It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
As the grandson of a South Korean Army officer who fought against the communists in the Korean War, nothing would please me more than to see the Communist government of North Korea get crushed whether it be through a covert operation or an uprising within the North Korean military. Sadly, an open conflict would lead to too many casualties for South Korea where I still have relatives.

The current North Korean dictator seems to be following in his father's footsteps already in terms of sabre rattling. I'm just concerned that the Communists are plotting covert actions against South Korea kind of like the Rangoon Bombing back in the 1980s which killed several top South Korean government officials.
avatar
dirtyharry50: It was a nice idea (the treaty) but in reality nukes are not going away. They are here to stay, unless we manage to come up with something even more destructive down the road. There is just no way any of the players that have them will ever reduce down to zero, never mind all of them. I have not read the treaty so I do not know exactly what it specifies but if it does specify a goal of zero nukes worldwide, that is just fantasy.

What is really going to happen is continued proliferation, military conflicts trying to squash it and possibly war including possibly war on a grand scale depending upon who gets sucked into a future conflict.

It's just a matter of time. I really don't see how it can be avoided given mankind's history and penchant for murdering each other in great numbers. Why should we believe anything is suddenly different now?

I don't like to view things so negatively but I am just being realistic.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on that (even if there has been a gradual reduction in nuclear arms worldwide since the introduction of the treaty), but my point was not to argue the feasibility of the treaty, but the erroneous assumption that it is the US alone telling these countries they aren't allowed to have nukes. Technically, no country is allowed to have nukes, including the US.
Post edited January 26, 2013 by cogadh
avatar
Crassmaster: You're telling me that a country is so affected by the aftermath of a conflict that ended 50 years ago that they still can't manage to accomplish anything beyond being a global nuisance? They still can't manage to pull it together HALF A CENTURY later?
avatar
jamotide: Yes, because nothing changed since the armistice, they have been in a state of war since then, with the threat of annihilation looming over them. This is probably the only thing that keeps the military dictatorship in place. External threats, war and sanctions are the best thing that can happen to a repressive regime, because they can blame those things on a common enemy.
avatar
Crassmaster: Secondly, the entire West went to war with North Korea to stop a conflict that THEY STARTED. The entire globe is facing off with them now because of repeated action that THEY have committed. So let's not pretend that they're some poor little victim. Their current world position is 100% self inflicted.
avatar
jamotide: So just because they started the war they deserve what they got? I'd be careful with that rationale, or do you think the US deserves to have all of its cities destroyed and 50 million killed because they attacked Iraq?
I am not defending the regimes repressive and atrocious actions against their own population, but their foreign policy is entirely understandable. They are not the only ones keeping the tensions alive. Fore example when Israel wanted to make a deal with them in 1993, the US blocked it.
Yes, they face sanctions because the only other options available are :

1. Outright warfare.
2. Letting the bizarre family of dictators running the show do whatever they want.

Since both of those options are horrendous, sanctions happen. And sorry, that IS entirely their own fault. The Chinese have shown a willingness in the past to deal with them, but even they have backed away both diplomatically and economically because not even they know what the North Koreans will do next. NK has created their own isolation.

I said that the West went and fought a war that North Korea started. I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about them 'deserving what they got', that was purely you in an attempt to sound dramatic. Had it been taken to the extent that they deserve what they get, they would have been entirely occupied and conquered. That didn't happen for a variety of reasons, but most in the West didn't support the attempt to do so in the first place.

Their foreign policy is ridiculous. They're essentially a national version of the 3 year-old throwing a tantrum in a toy store because mom won't buy her a doll. For years they got away with empty promises leading to them receiving food and machine parts. Eventually, the rest of the world stopped playing, but they seem completely incapable of evolving their own policy. And at this point, the benefits that sort of policy brings even the ruling family seems to be dwindling.

As for the 1993 meetings with Israel, meetings based on Israel trying to get NK to stop supplying rocket designs to Iran in exchange for food aid and help with some mining operations. It was just another example of NK using the threat of one thing to get something else. And yes, they were halted in one of the earliest examples of the US (and soon the UN) sanctioning NK for illegal nuke development. Again, SELF INFLICTED.
I'm not trying to sound dramatic, it IS dramatic history most people are not aware of. Thats why I am mentioning it, not sure why you dont like it. When people think of the korean war they think of mash and heroism, not an entire country destroyed with millions dead and an incredible 20% of the population killed by saturation bombing alone.
Sanctions are useless, that is well understood. Sanctions only help repressive regimes stay in power. Thats why Saddam stayed in power while the brutal US/UN sanctions killed around half a million people in the 90s, thats why the iranian democracy movement is strongly opposed to the current sanctions.
Repressive regimes will sooner or later get overthrown when there is no external threat/scapegoat to terrifiy the populace with. Just like Pinochet,Mubarak and all the other US supported terror regimes that fell.
The 1993 deal is a perfect example for US rejectionism in this NK matter, thank you for providing the details.
It's a minor note but MASH is supposed to be in Vietnam but Robert Altman was getting too much crap for putting it there seeing as it was a black comedy and the U.S. was still over there, so with a wink and a nudge he changed it to Korea.
The wages of war are death; always have been, always will be.

The key, though elusive, is to prevent war.

Cannot always be, idiots on every side, but provocation is to invite it.
Nuke are useless as weapons, but deadly as threats.

In other words you don't build nukes to use on someone else, you build nukes to stop someone else using nuke on you.
Post edited January 27, 2013 by McDon
Call me lazy but I'll throw my opinion without reading the nine preceding pages.

The thing is that North Korea is a military dictatorship, as such the military needs to prove its importance. North Korea doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things and we're only feeding into their attention seeking problem by acting like they do. They'll never have nukes, but by taking our overreactions and showing them to their people they can make their people think that they're a lot more accomplished then they really are.
avatar
tinyE: It's a minor note but MASH is supposed to be in Vietnam but Robert Altman was getting too much crap for putting it there seeing as it was a black comedy and the U.S. was still over there, so with a wink and a nudge he changed it to Korea.
Actually according to the man himself he didn't want to set it anywhen though he knew people would think vietnam, the studio made him add the scroll for fear of outcry
avatar
tinyE: It's a minor note but MASH is supposed to be in Vietnam but Robert Altman was getting too much crap for putting it there seeing as it was a black comedy and the U.S. was still over there, so with a wink and a nudge he changed it to Korea.
avatar
wodmarach: Actually according to the man himself he didn't want to set it anywhen though he knew people would think vietnam, the studio made him add the scroll for fear of outcry
I should know that, it's only one of my favorite movies. Thanks for the correction.
avatar
Lone3wolf: The answer the Lame Stream Media won't say is North Korea are one of about 3 countries left that are not under the direct control of a Bilderberg/Rothschild bank system.
After Afghanistan and Iraq were just invaded and forcibly converted, there's not much time left before they, Iran and Cuba get the "oil exploration by armed troops" treatment....

:P
avatar
Simbabluenobi: Yeah
I didn't verify yet ... but that sounds about right to fit the Big Picture Scenario of some elitist Big Money taking over the world and setting up Puppet Governments in the countries it already controls: so as to keep the general world populace thinking their own countries and Leadership are sovereign ... up to the End and Final declaration of take-over.
I will not use the word Illumnati ... Big Money Elitists will cover it nicely

Reading >>> this page now ... http://rense.com/general75/wrus.htm and it begins >>>
Today, after the conversion of Iraq to the Banklords, only five countries in the world are without a central bank: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and Libya . All of these just happen to be on George Bush's "Evil of Axis" list.

So yeah
Speaking about banklords, did you watch the Zeitgeist movie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
avatar
Roberttitus: Yes... because the killing of millions of innocent people is worth applauding.
avatar
Roman5: That, of course, isn't worth applauding

So I don't applaud the US for doing stuff like that
It was Japan's own fault that we ended up using the atomic bombs on them.

The war was basically won and Japan wouldn't surrender because their emperor couldn't swallow his pride and ignored the warnings even after the first atomic bomb dropped.

So we decided instead of more traditional warfare that would needlessly cost possibly 1-2 million more lives we decided to use the bomb. Even films like Barefoot Gen reinforce the fact that from a Japanese point of view that the government Japan had back then just had too much pride and wouldn't yield the war effort even though they couldn't win.
avatar
McDon: Nuke are useless as weapons, but deadly as threats.

In other words you don't build nukes to use on someone else, you build nukes to stop someone else using nuke on you.
So circular logic of preventive warfare?
Post edited January 28, 2013 by thelovebat
As for the United States dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war ... I think a strong message (as a warning) for the Emperor and military leaders to watch a demonstartion of our capabilities and at set time Vaporize an uninhabited island with the bomb would have worked just as well ... In fact, even better ... to show it wasn't a fluke; then an hour later at set time vaporize a second uninhabited island for added measure of warning.
And then tell them the next one(s) will hit Tokyo and or other major cities within an hour.

avatar
Simbabluenobi: Reading >>> this page now ... http://rense.com/general75/wrus.htm and it begins >>>
Today, after the conversion of Iraq to the Banklords, only five countries in the world are without a central bank: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and Libya . All of these just happen to be on George Bush's "Evil of Axis" list.

So yeah
avatar
iippo: Speaking about banklords, did you watch the Zeitgeist movie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Thanks ... Watching it now and seems very Interesting as well as informative ... Much more than just on Banklords; seems will be a very rewarding watch for many reasons.
Post edited January 28, 2013 by Simbabluenobi