining any crucial talks.

In Vienna, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said that "North Korea remains our single highest priority."

"We know they have raw materials to build nuclear weapons. We also know that they have a delivery system and they've expressed their intentions to have a nuclear arsenal," spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said.

In Japan, the top government spokesman said he wanted to confirm the North's intentions.

"They have used this sort of phrasing every so often. They didn't say anything particularly new," Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told a regular news conference.

For months, North Korea has lashed out at what it calls U.S. attempts to demolish the regime of leader Kim Jong Il and meddle in the human rights situation in the North. Washington has said it wants to resolve the nuclear talks through dialogue.

In his Jan. 20 inaugural speech, Bush vowed that his new administration would not shrink from "the great objective of ending tyranny" around the globe.

In his State of the Union address earlier this month, Bush only mentioned North Korea once, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Bush's tone was in stark contrast to three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq, raising hopes of a positive response from North Korea.

The nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties. Washington and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the United States.

North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement.
[/quote]

Here we are, more then 10 years following the end of the Cold War, and we're still seeing the effects of the Soviet Union in Asia.

What is most bizarre about this entire situation is that even scholars believe that the United States is a status quo power -- they have no reason to want to attack or invate the DPRK.  The conclusion that we would -- and therefore the development of nuclear arms is required to deter the US -- is erroneous.

We've known they've had the nuclear weapons for some time now.  But now they want to be all bad-ass.

Very perplexing.

They're paranoid, that's nothing new.

I'll be interested to see how Bush responds to this.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10505.msg99167#msg99167 date=1108048940]
What is most bizarre about this entire situation is that even scholars believe that the United States is a status quo power -- they have no reason to want to attack or invate the DPRK.  The conclusion that we would -- and therefore the development of nuclear arms is required to deter the US -- is erroneous.
[/quote]

From reading that article, it is known that you invaded Iraq and it is known that Bush has bunched Iraq and North Korea together into the same group. Why would they not want a deterrent? Bush invaded Iraq on false premises, later justified by the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein. He could easily say the same about "liberating" North Korea. I see every reason for them to make sure they have as strong deterrents as they possibly can. They need to make Bush feel he can't take them without unacceptable losses.

Why not say the same about N Korea?  They said themselves they have WMD, we don't have to be MISGUIDED this time.

I wonder what China, Japan, South Korea, & Russia have to say about this.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99173#msg99173 date=1108056296]
From reading that article, it is known that you invaded Iraq and it is known that Bush has bunched Iraq and North Korea together into the same group. Why would they not want a deterrent? Bush invaded Iraq on false premises, later justified by the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein. He could easily say the same about "liberating" North Korea. I see every reason for them to make sure they have as strong deterrents as they possibly can. They need to make Bush feel he can't take them without unacceptable losses.
[/quote]

The United States is a status quo power with respect to the Korean peninsula.  There was an odd but general stability there, on which the US had no reason to disturb; the US had no reason to attack, until now that the DPRK has announced that it has nuclear weaponry.

Kim Jong-Il has no interest in defending his country from the United States; that isn't why he developed the system.  He knows the US has little reason to attack.  This is a risky move for Kim, but given his continued resilience, it is one upon which the United States will again not act.

From my paper (this section is more concerned with the DPRK's Taepo-Dong II delivery system than nuclear power itself, but I believe it applies equally):
[quote]
However, I posit that there may be another explanation for these test flights and missile systems development. Through the development of missiles, and through proper procedures, the DPRK has the potential to kill three birds with one stone: demonstrate the use of the missiles to generate income, give the United States the impression that it has long-range missiles to encourage deterrence, and use missiles to coerce the United States and Seoul to come to the bargaining table willing to make concessions.

Although there is little available empirical evidence of this assertion aside from Cha’s statement that the DPRK is the most active provider of missile technologies to Iran, Syria, and Pakistan (Cha, 2000), it is likely that there is a weapons trade of some kind set up through the DPRK. The United States has found evidence of illicit drug smuggling (Central Intelligence Agency, Korea, North) as a rather large industry,

The rationale behind the test-firing of the Taepo-dong II missile system depends on the reasoning for the system in the first place. I contend that the most pragmatic reason to have the system is to sell it; given this argument, test-firing the system (in this case the Taepo-dong I) over Japan is an extremely effective way to get the attentions of various potential clients, such as states or terrorist cells. Additionally, the firing of the missile is possibly an alert to the United States and other highly-developed countries – Kim wants to be treated with the respect he believes he deserves from the international community.
[...]
On the surface, for a state branded a “terrorist” regime, part of the “axis of evil” described by President Bush, it may seem cavalier to pursue nuclear weaponry. There are, however, several good reasons for the North to pursue such an apparently-radical goal. First, it is an extremely effective deterrent; the North has continually made clear that it perceives the United States as a threat. Whether or not that perception is accurate is beside the point; according to the principle of bounded rationality, if the North feels that it must deter the United States from a preemptive attack, it is entirely rational to pursue nuclear weapons. Further, it is apparent that Kim has no qualms about appearing to be an aggressor, and so it is entirely reasonable to believe that he may not be only using weaponry as deterrence, but also as bargaining tools. Finally, a state such as the DPRK, which is not only poor but spends a large portion of its GDP on the military, may reasonably seek a return on investment. Consequently, the largest concern of the United States and its allies should not be that the North will use its nuclear weaponry itself, but that it will sell its nuclear weaponry to a non-state terrorist cell.
[/quote]
(Paveza, 12-14).
Sources cited:
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The World Factbook. Retrieved December 8, 2004, from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
Cha, Victor D. Continuity behind the Change in Korea, The. [u]Orbis[/u]. Fall 2000.

For Kim Jong-Il, it's all about the money.

Hussein had stated that he had such weapons. North Korea now says that they have nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that we don't believe them until they roll them out and let us take a peek? Personally, if North Korea points their finger at us I would support war.

I don't think Kim wants to start anything, he is just one of those people you met in highschool that had a fancy car, that was handed to them, & smoked just to look cool.  He HAS to know the consequences of starting a nuclear war with anyone

As long as N. Korea doesn't make use of its nuclear weapons the US should just leave them alone, after all the US itself probably has more nuclear weapons than all the other countries combined, so why can't other countries have them as protection?

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=topic=10505.msg99221#msg99221 date=1108090541]
As long as N. Korea doesn't make use of its nuclear weapons the US should just leave them alone, after all the US itself probably has more nuclear weapons than all the other countries combined, so why can't other countries have them as protection?
[/quote]That makes sense, but then there are evil places (i.e. N Korea) that might sell weapons to terrorists then we can't strike back w/same force.  Terrorists wouldn't be afraid to nuke some huge US city, they'd love to do it.

So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99229#msg99229 date=1108094035]
So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?
[/quote]

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99246#msg99246 date=1108098832]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99229#msg99229 date=1108094035]
So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?
[/quote]

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.
[/quote]

As much as you'd like that to be so, and all of us for that matter, we don't live in that kind of world, so that doesn't seem to be a viable option.  In fact, it'd expose the U.S. as "weak" from a terrorist's perspective IMO.

However, I would strongly oppose Bush even more if he attempted to go to war with North Korea without first gaining approval of our allies and other nations, and having strong evidence for his claims to war, and justifyable reason for doing so.  Hopefully the issues in North Korea can be solved diplomatically with no loss of life, but I'd have to wonder if that would ever happen.

My opinion is that a country should have rights to posses nuclear weapons as they have every right to produce them.  There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons.  The U.S. has developed and used nuclear weapons and continues to develop them today, and for some reason other countries aren't allowed to?  I understand the risks in allowing other countries to develop nuclear weapons, but putting it into perspective of other countries, it's completely unfair to say that the U.S. is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and other countries not, even if those countries scorn other countries (like North Korea to the U.S.).

[quote author=SoR-Mephisto link=topic=10505.msg99250#msg99250 date=1108099968]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99246#msg99246 date=1108098832]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99229#msg99229 date=1108094035]
So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?
[/quote]

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.
[/quote]

As much as you'd like that to be so, and all of us for that matter, we don't live in that kind of world, so that doesn't seem to be a viable option.  In fact, it'd expose the U.S. as "weak" from a terrorist's perspective IMO.

However, I would strongly oppose Bush even more if he attempted to go to war with North Korea without first gaining approval of our allies and other nations, and having strong evidence for his claims to war, and justifyable reason for doing so.  Hopefully the issues in North Korea can be solved diplomatically with no loss of life, but I'd have to wonder if that would ever happen.

My opinion is that a country should have rights to posses nuclear weapons as they have every right to produce them.  There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons.  The U.S. has developed and used nuclear weapons and continues to develop them today, and for some reason other countries aren't allowed to?  I understand the risks in allowing other countries to develop nuclear weapons, but putting it into perspective of other countries, it's completely unfair to say that the U.S. is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and other countries not, even if those countries scorn other countries (like North Korea to the U.S.).
[/quote]

Damn pragmatists!  Anyways, yes more power to North Korea.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99246#msg99246 date=1108098832]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99229#msg99229 date=1108094035]
So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?
[/quote]

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.
[/quote]

Stupidest thing I have ever seen. Why don't we disarm the entire military while we are at it? This is ridiculous, it will never happen, and would mean open season on the United States by foreign agressors with nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, North Korea, (Russia?), etc. would have a lot of fun with us. To quote Crimson Tide "There are half a dozen third world countires that would love to drop a nuke on us."

But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.

Also, to MyndFyre: You said "if the North feels that it must deter the United States from a preemptive attack, it is entirely rational to pursue nuclear weapons", and yet you said "Kim Jong-Il has no interest in defending his country from the United States; that isn't why he developed the system". Why don't you think Kim would like to deter the US from a preemptive attack?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99173#msg99173 date=1108056296]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10505.msg99167#msg99167 date=1108048940]
What is most bizarre about this entire situation is that even scholars believe that the United States is a status quo power -- they have no reason to want to attack or invate the DPRK.  The conclusion that we would -- and therefore the development of nuclear arms is required to deter the US -- is erroneous.
[/quote]

From reading that article, it is known that you invaded Iraq and it is known that Bush has bunched Iraq and North Korea together into the same group. Why would they not want a deterrent? Bush invaded Iraq on false premises, later justified by the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein. He could easily say the same about "liberating" North Korea. I see every reason for them to make sure they have as strong deterrents as they possibly can. They need to make Bush feel he can't take them without unacceptable losses.


[/quote] North Korea is not a terrorist state. I am not worries about north koreans brining nukes into our country. What concerns me about n. korea is proliferation. If they have nukes they better take care of them. Their cheif export seems to be munitions.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99246#msg99246 date=1108098832]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99229#msg99229 date=1108094035]
So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?
[/quote]

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.
[/quote] Bad idea. Nukes were and still are a good deturrent. Anyone who says the nukes in the hand of north korea is not a deturrent is also wrong. Those things do not have the range to hurt us, but they sure can hurt our pals. I do not think north korea really needs a deturrent though, I do not think they are in any danger of being attacked. I mean the only reason people are looking at them right now is because those things could wind up in the hands of terrorists. If they were to get rid of them no one would even be looking in their direction.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99283#msg99283 date=1108140126]
But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself. [/quote]

So wait, in order to say that people who are insane and hell bent on killing others for their own personal gain, we have to give up our nuclear weapons which is the only thing detering them from doing so? Since when has war been fair Adron? Since when do we use the words North Korea and fair in the same sentence?

[quote author=SoR-Mephisto link=topic=10505.msg99250#msg99250 date=1108099968]
There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons. [/quote]

Yes, I believe these are commonly referred to as the "Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaties", but I have not read them and do not know which countries agreed to them.  This treaty enumerates the 15 or so countries allowed to have nuclear arms, and which ones will be disarming who had them already.  Maybe MyndFyre knows more about this treaty.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=10505.msg99298#msg99298 date=1108145218]
[quote author=SoR-Mephisto link=topic=10505.msg99250#msg99250 date=1108099968]
There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons. [/quote]

Yes, I believe these are commonly referred to as the "Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaties", but I have not read them and do not know which countries agreed to them.  This treaty enumerates the 15 or so countries allowed to have nuclear arms, and which ones will be disarming who had them already.  Maybe MyndFyre knows more about this treaty.
[/quote]

You can do more research on the topic at http://www.nuclearfiles.org/, but it is my understanding that North Korea had joined a pact to eliminate their nuclear weapons program, then withdrew from the pact on January 10th, 2003 in order to begin persuit of a weapons program of nuclear capacity. Its safe to say they have been developing nuclear weapons for some time. When the North Korean representative dared any country, namely the United States, to try and stop them from nuclear superiority, it became clear in my eyes that war might well be inevitable.

EDIT: For more reading, consider this AP News report from Yahoo News.

We only have proof that they have nuclear weapons, theres no proof that they are going to use them on a country. So why should we risk getting into another war when there is really no need? Its like saying your neighbor has a gun and you're going to kill him to take his gun away. We have enough things to deal with as it is(Afghanistan and Iraq).

Falcon, if your neighbor was insane and had wildly ran around threatening anybody who got in his way that he would harm them, you wouldn't take action?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99283#msg99283 date=1108140126]
But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.
[/quote]

That, and I was being some what ironic to point out the very flaw in everyone's statement.  Why can America have nukes but not others?

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99330#msg99330 date=1108159749]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99283#msg99283 date=1108140126]
But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.
[/quote]

That, and I was being some what ironic to point out the very flaw in everyone's statement. Why can America have nukes but not others?
[/quote]

Because we won't use them.

I'll use one of Adron's own arguments in this situation dxoigmn. I don't want to start another battle here over gun ownership, so I'll limit this only as to how it applies to the topic at hand.

Adron has in the past argued that all gun ownership should be banned except for those used in police or military applications. By your argument dxoigmn, why should the police be allowed to have guns? Why should the military be allowed to have them? Adron do you have an answer? Should the United States get rid of its main deterant against having all out nuclear war between bitter factions? If we destroyed ours, what kind of leverage do we have against people who rise up and create one? Wouldn't they have the drop on us?

The answer to that last question is of course, yes. We can't be all happy go fucking lucky in this world. Things aren't, beneath it all, peaceful and serene. People are hateful, violent, and greedy. We can't just destroy all our weapons and in good faith hope everybody else will. When you trust people like that, bad things happen. Its not some sun shiney universe where we can all get along. Welcome back to real life.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99333#msg99333 date=1108161461]
Adron has in the past argued that all gun ownership should be banned except for those used in police or military applications. By your argument dxoigmn, why should the police be allowed to have guns? Why should the military be allowed to have them? Adron do you have an answer? Should the United States get rid of its main deterant against having all out nuclear war between bitter factions? If we destroyed ours, what kind of leverage do we have against people who rise up and create one? Wouldn't they have the drop on us?
[/quote]

Yes, the United States should get rid of their nukes. Are you saying that you need ballistical missiles as a deterrent against an all out nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or whomever is playing with nukes now? Which one of them would you be launching your missiles at?

Or if you're talking attacks on the USA, would you launch a nuclear strike against a country such as Iraq if a bunch of terrorists trained in an Iraqi camp blew up a nuke in say Washington? If so, you are just another terrorist.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99340#msg99340 date=1108163372]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99333#msg99333 date=1108161461]
Adron has in the past argued that all gun ownership should be banned except for those used in police or military applications. By your argument dxoigmn, why should the police be allowed to have guns? Why should the military be allowed to have them? Adron do you have an answer? Should the United States get rid of its main deterant against having all out nuclear war between bitter factions? If we destroyed ours, what kind of leverage do we have against people who rise up and create one? Wouldn't they have the drop on us?
[/quote]

Yes, the United States should get rid of their nukes. Are you saying that you need ballistical missiles as a deterrent against an all out nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or whomever is playing with nukes now? Which one of them would you be launching your missiles at? [/quote] we need nukes as a deturrent for countries like Russia. Now Russia is not an enemy of ours, but we built nukes in the cold war and so did they (well USSR), and everything was fabulous, you had mutual assured destruction. At this point, as long as nukes that can ride on ICBMs are still out there, it would be smart to keep a few around (being that we are the big superpower and all)... safely tucked on some Ohio class subs.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99328#msg99328 date=1108159457]
Falcon, if your neighbor was insane and had wildly ran around threatening anybody who got in his way that he would harm them, you wouldn't take action?
[/quote]

Seems to me you're calling North Korea insane which isn't very diplomatic, Hazard.

[quote author=SoR-Mephisto link=topic=10505.msg99348#msg99348 date=1108164589]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99328#msg99328 date=1108159457]
Falcon, if your neighbor was insane and had wildly ran around threatening anybody who got in his way that he would harm them, you wouldn't take action?
[/quote]

Seems to me you're calling North Korea insane which isn't very diplomatic, Hazard.
[/quote] Your pulling a hazard mephisto  ;).

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=10505.msg99332#msg99332 date=1108161315]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99330#msg99330 date=1108159749]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99283#msg99283 date=1108140126]
But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.
[/quote]

That, and I was being some what ironic to point out the very flaw in everyone's statement. Why can America have nukes but not others?
[/quote]

Because we won't use them.
[/quote]

We won't?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind but maybe we can deny those events like some people deny the holocaust ever happened.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99333#msg99333 date=1108161461]
I'll use one of Adron's own arguments in this situation dxoigmn. I don't want to start another battle here over gun ownership, so I'll limit this only as to how it applies to the topic at hand.

Adron has in the past argued that all gun ownership should be banned except for those used in police or military applications. By your argument dxoigmn, why should the police be allowed to have guns? Why should the military be allowed to have them? Adron do you have an answer? Should the United States get rid of its main deterant against having all out nuclear war between bitter factions? If we destroyed ours, what kind of leverage do we have against people who rise up and create one? Wouldn't they have the drop on us?

The answer to that last question is of course, yes. We can't be all happy go fucking lucky in this world. Things aren't, beneath it all, peaceful and serene. People are hateful, violent, and greedy. We can't just destroy all our weapons and in good faith hope everybody else will. When you trust people like that, bad things happen. Its not some sun shiney universe where we can all get along. Welcome back to real life.
[/quote]

I don't think anyone should have guns.  My answers: They shouldn't. They shouldn't. Can't answer that one. Yes. Moral leverage. No.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99333#msg99333 date=1108161461]
The answer to that last question is of course, yes. We can't be all happy go fucking lucky in this world. Things aren't, beneath it all, peaceful and serene. People are hateful, violent, and greedy. We can't just destroy all our weapons and in good faith hope everybody else will. When you trust people like that, bad things happen. Its not some sun shiney universe where we can all get along. Welcome back to real life.
[/quote]
Destroying our nukes isn't destroying all our weapons. How long do you think N. Korea would last if they dropped a nuke anywhere?

Dxo, you live in some perfect little drug-induced world. Come back to real life.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99382#msg99382 date=1108186236]
Dxo, you live in some perfect little drug-induced world. Come back to real life.
[/quote]

Drugs are not a part of my life, but whatever.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=10505.msg99298#msg99298 date=1108145218]
[quote author=SoR-Mephisto link=topic=10505.msg99250#msg99250 date=1108099968]
There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons. [/quote]

Yes, I believe these are commonly referred to as the "Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaties", but I have not read them and do not know which countries agreed to them.  This treaty enumerates the 15 or so countries allowed to have nuclear arms, and which ones will be disarming who had them already.  Maybe MyndFyre knows more about this treaty.
[/quote]

The DPRK withdrew from the nuclear NPT in 2001.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99357#msg99357 date=1108170470]
[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=10505.msg99332#msg99332 date=1108161315]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99330#msg99330 date=1108159749]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99283#msg99283 date=1108140126]
But it makes some sense. You want him to destroy all his nukes because nukes are bad, then for fairness sake you have to be willing to destroy all of your own nukes yourself.
[/quote]

That, and I was being some what ironic to point out the very flaw in everyone's statement. Why can America have nukes but not others?
[/quote]

Because we won't use them.
[/quote]

We won't?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind but maybe we can deny those events like some people deny the holocaust ever happened.
[/quote] Just because we used them in japan does not mean we will use them again. We are not fighting a conventional war against a super power, we are not in a world war.

Well, just because N. Korea has nukes doesn't mean they will use it.

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=topic=10505.msg99540#msg99540 date=1108275872]
Well, just because N. Korea has nukes doesn't mean they will use it.
[/quote]

Nukes are weapons of losers. Sore losers. As long as noone attacks N. Korea, it's very unlikely they'll use nukes. They're useful as a threat: Look at me, I'm insane enough to want to kill millions of people while accomplishing nothing useful if you push me into a corner!

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10505.msg99508#msg99508 date=1108256590]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99382#msg99382 date=1108186236]
Dxo, you live in some perfect little drug-induced world. Come back to real life.
[/quote]

Drugs are not a part of my life, but whatever.
[/quote]

Dxo then explain to me why you have this lofty outlook on human nature. Karl Marx made the exact same mistake that you have made. Why do you refuse to look at the world as it really is and refuse to accept the realities at hand, because the solutions you have given us to the problems we have come up with are not even close to being realistic.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10505.msg99561#msg99561 date=1108300772]
Dxo then explain to me why you have this lofty outlook on human nature. Karl Marx made the exact same mistake that you have made. Why do you refuse to look at the world as it really is and refuse to accept the realities at hand, because the solutions you have given us to the problems we have come up with are not even close to being realistic.
[/quote]

Well if you put that way...maybe I was Karl Marx in a former life. 

It was all experiment to see how low you would go to prove a point.  It's obvious that people are not inherently evil as proved by myself since for the most part I am the opposite of "hateful, violent, and greedy" as are many of my friends.  I like to see the good in life because it helps me get through the day.  It helps me feel better about what I accomplished and what I am trying to accomplish.  I don’t know maybe you don’t have anything to work for or to believe in.  It is exactly people like you who spread this underlying hatred and allow us to commit the atrocities that are committed justifying it by saying “People are bad.”  We need sane people in politics who are interested in working things out, not blindly invading counties because we don’t see a reflection of ourselves in them.  After all, no one wants to send their children, their husbands, their wives, and their friends to war to die because someone like you thought it was necessary.  And I’m willing to bet you will never serve this country, but maybe you will.  Certainly you will never see the action that our troops are seeing in Iraq, or saw in Vietnam, or experienced in World War 2 – in some wicked way I hope you do so only then will it change your view on life. 

This thread got long, but I read most of it *proud* (I don't normally read politics forum, and just noticed it)

Anyway, the idea of "mutual distruction" is an interesting one, philosophically.  IF any country starts a nuclear war with any other country, you can pretty much guarentee that life as we know it will be over.  The fact that America as nukes means that nobody can possibly attack them without the world being destroyed.  That's a lot of power to have, and a scary thought.  If every country had nukes, then nobody would be able to attack anybody else. 

Countries like America having nukes is almost like having a room full of children and a gun, or even taking a hostage in a shoot out.  Yes, it's dirty, and yes, America isn't fighting fair, but the rest of the world knows damn well that, if America is losing, they will start shooting the children (or kill the hostage).  So it basically makes America impossible to attack unless you're willing to accept the horrible consequences. 

Other countries having nukes is fair, in a way, because it ensures that the balance of power will remain just that: a balance.  Hopefully, nobody is willing to start a nuclear war, because they know that there's no good results that can happen, and therefore countries with nukes can exist peacefully, taking care of themselves, without other super powers thinking they have to baby sit them.

That being said, George Bush scares me.  It seems to me that he's overly aggresive, and that he would be willing to start a nuclear war.  I'm just going to hope that he doesn't make that decision.

But my main point was, the idea of mutual destruction is pretty interesting, and scary.

Poor Canada, we get nuked they are screwed.

An experiment? It sounds to me like you are trying to justify in your own mind what you are doing, and writing it up so that you sound like this righteous philosopher and bringer of truth and light.

Wow iago, I think you have a very slanted and incorrect idea of what the US is about.  That's okay, because so does one of my professors.  I'll explain exactly what I mean by that....

In my paper, I argued that the North acted boundedly rational because they misinterpreted US intentions and they gain economic bonuses from manufacturing nuclear weapons.  There is stability on the Korean peninsula, and to attack would cause grave losses in Seoul, something which the United States would be highly averse to.

Invading Iraq would have little consequence except within Iraq.  However, invading the DPRK would result in serious South Korean casualties.  I believe I have already set these scenarios out, but it's worth the rehashing.  Invading with ground troops would cause heavy American casualties, even if the Americans are rated at an effectiveness of 8 to 1; the DPRK has a standing army of one million men, which would be a casualty count of 125,000 Americans -- in other words, political suicide.  Consider ranged bombing of Pyongyang and Yongbyon from the Navy: while the United States has absolute naval superiority and wouldn't have any American casualties, the DPRK has ranged SCUD missiles targetting Seoul.  An attack on the North would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of RoK casualties, not to mention foreign nationals in Seoul -- in other words, political suicide AND a strain on diplomatic alliances far beyond that of what happened in Iraq.

Nobody flinched when Iraq was invaded because Iraq's economic contribution to the global economy was minimal; even Iraq's oil contribution was a mere 3% of the United States overall oil consumption.  The RoK was ranked 15th in world GDP in 2001; Iraq was ranked 81st ( The World Factobook, Central Intelligence Agency).

Attacking the DPRK would raise significantly more real problems, both economically and diplomatically, than an invasion of Iraq, and it would be irrational to do so.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10505.msg99603#msg99603 date=1108318527]
Anyway, the idea of "mutual distruction" is an interesting one, philosophically.  IF any country starts a nuclear war with any other country, you can pretty much guarentee that life as we know it will be over.  The fact that America as nukes means that nobody can possibly attack them without the world being destroyed.  That's a lot of power to have, and a scary thought.  If every country had nukes, then nobody would be able to attack anybody else. 
[/quote]
Even having a nuclear detonation in a major city wouldn't guarantee that a nuclear war would start.  The doctrine of "asymmetrical warfare" is one in which the United States, because it is the world hegemon, must work constantly to be very precise and avoid civilian casualties.  Iraq has cost the United States many more lives than a "roll-over-with-utter-destruction" war because the United States has bent over backwards trying to avoid civilian casualties.  Straight from an Army Captain who was in my National Security Analysis class: "We tried to do our best to preserve infrastructure, but when we got to Baghdad, we discovered that there just wasn't any infrastructure there."

[quote author=iago link=topic=10505.msg99603#msg99603 date=1108318527]
Countries like America having nukes is almost like having a room full of children and a gun, or even taking a hostage in a shoot out.  Yes, it's dirty, and yes, America isn't fighting fair, but the rest of the world knows damn well that, if America is losing, they will start shooting the children (or kill the hostage).  So it basically makes America impossible to attack unless you're willing to accept the horrible consequences.
[/quote]
America isn't fighting at all.  The problem with saying this is that, should the US government use nuclear weapons in an unjustified way, every member of the government would be removed from office.  I don't care how popular a leader is; that kind of thing simply wouldn't fly.  And any professional politician will tell you that the most important thing to that person is maintaining their public image.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10505.msg99603#msg99603 date=1108318527]
Other countries having nukes is fair, in a way, because it ensures that the balance of power will remain just that: a balance.  Hopefully, nobody is willing to start a nuclear war, because they know that there's no good results that can happen, and therefore countries with nukes can exist peacefully, taking care of themselves, without other super powers thinking they have to baby sit them.
[/quote]
That is accurate to an extent; however, as I argue in my paper, the DPRK isn't developing nuclear weapons for deterrence; they have enough deterrence (as I argued above) to keep themselves safe.  They're developing nuclear weapons to sell.  And should they sell these nuclear weapons to non-state actors, such as a terrorist cell, who can the United States retaliate against?  That is where the real danger lies in having third-world countries developing nuclear weapons.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10505.msg99603#msg99603 date=1108318527]
That being said, George Bush scares me.  It seems to me that he's overly aggresive, and that he would be willing to start a nuclear war.  I'm just going to hope that he doesn't make that decision.
[/quote]
I don't think any American politician would be willing to start a nuclear war.  But I suppose that's what happens when you buy into the liberal media.  *shrug*

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10505.msg99553#msg99553 date=1108297257]
[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=topic=10505.msg99540#msg99540 date=1108275872]
Well, just because N. Korea has nukes doesn't mean they will use it.
[/quote]

Nukes are weapons of losers. Sore losers. As long as noone attacks N. Korea, it's very unlikely they'll use nukes. They're useful as a threat: Look at me, I'm insane enough to want to kill millions of people while accomplishing nothing useful if you push me into a corner!


[/quote] N. Korea is not the threat. Proliferation is. N. Korea's biggest export seems to be arms.

ps: Myndfire... that was a very well thoughtout response... if we still had that rating system thing I would give you mad pts :P.