-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
N. Korea acknowledges it has nuclear arms
- Thread starter neptunes
- Start date
- Status
RonaldoSan
Member
Bush ain't that stupid. Why wrestle with the pitbull (N. Korea) when you can mishandle the old teethless puddle (Iran)? Pitbull will hurt you...
No one has mentioned yes nuclear proliferation can work as a deterrent via the MAD principle(Mutually Assured Destruction).... you need to have a semi-rationale leader at the helm that accepts that yeah if we start tossing nukes and they start tossing nukes.. nobody wins...... problem is by many accounts... Kim Il Jong(sp?) is off his rocker...
No one will start a nuclear war. Say what you will, buy N.Korea having nukes isn't a bad thing at all. Matter of fact, I expect Iran to get them soon as well, and it'll act as a deterrant to the US. The US is on an imperial march, and while citizens here may think it's all honky dory, it's not. I don't trust Bush with nukes anymore than I trust Jong-Il. We're still actively pursuing nuke research, just not with live tests. We still have the most warheads pointed at the most countries, and together with Russia, we pose the largest threat to the world's safet, not N. Korea. I wish people wouldn't buy wholesale into the administration's fear-mongering and would look at the blatant hypocrisy of the situation. What makes the nuclear-armed countries the final judges of who can have the technology? Because they got them first? What about Israel? What about Pakistan and India? It's bullshit. If a country wants to go nuclear, they should be allowed to. If the whole planet is destroyed as a result, at lesat we'll have a clean slate to start off from, so all the better.
I don't think the status quo will last much longer. With the way Bush and his cronnies have gotten away with not just an unjustified war, but also CONTINUED torture. That's right, fucking torture and no one here gives a damn. Why should we get all scared b/c NK has nukes? We've got the devil at our doorsteps, we shouldn't be worried about the guy across town. PEACE.
I don't think the status quo will last much longer. With the way Bush and his cronnies have gotten away with not just an unjustified war, but also CONTINUED torture. That's right, fucking torture and no one here gives a damn. Why should we get all scared b/c NK has nukes? We've got the devil at our doorsteps, we shouldn't be worried about the guy across town. PEACE.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Pimpwerx said:
I agree
I was also flamed on this forum for suggesting that china could potentially make a better world hegemonic power then America. Looks like that ten year prediction I made until china is the worlds super power isnt so fuckin retarded with some help from the Bush administration. But hey my prediction was based on information from many politics units.
Sorry for going a bit off topic.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
RonaldoSan said:
Yup, another reason we invaded Iraq, as they meet the criteria of being an essentially defenseless pansy we could take out relatively quickly--"Mission Accomplished" and all that bullshit.
I think we will definitely see more countries trying to gain access to nuclear weapons, or at least the material for production, directly as result of this administration's aggressive quest for hegemony. It is probably the only way to avoid more needless wars (read: U.S. "preventitive" invasions), as backwards as that sounds. Of course, the administration will predictably try to push economic and border sanctions on NK, which would only embolden The Great Leader and his vise grip on the population.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Pimpwerx said:
el oh el...uhm, yes it is. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, or a lot of Bush's policies, but I'd still much rather the majority of nuclear weapons be held in the US rather than the "democratic dictatorship of North Korea". The US might be on an "imperial march" but at least it won't sell its technology and weapons to terrorists. The same cannot be said for North Korea.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Azih said:
Fucking hacker.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
OpinionatedCyborg said:
Yes thats a good point America wont sell arms to extremist regimes
Anyway what did America get when the Ragen provided Saddam with much of his capacity to create WMDs, armaments and tactical data to the location of Iranian troop deployments?
Or is an extremist dictatorship that serves the self interest of the USA allowed such capacity?
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
OpinionatedCyborg said:
We'd sell a truck full of newborns to the highest bidder if it meant there was something in it for us. I wonder, if you asked people around the world, outside of the US, what is curently the biggest danger to world security, what their answer would be?
Foreign Jackass
Member
bob_arctor said:
Stop wondering. Here in Quebec, it's obvious who we'd be afraid of, and well, you're pretty close. I just hope you never need our water as much as you need oil now.
Phoenix
Member
NK acknowledging that they have nuclear weapons isn't a big deal. We all knew they had them, and have known for a while. One thing that it shows is that our intelligence community doesn't suck too much because they've been talking about it for years.
China didn't wake up this morning and realize that NK had these weapons either. As they've been involved in NK military training/operations in the past, its possible that not only did they know about them - they at some level were involved in their development.
This news shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and the world today is the same as the world was yesterday - the people who needed to know about this have known about it for a long long time. China isn't about to cross the border into NK, the US marine corps aren't staging in south korea, and japan isn't cobbling together mecha for coastal defense.
China didn't wake up this morning and realize that NK had these weapons either. As they've been involved in NK military training/operations in the past, its possible that not only did they know about them - they at some level were involved in their development.
This news shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and the world today is the same as the world was yesterday - the people who needed to know about this have known about it for a long long time. China isn't about to cross the border into NK, the US marine corps aren't staging in south korea, and japan isn't cobbling together mecha for coastal defense.
Outcast2004
Banned
DJ Brannon said:
I nominate this for BEST POST EVER!
I luaghed pretty well with this. thanks.
While they aren't making mecha, they're advancing rapidly in the field of security bots. Soon they'll combine the lethal power of their security bots with the cuteness of the wired walking humanbot and who the fuck can stand up to such a sacchrine-sweet death platoon?
I'll tell you; NOBODY, that's who. We're all doomed. Except for me of course. I for one shall welcome our new Robian overlords, and will buy many copies of I, Robot with the alternate ending of Will Smith getting beaten down by his own robotic arm to appease them.
I'll tell you; NOBODY, that's who. We're all doomed. Except for me of course. I for one shall welcome our new Robian overlords, and will buy many copies of I, Robot with the alternate ending of Will Smith getting beaten down by his own robotic arm to appease them.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Phoenix said:
So, basically, the only "benefit" of this "news" is to scare the fuck out of the general population some more. Nice.
Phoenix
Member
bob_arctor said:So, basically, the only "benefit" of this "news" is to scare the fuck out of the general population some more. Nice.
I'm sure that NK believes, falsely, that by making this annoucement public that it somehow changes how the US will conduct its international affairs. After all, North Korea made the annoucement...
Fresh Prince
Banned
On the news they showed a CIA or FBI Agent 1 year ago saying how North Korea had a nuke that could reach the West Coast too bad the Iraq War has lead most people to believe that the Intelligence Agencies just make up evidence to suit the Administration :lolPhoenix said:
Mechs? I'm there.Phoenix said:
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Phoenix said:
More likely they released this statement to have others try to curb US policy for them. Not that that'll work either.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
bob_arctor said:
I'm Canadian, so I'm completely aware of the animosity towards the US the world currently harbours. I used to be one of the people who despised the US vehemently. Using the word hate wouldnot be an exagerration when describing my former feelings to the US. But you know what? The more I talk to Americans, the more I associate with conservative Americans, and the more I come to learn about your country and its news, the less I hate and the less I fear.
George Bush is an absolutely horrible president; no question about that. However, his administration, and the US in general, are not the evil warlords the world makes them out to be. I am not afraid of the US despite the fact that I'm deeply critical of its policies.
Oh, and just for the record, just because people around the world think something to be true doesn't mean that it is. People are retards. I don't care if you're left wing, right wing, chicken wing, there are dumbasses all over the place who follow what they want to follow, and the majority of them do it blindly.
ManDudeChild
Member
OpinionatedCyborg said:
the world (i'm Canadian too) doesn't hate the U.S. people, well I don't think most do, but the government and its policies, meddling in others affairs and general hypocracy, that's what people DONT like. The saying power corrupts is certainly true in the case of anyone wih it, so to that end, you can't entirely blame the U.S. (and even to lesser extents you can't completely, as all governments are fucked up), but at the moment, the U.S. IS one of the largest threats to this planet.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
I fail to see how the US is a threat to the planet. I see the potential for the US becoming a threat in light of their self designation as world police, but I don't see how they could move from being a potential threat to a legitimate one. What exactly do you mean by threat anyways? The way I see it, every country, person, thing has the perpencity for violence and destruction. Everything's a threat if you want to get right down to it. The US, despite overstepping its bounds by engaging in a war based on false pretences, is not a threat to the planet like many other nations are.
ManDudeChild
Member
OpinionatedCyborg said:
You answered your own question.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
ManDudeChild said:
Not necessarily. Just because the US has its hands in others business does not mean that it's a threat to the planet. Once again, how do you define threat? Are we talking about the planet's destruction or an arbitrary invasion of a country? There's quite a bit of lee way here.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
thats it im joinin the navy , no competition there.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
OpinionatedCyborg said:
Technically, the Bush administration shouldn't scare, or at least surprise, anyone, as the U.S. quest for global hegemony is what we have always been about, at least since the end of the 1st World War and definitely since the end of WWII but I think it's this administration's blatant disregard, for well, anything or anyone, that really scares me the most. Actually, in some ways, their total lack of pretense would be admirable if their intentions were as noble as they'd like us all to believe ("spreading freedom and democracy"). And I mean "lack of pretense" in that, to me at least, their lies/reasoning are more easily transparent than any other administration in recent memory, even moreso than Reagan and his fucking over of Nicaragua, definitely moreso than Clinton and his bombing of Kosovo. In a related note, what would it take to scare you? Preventitive (it was never pre-emptive) war was enough for me.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Heh, to be honest, not a whole hell of a lot scares me, so that could be the problem. In fact, I know it is. You could tell me that I have 90 forms of cancer, including 3 that technically shouldn't exist, and I'd just be like, "meh". Seriously, I think the war in Iraq is in a way the end of the US' dominance over the world. The amount of ire and hatred being thrown its way ensures that any future invasions will be met with much harsher resistance than Iraq. A plodding economy, and China's emergence as a global power, will serve to keep America in check throughout the future.
It disturbs me that the American people can overlook so many lies (I consider the reasons for going to war lies, even though Bush fans say that the poor intelligence is to blame, not the administration), and absolute mishandling of their country in favour of fighting a foreign battle that, at its best, is an attempt to bring freedom to people at the expense of America's own (this is really stretching it, imo. When you bring this ideology into the debate, it starts getting ridiculous).
I guess when it all comes down to it, I'm not afraid of America's intrusiveness in other countries sovereignty because I doubt Canada will come under America's fire anytime soon. Quite frankly, the invasion of Iraq is a world away from the invasion of an established democratic nation. I'm not excusing the invasion, but given the circumstances, the pill is much easier to swallow.
It disturbs me that the American people can overlook so many lies (I consider the reasons for going to war lies, even though Bush fans say that the poor intelligence is to blame, not the administration), and absolute mishandling of their country in favour of fighting a foreign battle that, at its best, is an attempt to bring freedom to people at the expense of America's own (this is really stretching it, imo. When you bring this ideology into the debate, it starts getting ridiculous).
I guess when it all comes down to it, I'm not afraid of America's intrusiveness in other countries sovereignty because I doubt Canada will come under America's fire anytime soon. Quite frankly, the invasion of Iraq is a world away from the invasion of an established democratic nation. I'm not excusing the invasion, but given the circumstances, the pill is much easier to swallow.
Fragamemnon
Member
<LicensetoKimJongIll> Will trade 3 1 megaton nukes for 15 SOJ????1
<Bush43> keke, join game 'bushcondi4ever' ^_^
Or whatever.
The US's aggressive foreign policy, specifically its neoconservative doctrine of preemptive war, will continue to force 'unfriendly' states to get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible since they are the only observable effective deterrent to that doctrine. The clusterfuck in Iraq just buys time for those countries to continue pursuing their own weapons programs while the US military is locked down in that country.
The end result of the Bush doctrine will not be more democracy. It will be nuclear proliferation and unstable puppet states at best, and nuclear proliferation and US-unfriendly counterbalance alliances at worst, including a total mideast meltdown and resultant Shite superstate.
WAY TO GO MORANS.
<Bush43> keke, join game 'bushcondi4ever' ^_^
Or whatever.
The US's aggressive foreign policy, specifically its neoconservative doctrine of preemptive war, will continue to force 'unfriendly' states to get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible since they are the only observable effective deterrent to that doctrine. The clusterfuck in Iraq just buys time for those countries to continue pursuing their own weapons programs while the US military is locked down in that country.
The end result of the Bush doctrine will not be more democracy. It will be nuclear proliferation and unstable puppet states at best, and nuclear proliferation and US-unfriendly counterbalance alliances at worst, including a total mideast meltdown and resultant Shite superstate.
WAY TO GO MORANS.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Fragamemnon said:<LicensetoKimJongIll> Will trade 3 1 megaton nukes for 15 SOJ????1
<Bush43> keke, join game 'bushcondi4ever' ^_^
Or whatever.
The US's aggressive foreign policy, specifically its neoconservative doctrine of preemptive war, will continue to force 'unfriendly' states to get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible since they are the only observable effective deterrent to that doctrine. The clusterfuck in Iraq just buys time for those countries to continue pursuing their own weapons programs while the US military is locked down in that country.
The end result of the Bush doctrine will not be more democracy. It will be nuclear proliferation and unstable puppet states at best, and nuclear proliferation and US-unfriendly counterbalance alliances at worst, including a total mideast meltdown and resultant Shite superstate.
WAY TO GO MORANS.
You spelled "nucular wrong" ...
..
Joking. Please don't break into my house at night, shave the hair off my back, then use it to create a toupee of sorts. You scare me ;_;
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
OpinionatedCyborg said:
To me, the American people never overlooked this administrations lies--there were, and still are, many organizations and dissidents still trying to "fight the good fight", and even from the beginning there was plenty of public dischord to go around. The sad part is that despite being touted as the "ultimate" democracy, nothing short of an armed and violent uprising would have prevented the invasion of Iraq.
What's most interesting is that many people, when discussing the Iraq war and the public's general apathy or acceptance of it, harken back to the Vietnam days as the flashpoint of internal dissension but the truth is that it took years and many, many casualties before the American public gave a rat's ass.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
bob_arctor said:
I'm not seeing your point. Democracy never satisfies everyone. It attempts to placate the whole, and when it comes to Iraq, it obviously has or Bush wouldn't have been re-elected with a 3% margin. This isn't a failing of democracy, it's simply hilighting the importance of the electorate in the process.
Kobun Heat said:
:lol :lol :lol
speedpop said:
You mean the same way Japanese soccer players were lynched by angry Chinese mobs last year? :lol God, what a world we live in.
OpinionatedCyborg said:
Agreed 100%.
Fragamemnon said:<LicensetoKimJongIll> Will trade 3 1 megaton nukes for 15 SOJ????1
<Bush43> keke, join game 'bushcondi4ever' ^_^
Or whatever.
The US's aggressive foreign policy, specifically its neoconservative doctrine of preemptive war, will continue to force 'unfriendly' states to get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible since they are the only observable effective deterrent to that doctrine. The clusterfuck in Iraq just buys time for those countries to continue pursuing their own weapons programs while the US military is locked down in that country.
The end result of the Bush doctrine will not be more democracy. It will be nuclear proliferation and unstable puppet states at best, and nuclear proliferation and US-unfriendly counterbalance alliances at worst, including a total mideast meltdown and resultant Shite superstate.
WAY TO GO MORANS.
Bingo...frankly I think that's what these idiots wanted.
The timing of North Korea's latest dick waving is hardly a coincidence. Making this proclaimation a day or two after the United States' veiled threats against Iran for it's nuclear situation was done to improve their own bargaining power, and fuck with Bush's head in the process. And Jong's pretty much daring the US to try something at this point...probably figures if a few nukes get thrown in both directions, so be it. He seems crazy enough that while he knows he would die, he'd at least go down as the man who fucked up the US like few others before him in the process.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
OpinionatedCyborg said:
This would be a fair assessment if the administration was actually forthright. Instead they relied on blatant fear-mongering, outright lies and demonization (i.e. the sudden onset of "anti-americanism" labels to squelch/marginalize dissent) to garner support. Well, unless by "placating" you mean doing whatever's neccessary to dupe the public in order to get over, then I'd have to agree with you.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
bob_arctor said:
Just because they used "blatant fear-mongering, outright lies, and demonization" does not mean the process was not democratic. It's called poltitics, and the world of politics offen gets dirty. The President was elected. His senators were elected. Everyone who voted for the war was elected. Everyone who was elected voted on the war. Democracy is evident in every step of the process--just because the outcome of a democracy doesn't represent your opinion, does not mean it's undemocratic.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
OpinionatedCyborg said:
Nah, it has nothing to do w/ just getting the outcome I wanted. I'm talking about an "even" playing field, more or less. It's almost like the Barry Bonds argument:
"He hit all those home runs"
"Yes, but he was juiced"
"Sure. But he still had to make contact, right?"
Well, Bush was elected, that's much for sure. But if the majority of voters are uninformed--or at the very least bombarded with propaganda, fear-mongering and jingo-ism--how legitimate is it really? Due process does not equal democracy.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
bob_arctor said:
It's the voters' responsibility to be informed. And I have yet to meet a politician who will forgo cheap effective tactics for fair one's that will result in a loss. Bush is no different than any other politician; perhaps the USA has never been a democracy.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
AssMan said:
There has to be some variant of Godwin's Law that needs to be invoked when this statement is made.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
Mermandala said::lol that was exactly what I thought.
<3 <3 <3 Nuclear Arms give the biggest Hugs! <3 <3 <3
- N. Korea Valentines Day Card
:lol
Ill Saint said:
i hope not. South korea is slowly prospering....if they get unified with north korea i see them falling into a slump...seriously...fuck north korea up its stupid fuck ass.
its funny that, the older generation of koreans actually support bush.....only because bush is against north korea.
One thing I find funny about the WHOLE nuclear situation is....its funny that Every Country shouldnt have Nukes except the US.
I say, get rid of all of them all together.
All the nuclear weapon talk keeps reminding me of Crimson tide....damn...what a great movie
peace
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Azih said:
So should there be some kind of test potential voters must take before voting? Democracy, like any system, has its problems: people will go into polling stations with racist, biased, uninformed, out of date, and skewed opinions of who they're going to vote for. It's an inherent problem that we'll have to deal with until every voting citizen has time to learn the issues as well as the politicians.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Fixed2BeBroken said:
I agree. Nuclear weapons are not effective in preventing war, despite what Reaganites might lead you to believe. For every nuclear weapon that exists, the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands does too. Let's get rid of the nukes and make our planet a safer place to live. In doing so, the double standard many countries feel (the US can do whatever the fuck it wants) will be partially erased.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
OpinionatedCyborg said:
You nailed it with that last statement. The USA is not a democracy, at least not in the way we always trump ourselves to be. I'd say we're more fascist than anything else, especially in the current climate. Regarding being informed, it's very hard to be when the government dictates coverage. For example, since the election in Iraq, 3 major NY papers--the Daily News, The Times and the Post--have all systematically scaled back any coverage of the ongoing violence in Iraq. The Post has eliminated it altogether going on a week straight now (this after first subtly pushing coverage to the later pages--about 19 and beyond). The last week has been one of the bloodiest in recent memory with almost 100 killed since Sunday and while they run a teeny-ass article today talking up Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad and Mosul (ironically, to praise the progress of the Iraqi security forces, who have been specifically targeted in these recent attacks), they fail to even mention the 31 killed on the very same day of his visit. Do you how many "average" people read that trash paper? Is it a coincidence it's also the cheapest paper available at only a quarter? Hell, even one of their comic strips is nothing more than pure propaganda.
The Times and the Daily News differ, but only slightly. Each article mentioning the insurgency invariably begins with a completely different subject--i.e. the vote tally--with only a small portion alotted to the death toll, hidden towards the end of the article. The Daily News to its credit does actually mention the 31 dead up front in the article title, yet runs it in a side-bar, placed directly next to an almost entire page puff-piece written by an "our man on the ground" journalist covering the 42nd Infantry Division Band. As in instruments. Horns and violins and shit.
Ugh. Reminds me of "Bart's People" in the Simpson's.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Fair enough. There's a crack in everything--that's how the light gets in.bob_arctor said:
The major contributors to misinformation, and other facets of a fascist state, aren't the politician: they're the pundits. Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc are the one's who've created an atmosphere for misinformation more than anyone else in my opinion. The patriot act, sequestering prisoners to Guantonimo Bay, and blatantly nationalistic undertones are all used in proliferation by President Bush. However, seriously comparing the current US political climate to that of a fascist state is offensive. I won't deny that many of the Bush admins moves are disturbing to me: the patriot act, and decision to preempt war in Iraq immediately come to mind. But let's leave the overzealous language out of this.
The government dictates the coverage? I realize that the bodies of fallen soldiers and coffins cannot be displayed by the media, and I also realize the potential that exists by imbedding journalists in certain parts of Iraq, but beyond dead bodies and imbedded journalists (which may or may not be an effective way for the US government to emit propoganda) how're they dictating anything. I'll read on...
I'm sure quite a few people watch TV was well. CNN certainly doesn't hold back when it comes to mentioning fallen soldiers in Iraq. Besides, anyone who hasn't figured out the dire situation the country's in at the moment will never change their mind. We've heard about the thousands of US soldiers kill and possibly hundred thousand Iraqi civilians murdered how many times? It's drilled into my brain, surely it hasn't escaped theirs. I'm not excusing the Post's obvious pandering, but I think it's reasonable to scale back news coverage of what is essentially the same story over and over again (it's like car bombings in the Middle East: you hear about it nearly every day until the news stops emotionally resonating with you).
Once again, do we want to read a number for the hundredth time, or would we like to read about other events transpiring in Iraq. There are only so many ways you can make a story about a statistic.
Haha. Yay for radical, unfounded theories. IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THE SPICE GRRLS HAD ACCESS TO NUCLEAR WEAPONRY LOL. !
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
The only way to ensure no US invasion is to make damned sure you have nukes and the capabilities to deliver them to US soil.
The US public will stomach a few thousand casualties in a war on foreign land, but would they tolerate the utter destruction of a couple of US cities? I don't think so.
Hence, i'm pretty sure we won't see this spread of democracy into China.
The US public will stomach a few thousand casualties in a war on foreign land, but would they tolerate the utter destruction of a couple of US cities? I don't think so.
Hence, i'm pretty sure we won't see this spread of democracy into China.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked