Well if someone isn't responding to talking, it really doesn't matter how the world blows up at that point, now does it?

While I'm not really sure what you...or I'm, talking about for that matter...

They have nukes. We attack them. Forced into a corner, they will use the nukes on the closest available target (probably south korea or japan). Nukes they probably otherwise would have just used as a "I'm a tough guy" symbol. We take care of them. South Korea or Japan suffers thousands upon thousands of death and nuclear fallout. But we got 'em. China relations are damaged. Japan or South Korean relations are horribly damaged.

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Perhaps, you don't really have any intention of using the nukes...you just want them for attention. You know if you use them, your country will be bombed to ruins and you personally will be executed. You're a small country and can't take on the whole world with one nuke....so you're going to hold onto it as a bargaining chip.

Then you're attacked. Your country is being bombed to ruins and you're probably going to end up executed. Your army can't hold them all off. So you push the button because, what do you have to lose? A desperate man is a vicious man.

Leave all of the past stuff behind and just look at the situation now. We can go flex our biceps at them and cut off our own nose to spite the face...but it just doesn't seem like the best couse of action from here.

I will now return to making terrible star craft parallels to this bleak situation.

And here I thought we were having playful banter.

Does NK even have a nuke? It sounds like they are still working on the warhead after they got the launching system complete (one that could reach california, or so I hear).

If they don't then it's necessary to do some serious human intelligence infiltrations and making sure they don't stale for time in negotiations.

I just realized that Massassi made me the refined, knowledgable political guy I am today. It's scary. The political debates here have taught me a lot.

Just off-topic banter, don't mind the dino.

No offense, but every political debate you enter, you just get called 'ignorant' and proven wrong...and with good reason too.

Only by people who are ignorant about the topic or are emotional. People who actually use well contructed arguments that are based on reliable sources don't insult people. They'll inform you that your argument has no basis or support. If you take it personally, that's your problem.

In response to those who think it's wrong for the US to be the only country with nuclear weapons:

Of course the US should seek to be the only country with nuclear weapons, here is my reasoning:

1) Keeping a uni-polar balance of power is a good thing. If North Korea is able to counterbalance the US with weapons and such, war is much more likely. Think about it. Who challenges the US when they don't have the capability to do damage to us? If we keep them from proliferating, we stop a nuclear war from happening.

2) It isn't hypocritical. We don't expect other nations to act against national interest. By keeping nukes out of the hands of other nations, we act in our own interest.

3) Even if it's hypocritical, why does that even matter/outweigh the impact of not checking North Korean aggression.

4) Even if it's hypocritical, it would be MORE hypocritical to follow our interest when it comes to genocide in Rwanda and Sudan and the war on terror... then to all of a sudden fail to back up that stance with regard to North Korea.

5) Keeping uni-polarity isn't mutually exclusive with diplomacy. In fact, it's easier to maintain hegemony when other countries like you to begin with.

I really don't care if it's not "equal" they we had nukes and we didn't. People have lost all sense about politics. You don't want you enemies stronger than you! duh! Kim Il is a very, very evil man who starves and murders his people. He is much worse than Hitler. We would rather not see him with bargaining power. BTW, does he even have the technology to deliver them yet?

You're not the only one.

SAJN--if I'm proven wrong, that has nothing to do with my debating skills. Only my resources. The only thing it might reflect on is my willingness to do a background check on my resources...maybe.

However, the only time people call me ignorant is when the debates start getting personal, and I make minor quips. Like the pic Cow made--if I hadn't taken that debate so personally, it would've never happened. We ended up becoming amicable for our own reasons anyways. Same with Freelancer.

And I could get into insulting you, but you're just not worth my time. Just wanted to prove you wrong right fast.

But you...didn't prove...anything....If anything you just proved my point. The 'WWII and Vietnam veterans are real soldiers, the people in Iraq aren't' thing...then there was the whole 'Flexor, you aren't American, you can't UNDERSTAND out history/pride etc..' Nevermind this argument is useless....PM me if you want to 'prove me wrong'. All we are goin to do is clutter the thread with blah blah blah..

^^ If his last two comments aren't trolling I don't know what is. Usually I have nothing against trolling, but this is SAJN, so can a mod/admin do something about this?


Yeah I thought they were still being worked on... Oh well hopefully N.Korea doesn't have too many, if any of them.

We could always use Sally Struthers as a shield. She may block the sun out of a portion of the US, but hey, there's always consequences for every action.

Trolling? How is...What the? Because it's SAJN?! What in the....Yeah really classy.

SAJN, knock it off. Save the ad hominems for backchannel and the actual debate for this thread. I don't want to see any more of this nonsense. Debate about the issues, not your debate skills/past debate success.

You have been warned. (Yeah, I don't have the power to do much enforcement of this warning, but I will be editing troll posts from this point forward. )

And to answer the question of your last post, you ARE trolling. Reasons:

1) You continue to make comments about DJ Yoshi's ability to prove his arguments. Alternative: If he has no warrants, kindly point that out when refuting his statement.

2) Your last post is a troll. No one is accusing you of trolling based on your reputation alone. You're just trying to cause trouble/create argument over whether or not you're being persecuted. That has no place in this thread.

kthxbye

...k

Burn the jedi! Burn him! Revolt! Burn! Loot! Kill! Tie up the mods!

Jedi Legend, you bring up some interesting ideas. I don't think they're realistic, and here's why:

This instance (among others) proves that in the coming years, more and more countries will likely become nuclear powers. In the world's short history of nuclear weapons, no two nuclear powers have ever declared war, so I'm confused by your argument that the proliferation of nuclear weapons into sovereign powers will create more war.

In fact, I'm going to argue the opposite viewpoint here for a moment. Let me set up a scenario. Suppose Iraq has been a nuclear power for a number of years. Would the United States have invaded so readily? I don't believe so. The U.S. would have had to think twice about pinning down a desparate dictator with nothing to lose by launching a nuke Israel's way. I have come to the conclusion that war is much more likely when one side is not nuclear capable.

And Dj Yoshi: Speaking of learning something new, look what you did! You forced me look up "amicable."

Wrong.

Not gonna name anyone, you know who you are.

The problem faced here is US involvement with South Korea. Were there not an ally that would surely see any concession to North Korea as an act of treason, there would be more room to negotiate. However, though the US doesn't maintain a foreign policy that barres other nations from posessing nuclear weapons, it DOES maintain a policy barring itself from negotiating with comunist nations.

North Korea is an insignificant enemy. Comparing this conflict to the Cold War is both ignorant, and premature. Unlike Russia, North Korea is surrounded by US allies (though most of them won't claim us right now thanks to Bush, I think that in a nuclear conflict we'd have our friends back), and doesn't maintain any tactical positions anywhere. We could easily evacuate South Korea and end the lives of many innocent people, just to prove a point.

As long as the world relies on super powers, the US will always be the biggest boy on the block, because no government will be able to develop fast enough to change that. And as long as that fact holds true, we will continue to be the dominant force in the world. We can, and will throw our weight around, and demand that not only North Korea, but any other nation in the world, cease development of nuclear weapons, for fear of losing our strangle hold on the world.

I for one, being a leftist, am opposed to a large militaristic entity making up the bulk of the American face to the world. However, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy living in the richest nation in the world, and taking my lifestyle for granted. So the hell with anybody else. I'd rather the US win, then give up my liberties.

Yeah, I was ****ing pissed off at you. :p Glad that's over.

I've still got to put that iPod into that pic...

North Korea would have to develop several thousand warheads, and systems of delivery to be stronger than us. They would have to develop a fleet of submarines capable of firing the missiles. North Korea developing one weapon, is, uh, not a big deal. If you were having some hostile exchanges with China, I'd bet that you'd want to up your weapons ante too. Not to mention when W places you in the "Axis of Evil" with two countries that we have invaded. Yeah it's all starting to add up.

A well placed nuke, could still cause one of the biggest disaters in modern times. What really hurt it that Bill Clinton practly gave him those nukes. I can't belive he actually trusted those commies when they said they were just going to use the uranium for power plants. That's what I call crimminal stupidity. Thanks alot Bill. Nice politics.

Opps nvermind

Yecti is awesome.

Bill: Iraq, Iran, and NK are in the "axis of evil". Afghanistan isn't in there because he made that speech after we took it.

Except they did use it for power plants when it was given to them. It was only in 2002 when the construction began on the first reactor that those materials were used to develop weapons. They couldn't magic up nuclear weapons.

No, it was only when North Korea felt that they were being totally ignored that they felt it necessary to obtain nuclear weapons so that they could get some attention and be taken seriously by the US. The nuclear weapon crisis was a result of the North Korean desperation which was a result of arrogant American foreign policy in 1999 and onwards.

Nein. Having a hegemonic world order only increases the threat of war. America has no one that can stand up to it and can do whatever it pleases. Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe they both are justified but if they werent, who possibly could've stood up to us?

Read the Melian Dialogue

America = Athens

Take what you can, while you can is America's slogan. Anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves. When there was a bipolar system like in the Cold War, a massive war was unthinkable because it would most likely end in MAD. However, now there is no real threat to the US so our power is unchecked.

Hegemony does not mean security.

Your wrong and totally fail to see how the world works. You fail to realize that America is just a country among countries.

America's foundation lies in rebelion against tyranny. Do you wish for America to be to the world what Saddam Hussien was to Iraq? One of our first ammendments of our constituation states the right for all individuals to own arms in order to protect themselves against oppression. Maybe we would like to think that America is the all-tollerent, equitous nation which our fore fathers wished to create, but I think we have come to see that America has just as much history being oppressive as it has being a beacon of hope, oppurtunity and freedom.

This uni-polar power structure is monarchy. Are you saying that America is king of the world? Look at your history. People don't like kings, and people know how to deal with kings. At a national level, this often means a bloody, bloody revolution. At an international level, what might it entail? With an attitude like yours, how long until the world unites and chants, "Down with the king"?

It seems to me that if you know that a country has weapons of mass destruction, then invading it is the absolutely worst thing you can do.

But north korea, if I'm reading this right, just has a warhead (or a few?). No means yet to launch it. So then realistically, right now would be the best time to invade, if we would at all.

I have to agree. If I was going down, I would take as much of the free world down with me. I also have to admit with Schming. I remember my teacher describing to me a bit about why we go to war in the Mid-East. Its all about oil. In a dozen years, the world would be out and we have Alaska still. So, buy protecting the oil in the Mid-East, we preserve the oil that we have left. It was an interesting arguement.

Indeed. The war in Iraq was never about removing a tyrant, or WMD's. We knew completely well that there were no WMD's and that Iraq was no threat. So why go there? We wanted oil. Interestingly, it was one of the first things decided, if I remember, as to who gets how much oil.

As for North Korea, they are just trying to get what they want. They know having a nuclear program is of little use. If nothing else than due to the concept of mutual assured destruction. It's the main reason we haven't already had a nuclear war. Basically, it's assumed to be worthless to start a nuclear war. Launch a nuke, and every one of your enemies will launch a retaliatory nuke. Then your allies launch their nukes. The whole thing escalates, and there's really nothing left. Or at least that's the main idea. Oh, btw, US doesn't assume taht we should be the only ones with nukes. However, we basically don't want any country in Asia or Africa to have nukes. (The exception being Russia. We'd probably like that they wouldn't have nukes (due to the sometimes unstable political/social situation over there), but we don't really try anymore.) We never raise up about France or Britain having nukes. However, a small communist/dictatorship country (I don't remember which) which we've already helped to fight one war against, and which doesn't particularly like us, having nukes, yeah, that's something that bothers us. Most countries very much shy away from the use of nuclear weapons, except as the idea of a deterrant. We're pretty much too worried about WWIII or global destruction.

Torn--a dozen years? It's estimated something like a hundred years worth of oil is in Kuwait itself. See, why do people keep saying we're going to run out of oil sometime soon. It makes me wonder...

sweet jesus:eek:

Ok, let me get this straight... You're saying NK had the best of intentions until it felt that it had been so ignored by the bad old, arrogant US, that it felt it had to make nukes to survive through the US’s arrogant policies? Did you recently retire from a job writing speeches for USSR politicians? I really hope I’m misunderstanding you.

Replace the US with Bush. Lots of countries (though I'm not sure if it's the majority or not. Probably nowhere near it.) out there don't like Bush, but they really couldn't care less about the U.S.

From what I understand, oil will start becoming rare when most of us here are about 70ish. I'm so glad I was born when I was; screw my kids and grandchildren! Let them deal with it!

And hey, dying young is underrated.