 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES                  Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I believe I mentioned it in the tread. Foreign Affairs journal had a piece a few months back touching on the subject. Recently one of my friends started work on a paper studying proliferation of nuclear weapons and the future of the issue. Nothing new though. Koizumi was a far less hawkish leader than Shinzo Abe is turning out to be. Abe, historically, has been known for choices of sabre-rattling and his love of hardline stances. Quiet though he is. | |||
Koryo Keese   Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| And I maintain that the only way to stop Japan gaining nuclear weapons is to prove that the US is still willing and able to defend them. Without a US umbrella of protection, it's every man for himself (or every nation for himself, in this case). I have no doubt that Japan will build a nuclear weapon (a whole heap of them, most likely) as long as they feel threatened by North Korea and China. If the US proves to the Japanese that it is unwilling to protect them (for instance, if we sacrifice Taiwan or South Korea in the name of "regional stability"), then Japan has every right IMHO to arm itself. How dare we demand that Japan remain disarmed and pacified when China and North Korea directly threaten it? | |||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| You know... before the whole Iraq war business I was a little bit worried that our entanglement there would embolden North Korea. It seemed like an obvious consequence at the time, so who is surprised that North Korea is getting mouthy and everyone else is getting scared in that region?
I have to agree with Koryo on this one, in that if we don't make significant strides to cool down North Korea the political climate in Asia might chance drastically while we're messing around in the Middle East and Afghanistan. (edited by MathOnNapkins on 12-26-06 02:40 AM) |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo Correct me if I am wrong, but out of purely selfish economic reasons, the U.S. is going to defend Japan. Whatever North Korea is, as other people have already said, suicidal. A nuclear program is immensely expensive to say the least, and I don't think North Korea's economy can handle an attempt at nuclear proliferation. Japan on the other hand, can do so, but that it would be less economically productive, seeing as there aren't many low level jobs for nuclear weaponary, and last time I heard, nuclear weapons aren't usually bought and sold on the open market. Anyone care to detail on the economic effects of nuclear weaponry? Personally, I don't see the point of having more nuclear capacity than is fitting to eliminate the entirety of the world population. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Yeah, I guess you could say it's purely selfish reasons that the US wants to defend Japan and South Korea. It's purely selfish that I don't want to see a mushroom cloud over Tokyo or Seoul. :p
I'm not sure what you mean by "proliferation" when you say that North Korea can't afford nuclear proliferation, but they already have a nuclear bomb, in case you missed that. So North Korea won't be building 10,000 bombs like Russia has. But do they really need that much? Not at all. North Korea needs only one to blackmail South Korea and Japan, and they need only one to deter the US from invading and Regime-Changing that fat little Kim Jong Il. As for the economic effects, sure nuclear weapons are expensive, but they are also useful. Japan doesn't need 10,000 bombs either. I'm guessing Japan will build a couple hundred at first. That's really all they need. However, if China responds by building more of their own, then Japan will also increase their stockpile just as the US and USSR did back in the day. China's economy is growing, and so is their capacity to maintain a large nuclear stockpile. But Japan has a significant economy as well, and could really give them a run for their money. Both nations could easily end up with a stockpile of several thousand nuclear bombs within a couple decades. Would this have negative effects on both of their economies? Of course it would, but from the Japanese point of view, isn't the expense worth it, when nuclear weapons could be the only thing ensuring their very survival? Nuclear weapons obviously don't destroy your economy, if your economy is big enough. The US has a massive nuclear stockpile, but we also have a massive economy to back it up. Bottom line, more nuclear weapons in the world is always a bad thing. I would much rather see Japan with nuclear weapons than North Korea and China, but I would be happiest if no one had them. The more nuclear weapons there are, the greater the chance that someone sparks off a nuclear war, or that a terrorist gets his hands on a nuclear weapon. IMHO, the only way to stop Japan from developing their own nuclear program is to show them that it is not necessary. Nuclear weapons are indeed expensive and, if Japan thinks they don't need to incur that expense, they they won't. But as long as they fear China and North Korea's nuclear weapons, and as long as the US doesn't look willing to fight a war in the Pacific, I see no scenario in which Japan won't build nuclear weapons. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Well, there is that selfish desire, in some ways. Japan and Korea are excellent strategic locations. Plus, the U.S. and the West sunk billions, if not trillions, into insuring that they will be an economic engine that we can rely on for many products.
As for the economics of nuclear weaponry. You only need about 1 to have a relatively threatening deterrent. There aren't more than two nations with over a thousand active warheads. In fact, as far as it goes, the stockpiles that the US and Russia have are often a bit of a nuisance. Upkeep of nuclear weapons is complicated, expensive and when they go past their shelf life...it is even more expensive and even more of a headache to properly get rid of them. Mind you, if Japan builds a British styled deterrent, say a dozen or two nuclear weapons, it wouldn't cause any economic setbacks. It is a few billion dollars spread out over two years to have a fully prepared deterrent. But again drawing parallels between US and Japanese miltiary-economic relationships is naive. The situations between the two nations are unbelievably different. Although the Japanese could easily support a huge deterrent arsenal. They have the massive economy to back it up. Although I do find your insuation silly. Japan is currently looking for a nuclear option because they know the US is behind them 100%. If they have that nuclear option, then they will feel more protected. Look at our allies. Britain, Australia, France, Israel, South Africa...they all investigated and researched (in the case of Australia) and built their own weapons (in the case of all the others). We were always behind them and they knew that if any thing at all went down NATO would be storming in with boots on the ground and jets in the sky. But I guess on your point of proliferation you're right. North Korea already has a bomb. Which has me wondering. The explosion was only about a kiloton, however if it is dropped on Seoul, Tokyo, Shanghai, Vladivostok or other local population centres it is a sizeably destructive weapon. The question that has others wondering is "does North Korea have more". If they do, then it means that if the first one was a fizzle and they don't need to worry. However, the scary prospect of proliferation is that the nuclear weapon game spreads. That is what proliferation is. NK may attempt to, as the scare theory goes, sell their technology to a high bidder. A militia may attempt to purchase the completed weapon. This is where the minor kiloton yield comes in. It is easier to construct a more destructive weapon (you know, like several more kilotons) that is larger. If that kiloton wasn't a fizzle, then they have a relatively small weapon on their hands (which indicates an amazingly high level of technology) that can be more easily smuggled. This is where the fear of proliferation comes in. But, I think the scariest thing would be NK selling nuclear technology to other needy nation states that are willing to sink down and buy from an unreliable nation. That is the proliferation he is talking about. The US Cowboy Diplomay ideal is what brought this all to a head.  Also, stop talking about regime change! That is the last thing you want now that North Korea is nuclear armed. You want isolation to lead to integration and a gradual phase in over the next decade of a new regime that is ever so slightly more benevolent. It really doesn't matter if Kim is still premier or head of the army. What matters is that we can pacify the regime, bring it under some level of international control and take it out of "hermit" status. That way we can at least assist the people of the nation. A regime-change would be a disaster. Additionally, it would be without precident. We've never instigated a full regime change with a nuclear armed state that would be projected to fall into a state of warlord control and factional infighting. Given that we can't manage one without nuclear weapons, god knows how we'll do one when we try to do it with one that does. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
If we want cheap goods, China is the way to go. We're not just backing Japan because they give us anime and cars. :p
There isn't that much difference between the US and Japanese economic-military relationships. Japan doesn't have a massive army right now, but they could make up for lost time very easily. I doubt the US would be very squeamish about selling massive amounts of arms to Japan. Israel, France, and even Russia would probably be willing to sell them military technology. Japan even has the industry to build plenty of their own. China's economy will eventually massively eclipse Japan's, but for the moment, Japan could really compete with China.
The US is not behind them 100%, and the next US president is likely to back Japan even less. Bush is about as aggressive as US presidents get these days. I imagine our next president will be, unfortunately, rather like you. He will probably shy away from any conflict in the Pacific for fear of angering China or provoking a childlike nuclear reaction from Kim Jong Il. Answer me this question, if the US populace was faced with the prospect of China nuking New York or Tokyo, don't you think they would willingly sacrifice Tokyo in a heart beat? Way back when France was building nuclear weapons, there was a classic quote. Would the US President trade Paris for New York? Of course he would, and the same holds true with Tokyo. France built their own nuclear weapons, not because we "backed" them 100 percent, but because they knew we valued American lives more than French lives. The same is true with Japan. And by the way, South Africa doesn't have nuclear weapons either. We were not "behind them 100%" when they were delving into the project. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Once North Korea has built their first bomb, then the knowledge, industry, and technology are all in place to build more. I doubt KJI would detonate his only bomb in a quasi-failed test. If he tested one bomb, he probably had at least one more sitting around. He can probably build more within six months to a year. He's not going to be cranking them out by the hundreds, but he could easily sell a handful to other nations. How would you like to see Iran or Syria buy a nuclear weapon? What about Venezuela or Cuba? Iran and Venezuela have plenty of cash and oil to give KJI. Even smaller, poorer countries like Cuba and Syria have more money than North Korea. KJI could get disparate and sell his nuclear bombs to the highest bidder, even if that high bid is relatively low. He doesn't care. It's not like Syria or Venezuela will nuke North Korea.
Hardly. North Korea was researching the bomb all throughout the Clinton years. KJI only finished the bomb during the Bush years because it takes a long time to build nuclear bombs from scratch, especially with a rag tag economy like North Korea's. KJI did not build his bomb because he felt threatened by Bush. The idea that North Korea would just be a nice kitten if we left them alone is completely absurd.
Actually, it's the first thing I want. I didn't say we should rush in with tanks and storm Pyongyang. Do you recall the last four pages we posted a few weeks ago? However, trying to convince KJI to not use his nuclear weapon is much harder than just killing KJI. But if we cannot remove KJI without risking him firing off his bomb in a last one finger salute to the world, or without that bomb falling into the hands of holdovers from his fallen regime, then we shouldn't Regime-Change him. I've said that before. You should know it by now. (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 02:45 PM) (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 02:49 PM) |
|||
|
blackhole89 Moronic Thread Bodycount: 17 (since 2006-08-21 09:50 EST) F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 Since: 12-31-69 From: Dresden/SN/DE Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo Seeing as the USA already have nuclear arms and there's few to nothing that can be done about that, I honestly don't see any problem with Venezuela getting any. They are exactly like the USA, except much smaller. And they have a more socialist government, in most positive and some few of the negative connotations that word has. Then, of course, I almost forgot... the US point of view on things was that even a fascist dictature still is better than a socialist leftist more-or-less-elected government, as long as it's in favour of capitalism. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Of course he is as aggressive as "they get these days".
You know, there is only ONE president. South Africa had weapons. Look into it. Voluntary disarmament. Also, opposition to Apartheid was usually wink-wink-nudge-nudge when it came to military things. The nuclear weapons issue, though, is never us behind them 100%. It is us behind them 100% because they know that if anyone decides to launch a scud or get their katyushas too ready then the US will strike them. Israel is a bit different given that the US basically foots the entire bill of that nation's defence budget due to its strategic chess-piece location. But yeah. If Syria were to start sending over tanks, I'm pretty sure the US would assist massive aid and material to bomb Damascus. Also, you didn't read what I said. The facet of absolute world proliferation is what Bush's "with us or the terrorist" jabber got us onto. As for regime change. Then stop mentioning it. You've become a bit more pragmatic with your dealings with the topic. We know your wet dream, for whatever reason, is having Kim's head on a pike. Stop talking about absolutes in such a way. Remember, Biology 101 isn't exactly the way you're talking about it. Find another thread to post in, by the way. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Exactly. That's why the US backed Joseph Stalin against Adolf Hitler. Because Stalin was an advocate of capitalism. Because Stalin's fascism was better than Hitler's socialism.
"These days" is a relative term. I was referring to all of our recent presidents, and any current likely presidential candidates. Carter and Clinton didn't start any large scale wars. Bush 41 went to war, but was only willing to fight Saddam's military, and not willing to occupy the country or Regime-Change Saddam. Even though Reagan was aggressive in his negotiations, he also didn't start any large scale wars. Only Bush 43 has committed over 150,000 soldiers to occupying two countries. Thus, I consider him to be the most aggressive president of recent times, not that that is necessarily wrong. I also can't foresee any of the likely candidates for the 2008 presidency invading any other countries.
I know they had nuclear weapons once (or at least, we picked up "flashes" over the water), but that was not supported or even winked at by the US. I doubt the US would go to war for South Africa. As for Syrian tanks, Israel can handle them by itself. I don't foresee any tank battles in or around Israel in the future. Most likely there will just be a lot of terrorist attacks and rocket attacks against Israel, with occasional large scale responses like the most recent action in Lebanon. As for the other countries you mentioned earlier, like Australia, I think the US should fight for them. Don't you?
The only country whose nuclear program can in any way be attributed to Bush is Iran. North Korea was already working on their nuclear bombs long before Bush came into office, and every other nuclear nation in the world already had the bomb. Only Iran has measurably stepped up its nuclear program since Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. Obviously, Iran feels threatened because we invaded their neighbor (though a neighbor with whom they had been at war for several years). But imagine a world in which Bush did not invade Iraq. We do indeed have proof that Saddam had just about every WMD besides nuclear bombs (and I can provide the links if you disagree). How long do you think it would be before Saddam had his own bomb? Three years is plenty of time, especially with the corruption of the Oil for Food scandal, for Saddam to make considerable progress toward his own nuclear bomb. This would frighten Iran into stepping up their own program. So, instead of Iraq in chaos and Iran building a nuclear bomb (as is the situation now), we might have both Iran and Iraq racing to build their own bombs before the other. So can Iran's nuclear program really be attributed to Bush?
You don't automatically have to associate Regime Change with Iraq. Invading Germany was a regime change. Invading Japan was a regime change. It's happened plenty of times. And, for the record, my wet dreams have much more attractive people than Kim Jong Il in them. 
No one is keeping you here. I was quiet for weeks until the thread started up again. You didn't have to come back in. You're welcome to stop posting in it whenever you want. It's not as if I'll continue making a dozen posts in a row if you stop responding to them. (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 09:56 PM) |
|||
|
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
No comment other than please at least try to research your statements before making them, lest this forum become incredible for debate. (Then again, we're still no toastmasters.) Most history books would say that Hitler was fascist while Stalin was socialist (better Communist), and not the other way around. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| The sarcasm should have been apparent. No need to bring history in to this. We're talking about biology here. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Proliferation was caused by afforementioned policy.
Japan is looking into the bomb, Saudi, UAE, Egypt, Germany (a small hint was made by the SDP def sec), Brazil, and probably a few others are all looking into the policy of implimenting a nuclear arsenal into their missile and strike forces. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Japan is looking into the bomb because of China and North Korea, not because of us. Brazil and Egypt have been looking into the bomb for quite some time (long before Bush) and I doubt they'll get very far. Germany could build a bomb, and I wouldn't really care. They're about as peaceful as France and England, but again, I seriously doubt they will build one. I've not heard of any plans for the UAE to build a bomb, but I doubt they will have any success. The UAE is the least likely Arab country to become a subject of US Regime Changing. They have no reason to fear us, though they do have a reason to fear Iran.
In conclusion, not one of those countries is a serious nuclear threat, or a result of Bush's Cowboy Diplomacy. While we're on the subject of small and insignificant countries and their nuclear projects of lack thereof, let's talk about Libya. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| No, but then we wouldn't be in a muck of proliferation had Bush not had a completely failed foreign policy. The choice of looking at the nuclear deterrent has been sped up to unbelievable levels. A direct result of "us". Building a bomb is a thing of money. UAE wants to be a regional power. They have the money behind them to acquire nuclear technology. It isn't that much of a stretch. But of course. It isn't the US Regime Changing that I worry about in that region. It is Internal Destabilization With Nuclear Weapons Because When It Occurs Were Fucked...ing.
As for Libya. Qadafi was on the point of collapse due to sanctions on all sides and liberalization of neighbouring regimes, not to mention the potentiality of collapses. Besides, he isn't exactly ideologicaly driven. He is sort of an MC Hammer of dictators. He just wants to have the best parachute pants in the region. He wanted money. The Americans were fishing for people that will pay lipservice. He got trade. He got happy-da. The fact is that Libya was going to drop their weapon research programs sooner or later due to the unbelievably high upkeep costs necessary to keep them going. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| So let's look at this according to your logic.
A tin pot dictatorship regime is going to build nuclear weapons anyway, but they happen by pure coincidence to build the bomb during Bush's administration, then it's Bush's fault. But, if a tin pot dictatorship regime is going to give up their nuclear weapons anyway, and they do it during the Bush administration, it's not a success for Bush? Clearly, your view is entirely biased and not at all based in fact. You point at any nation that even looks sideways at uranium and claim that they are about to become the next great proliferators. You also cannot see any possible reason for a country to want nuclear weapons other than to deter an invasion from the US. Is the US going to invade Germany? That's just absurd. Is the US going to invade the UAE? They're so far down on the list of non democratic nations they can't even see who is on the top, and they're practically a western tourist nation as it is. Is the US going to invade Saudi Arabia? The US already has troops in Saudi Arabia, and we have had them for years. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, but they just want to sell us oil. The Saudis would not benefit in the least from bombing or threatening to bomb the US. It's far more likely that Saudi Arabia fears Iran because Iran is a Shiite theocracy and Saudi Arabia is a Sunni country (Wahhabis, more specifically). There are many Muslims who are not pleased with the Saudi Government's control over the holy cities. You have pretty much named every nation that the US is least likely to invade and suggested that they are building nuclear weapons because they fear us invading. Absurd. (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 11:49 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Other than not being what I've said at all. Sure  |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| OK. As long as we agree. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Autralia isn't going to be developing nukes, although we were trying until the 60s when the US and UK shut us out of their research, which I suppose was a bit galling given that the Brits fucking tested their nukes on our land and on our soldiers...
At any rate, our Midget Methodist Master John Howard seems to want us to become an energy super-power (and use the global warming means nuclear power furphy to wedge the left). Basically we're just going to become the world's Uranium dealer (OMG SELLING TO CHINA THE SKY IS FALLING), since practically no major nuclear country or prospective nuclear country could be self-sufficient in uranium with nuclear weapons or power. So we'll be like OPEC but with uranium. (edited by Arwon on 12-27-06 01:00 AM) (edited by Arwon on 12-27-06 01:04 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Australia does indeed have the world's largest natural supply of uranium, according to this image, though I can no longer remember where I picked it up. I wouldn't say that the sky is falling just because Australia ships uranium to China, though I would say that Australia will probably be very unhappy if China becomes the hegemon of the Pacific ocean. How would Australia feel about having to pay taxes to ship in "Chinese controlled waters" (read: half the pacific ocean)? It's not that bad, though. The US economy is fueling China's growth far more than Australian uranium ever will. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
| |
