N. Korea Agrees to Allow Inspectors

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Symmetric Chaos
http://armscontrolnow.org/2012/02/29/signs-of-progress-on-north-korean-nuclear-problem/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/u-announces-diplomatic-breakthrough-north-korea-152331635.html

Possibly encouraging news that the UN will now be able to send nuclear inspectors to North Korea and has apparently agreed to reduce or end their nuclear program.

Omega Vision
So two years ago. Iran is where it's at now.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://armscontrolnow.org/2012/02/29/signs-of-progress-on-north-korean-nuclear-problem/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/u-announces-diplomatic-breakthrough-north-korea-152331635.html

Possibly encouraging news that the UN will now be able to send nuclear inspectors to North Korea and has apparently agreed to reduce or end their nuclear program.

That sounds great, but they have done that (or close too that) in the past. To be honest, they can't be trusted. I will put the shampain and streamers in the closet for the time being.

rudester
I dont mean to sound rude or anything because I live in america but if you were to tell me I couldnt play with my toy train and yet you have a toy train too, isn't that hypocritical?? I'm sure if you tell them check here they wont hide them there. We have to be real about this, everyone has toys just in case shit happens.

rudester
I remember a few years back, there was a plane that was sabotaged and the asians got so mad that they found all these listening devices on board. I dont remember the exact details but I remember that they were doing some sort of agreement; and I just found it so funny.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by rudester
I dont mean to sound rude or anything because I live in america but if you were to tell me I couldnt play with my toy train and yet you have a toy train too, isn't that hypocritical?? I'm sure if you tell them check here they wont hide them there. We have to be real about this, everyone has toys just in case shit happens.

A nuke is not a toy.

So, do you believe that a nuke is a deterrent?

rudester
http://siteground243.com/~hiram155/2011/07/28/china-protests-us-spy-flightsamerica%E2%80%99s-actions-fit-the-description-of-the-prophecy-bible-the-beast-has-eyes-around-about-this-refers-to-the-mechanical-listening-devices/

found it.

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A nuke is not a toy.

So, do you believe that a nuke is a deterrent?

His point stands though. The US nor the UN shouldn't go around telling certain countries they can't have nukes while blatantly ignoring that some UN counties and the US has nukes.

UN countries (eg France, England, India etc) and the US should disarm first, then go about telling others they should too. Lead by ****ing example.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
His point stands though. The US nor the UN shouldn't go around telling certain countries they can't have nukes while blatantly ignoring that some UN counties and the US has nukes.

UN countries (eg France, England, India etc) and the US should disarm first, then go about telling others they should too. Lead by ****ing example.

Why?

Do you buy into the idea that a nuke is a deterrent?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Robtard
His point stands though. The US nor the UN shouldn't go around telling certain countries they can't have nukes while blatantly ignoring that some UN counties and the US has nukes.

UN countries (eg France, England, India etc) and the US should disarm first, then go about telling others they should too. Lead by ****ing example.

Best post ever. Truest, too.

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?

Do you buy into the idea that a nuke is a deterrent?

Considering countries like the US could level nations without dropping nukes, I'm not so sure what kind of a deterrent nuclear weapons really are.

Regardless, what gives one country the right to have a nuclear "deterrent" and another not?

Omega Vision
While I support disarmament for all nations, there are some nations that are in more urgent need of disarmament than others.

I'd start with India and Pakistan then work my way to North Korea or Israel then China and France and the UK and then when that's taken care of get Russia and America to agree to get rid of all theirs at the same time in full view of one another.

Of course there's no way this would ever happen.

Edit: There were some very interesting Wikileaks diplomatic cables from China that called North Korea a "spoiled child" and suggested that increasingly large and powerful segments of the Chinese government are for a unified Korea under South Korean rule.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering countries like the US could level nations without dropping nukes, I'm not so sure what kind of a deterrent nuclear weapons really are.

Regardless, what gives one country the right to have a nuclear "deterrent" and another not?

What gives a country the right? The answer is might. Now, I don't agree with this, but it is a reality. The world nations have been in a kinda fight club for thousands of years, and putting down your weapons in a fight club is not wise.

We can dream all day, but if the US destroyed all their nukes, we would be attacked. sad

I don't have an answer...

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What gives a country the right? The answer is might. Now, I don't agree with this, but it is a reality. The world nations have been in a kinda fight club for thousands of years, and putting down your weapons in a fight club is not wise.

We can dream all day, but if the US destroyed all their nukes, we would be attacked. sad

I don't have an answer...

Who would attack the US if the US's 5k+ plus nukes say vanished into thin air?

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, do you believe that a nuke is a deterrent?

so long as MAD stands, sure

Omega Vision
If every country in the Security Council gave up their nukes at once...that would be great.

Edit: MAD only applies to the Russia-USA situation, I've seen reports to the effect that it has next to no weight in a hypothetical India-Pakistan confrontation or a future confrontation between a nuclear armed Iran and Israel/Saudi Arabia.

inimalist
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Edit: MAD only applies to the Russia-USA situation, most experts agree it has next to no weight in a hypothetical India-Pakistan confrontation or a future confrontation between a nuclear armed Iran and Israel/Saudi Arabia.

and it applies ever decreasingly to that situation anyways, as second strike capacity and missile defense matures

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Who would attack the US if the US's 5k+ plus nukes say vanished into thin air?

Everyone. This is a viscous fight club.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Everyone. This is a viscous fight club.
Even without nukes America's conventional military would be too powerful an adversary for even a country like Russia with all its nukes to just attack without some serious consideration.

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Everyone. This is a viscous fight club.

Come on, dude. Not only is America still a military power-house without nukes that any single or multiple countries would have a tooth and nail fight, destroying America would throw the world into an economic shit-ward spin; people in power like their money.

inimalist
If America unilaterally disarmed, the only nation that could beat it militarily (and almost certainly would if it came to blows) would be Russia, and the only reason is because MAD wouldn't stand.

If America had a 100% protective ICBM shield, and actively patrolled their waters for nuclear-armed subs, then no, Russia would be defeated fairly easily.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Come on, dude. Not only is America still a military power-house without nukes that any single or multiple countries would have a tooth and nail fight, destroying America would throw the world into an economic shit-ward spin; people in power like their money.

I hope your optimism is warranted. I am more pessimistic. A conventional force runs on oil. All one would have to do is cut off that oil supply first.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
If America unilaterally disarmed, the only nation that could beat it militarily (and almost certainly would if it came to blows) would be Russia, and the only reason is because MAD wouldn't stand.

If America had a 100% protective ICBM shield, and actively patrolled their waters for nuclear-armed subs, then no, Russia would be defeated fairly easily.

The cost for Russia turning America into a glass dessert would be extremely high. Like a boxer winning the fight, but becoming a cripple for it.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hope your optimism is warranted. I am more pessimistic. A conventional force runs on oil. All one would have to do is cut off that oil supply first.

If America wanted to, they could hold all domestic oil production within the nation. That, plus imports from Canada (who would, unquestioningly, support America) and Mexico (very few nations who Mexico would align with above America) would easily cover the necessary resources.

The problem with oil is that it is on the world market. Its why the whole Keystone Pipeline debate is hilarious. You would buy our oil, then your companies would ship it overseas because oil is a world commodity. Same as the "drill baby drill" meme, all the oil drilled would be shipped to the world market, not preserved for American domestic use.

In a world war scenario, I can see this being one of the first changes made.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
The cost for Russia turning America into a glass dessert would be extremely high. Like a boxer winning the fight, but becoming a cripple for it.

I agree, I just think Russia is a clear winner in that conflict.

The long term consequences would be disastrous, if not in terms of military retaliation from NATO, at least in terms of the destruction of the world economy.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
If America wanted to, they could hold all domestic oil production within the nation. That, plus imports from Canada (who would, unquestioningly, support America) and Mexico (very few nations who Mexico would align with above America) would easily cover the necessary resources.

The problem with oil is that it is on the world market. Its why the whole Keystone Pipeline debate is hilarious. You would buy our oil, then your companies would ship it overseas because oil is a world commodity. Same as the "drill baby drill" meme, all the oil drilled would be shipped to the world market, not preserved for American domestic use.

In a world war scenario, I can see this being one of the first changes made.

...but your point supports the "drill baby drill" meme.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...but your point supports the "drill baby drill" meme.

In a world where oil is not a global commodity, sure.

Get me started on how the Chinese have bought our entire oil supply to ship to Asia....

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
In a world where oil is not a global commodity, sure.

Get me started on how the Chinese have bought our entire oil supply to ship to Asia....

I have a gut feeling that we are not drilling because we want everyone else to run out of oil first. wink

China is a wild card.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
I agree, I just think Russia is a clear winner in that conflict.

The long term consequences would be disastrous, if not in terms of military retaliation from NATO, at least in terms of the destruction of the world economy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on, dude. Not only is America still a military power-house without nukes that any single or multiple countries would have a tooth and nail fight, destroying America would throw the world into an economic shit-ward spin; people in power like their money.

We pretty much agree 100%. Good, good. *rubs hands menacingly*

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a gut feeling that we are not drilling because we want everyone else to run out of oil first. wink

China is a wild card.

Possible. It likely has more to do with OPEC paying our politicians to suppress more drilling on US territory.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a gut feeling that we are not drilling because we want everyone else to run out of oil first. wink

China is a wild card.

not us, we can't sell it to the Chinese fast enough

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
not us, we can't sell it to the Chinese fast enough

Maybe we are pulling an OPEC on China. Now that is pure speculation.

inimalist
no, really, it is just our government selling off the land as fast as possible

but, we got a pair of pandas on loan for one of our zoos, so its sort of a fair deal

(I might just start a thread... its such a ridiculously huge topic though)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.