North Korean Nuclear Tests

[*Pete* 0]

russia couldn't even invade finland in those 2 wars.

those 2 wars??

Hah..we had 42 wars against Russia over the near thousand years it has existed..lost 41, tied 1, won 0.

we "tied" the winterwar by getting russia into negotiations where we "gave" them large landareas....we lost territory and soldiers, russia lost only soldiers (more than we, but they had much more to take from...).

[Garcia 0]

russia couldn't even invade finland in those 2 wars.

those 2 wars??

Hah..we had 42 wars against Russia over the near thousand years it has existed..lost 41, tied 1, won 0.

we "tied" the winterwar by getting russia into negotiations where we "gave" them large landareas....we lost territory and soldiers, russia lost only soldiers (more than we, but they had much more to take from...).

Russia still didn't manage to invade a much weaker nation. And this topic is drifting off topic...

And I'm refering to WWII...not the other 41, which I don't give a shit about

[raynor 0]

Considering finlands history there is more then one main "war" for WW2. Research before you start posting about topics you don't have enough information about ; ).

Finlands WW2-

Winter War

Continuation War

Lapland War

For the North Korea Issue:

To put it simply the north wants to take the south. Numerous incidents ranging from small scale escalation near the border and commando's being sent in by submarines and indigenous operations.

In my opinion korea isn't the "Forgotten War" There is still fighting going on, ships are still being sunk and people are still dying. All the situation needs is escalation.

The north having a nuke only makes it a nuclear power in my opinion, it wont matter if they do or don't have it. Then again with that crazy leader...

My opinion on why the US and other world powers disagree with a nuclear armed N. Korea is that they have repeatedly harbored terrorists. A good example of this is in 2000 when the Communist League Red Army ( Japanese ) hijacked an airliner and took asylum in N. Korea.

http://www.icasinc.org/lectures/shinn2.html

And heres an article about the most recent reported incident between the north and south on the DMZ-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92150,00.html

Korea is an important area of the world right now, it may seem like some small penninsula but it is right below china, and anything near china is worth having ; ).

North Korea is a grenade, and the US is holding the spoon down, pins been undone since the 50's. Take a look at this photo, would you want south korea ( which is a pretty industrial nation nowadays) to look like the north?

Night Satellite Photo

Regards,

Raynor

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]The north having a nuke only makes it a nuclear power in my opinion, it wont matter if they do or don't have it. Then again with that crazy president...

lol I can't believe i called him a president...

[Commando84 0]

NK stuff is crazy, but i don't think Nk would go down south, cause south is allied with the Us right? Even if Us would try to have good relationship with china, china says its surprised about NK's nuke test. So i don't think china and Nk could stay friendly for to long if Nk keeps screwing up all the time. Some day china could get annoyed and tired of all the Nk stuff they pull..

[ralphwiggum 6]

That's because I was commenting on your comment to PainDealers comment about judging. I don't really care too much about the North Korean policy, therefor I don't know in what way they are hypocritical, if they even are. Mainly they're just a bunch of people lead by a small, fat, crazy guy.

So in other words, you can't identify what is hypocritical but will label it anyway?

Quote[/b] ]Yes of course it goes both ways. USA can get condemned for something while others don't get condemned for doing the same thing, just like USA can do quite much that other countries can't even try to do without being condemned...what a wonderful world...

So you agree that it ishypocritical on all sides?

Quote[/b] ]I wasn't talking about this situation. I was commenting on how nuclear weapons can lead to peace, in certain situations under certain circumstances. I've never said this is such a situation.

Then why bother commenting such? Just throwing unrelated hypotheticals is not going to be a good idea since it dilutes the focus of the problem.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I guess everything is labeling, and there is no wrong or right, but merely how it is labeled right?

Indeed.

So I can kill some innocent person and that is just labeling? There is difference between labeling and fact. Fact is that NK has nukes and claims to have one and world doesn't like it. It is a fact that NK is the agressor.

I honestly think that the U.S. would love to invade but doesn't have the military capability for decisive victory. And I don't see North Korea as the only party giving bullshit.

North Korea doesn't have an army poised ready to go on U.S. borders. How do you expect them to behave? Like the U.S. is not there?

Like U.S. civilians are not crying out for war and their leaders not making threats?

Why are the U.S. even there? The South wants re-unification. So does the North. It's not just the North Koreans prevaricating.

I do think that Russian and Chinese nukes have limited the willingness of the U.S. to consider using them in that theatre.

You are basically regurgitating NK's claim. SK is the one that faces threat of NK's troops. But I guess that is ok, right?

The reason why US is there is because NK started the Korean war which is technically not over. You sound like some of those NK symphatisers.(there goes my spelling ) US is there because NK started war. SK wants reunification, but that doesn't mean they want it in NK's terms.

Quote[/b] ]This is the same U.S. that refuses bi-lateral talks? That won't sign a non aggression pact?

This is the very essence of the problem. If NK wants to deal with peace, they should talk to SK, not US. It has been that way since the Clinton administration. NK has been askig for direct confirmation from US that they will not attack NK. And to secure that they want US troops out of SK. So even in case when NK attacks SK, US can't attck NK since they made the deal.

It seems like you have no respect for SK and their soverign state.

Quote[/b] ]The North has co-operated with the south on a number of re-unification projects including repatriations, the opening of the borders, bulding road and rail links and a joint industrial park. North south trade is currenlty at about $1 billion a year.

NK has stalled a lot of projects including train rails between NK and SK. The only cooperation they give is the one where NK makes money. They haven't opened borders, they haven't paid repatriations for their attack in 1950.

[sniperuk02 0]

Quote[/b] ]TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea appeared to have conducted another nuclear test, Japanese broadcaster NHK said on Wednesday, a day after China joined other powers calling for a tough response to the communist state's announcement of a first.

Linky

Edit:- Seems this might have just been an earthquake.

[Colossus 2]

China, NK's closes ally is already displeased about this and they tested a second one? Doesn't make very much sense if you ask me. Unless China accepts it behind closed doors, which doesn't make any sense either since unstability means scared and fleeing companies which in some manners runs the Chinese economy.

[Myst9999 0]

In essence, China are causing the problem by continuing to supply 70% of NK's food and fuel aid. They don't want to stem the supply as they are afraid of the state collapsing, and the flood of refugees that would inevitably arrive.

[Jinef 2]

The nuke was tested underground. Not a lot of radiation to find.

Well I think this isn't a bad thing. Why?

Because NK won't have to fear being invaded by anyone. And we all know how easy US invades countries. Sanctions won't do anything because their already sanctioned. A military action, thats out of the question.

And I believe NK isn't stupid to try to attack anyone.

Believe it or not, nukes do cause peace. The reason the Cold War wasn't hot is becaue both countries had nukes. And when is the last time that a nuclear armed country was attacked by another country? I don't believe it ever happened.

The fear is that they try to give their weapons to terrorists. Which is kind of stupid if you think about it. We have India and Pakistan which can do the same thing. And Pakistan actually sold nuclear secrets to countries labeled in the "axis of evil"

So I don't see the big fuss about it.

If NK has nuclear weapons, it does deter anyone from trying to have a go with them. Then both North and South Korea can start to focus more on peaceful economy and less on watching their neighbour.

About Nuclear weapons causing peace ... there is a duality there.

In a sane world, yeah sure. Noone is going to overstep the boundaries, but the fact that these weapons are actually there increases the chances of one going off, for whatever reason.

The problem is - if one goes off, who knows what the response will be? If as we are speaking a western city turns into glass, what would the international community do? Was it an accident? Terrorist attack? 'Pre-Emptive Strike'?

Do we launch our own shit?

In the cold war there were many incidents, close calls. We just didn't hear about them.

I doubt *any* nation with the slightest shred of common sense would give weapons of these kinds to NGOs. One of the big lessons of the last few decades is that your friend today can be your enemy tommorow. Cute little examples of this are British sailors being burned to death by British designed weapons in the Falklands, British soldiers being shot by American funded weapons in Northern Ireland, or the twin towers getting stomped by our mate Osama.

If only our sense of friendship was driven by proven history, forward thinking and some common sense, instead of being driven by cash. SNAFU.

[PainDealer 0]

North Vietnam managed successfully to invade South Vietnam and fight off USA. North Korea could get themself into the same situations as Finland during WWII and North Vietnam if they invaded and did it the right way, and thereby fight more of a defensive war than a offensive war. That I belive, was the meaning behind the examples. To show that a superpower can lose a war against a much weaker part.

bingo

this just crossed my mind

what are you guys thinking of this situation right now? are you scared, do you want to burn down NK, generally not giving a crap? these are just exmples. let's step a bit away from the politics and express our own feelings shall we? just to get the tension a bit lower

*EDIT* forgot to add my own thought

it hasn't changed my every day life at all and I don't need to make it big, but still I find myself talking about it here. maybe it's just cos I like to discuss things that have potential for a good conversation (eventho I ain't that good at it obviously )

[billybob2002 0]

North Vietnam managed successfully to invade South Vietnam and fight off USA. North Korea could get themself into the same situations as Finland during WWII and North Vietnam if they invaded and did it the right way, and thereby fight more of a defensive war than a offensive war. That I belive, was the meaning behind the examples. To show that a superpower can lose a war against a much weaker part.

bingo

this just crossed my mind

what are you guys thinking of this situation right now? are you scared, do you want to burn down NK, generally not giving a crap? these are just exmples. let's step a bit away from the politics and express our own feelings shall we? just to get the tension a bit lower

*EDIT* forgot to add my own thought

it hasn't changed my every day life at all and I don't need to make it big, but still I find myself talking about it here. maybe it's just cos I like to discuss things that have potential for a good conversation (eventho I ain't that good at it obviously )

Actually, Garcia is wrong in that quote. North Vietnam did not conquer South Vietnam until the United States withdrew the bulk of its military from South Vietnam and Congress pulled military funding for South Vietnam. Additionally, the United States was not in total war "mode" and the United States did not attempt to invade North Vietnam due to China fears.

Anyway, my penny to this thread, it is ridiculous to say that North Korea needs nuclear weapons to deter a possible invasion by the United States and/or South Korea. First, this was already mentioned, North Korea has enough artillery in range of South Korea's capital, Seoul, to turn it into rubble. Second, North Korea already has tons of biological and chemical weapons. Third, the United States and South Korea have not been overtly hostile to North Korea. Finally, and importantly, China has North Korea's back.

.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]NK stuff is crazy, but i don't think Nk would go down south

I'm sorry, I couldn't help snickering when I read this sentence

Akhem, back on topic...

Quote[/b] ]About Nuclear weapons causing peace ... there is a duality there.

In a sane world, yeah sure. Noone is going to overstep the boundaries, but the fact that these weapons are actually there increases the chances of one going off, for whatever reason.

The problem is - if one goes off, who knows what the response will be? If as we are speaking a western city turns into glass, what would the international community do? Was it an accident? Terrorist attack? 'Pre-Emptive Strike'?

Do we launch our own shit?

In the cold war there were many incidents, close calls. We just didn't hear about them.

You are entirely correct Jinef. The Cold War was riddled with "close calls", and only now are we starting to hear about some of them (e.g. Stanislav Petrov). Faulty equipment, hardliners and fanatics on both sides: one would expect the earth to have been blown up ten times over already. But it hasn't.

Naturally, this does not mean that the proliferation of nuclear arms isn't a problem. What this example does show, however, is that historically, there is no 1:1 relationship between the amount of nuclear weapons and the Nuclear Holocaust Probability .

In other words, we should be worried about these developments, but we should not act as if the end of days was nigh.

[mattxr 9]

Someone was talking about China earlyer, cant find the quote but they are already at WAR.. and before long 20-30 years there might not be a china left.. Becuase Mr Gobi Desert thinks he can take over china with his army of sand and wind...

[Garcia 0]

That's because I was commenting on your comment to PainDealers comment about judging. I don't really care too much about the North Korean policy, therefor I don't know in what way they are hypocritical, if they even are. Mainly they're just a bunch of people lead by a small, fat, crazy guy.

So in other words, you can't identify what is hypocritical but will label it anyway?

SO you telling me that if you don't know if Papa Ny Guinea is hypocritical in some points, you can't mean that any nation is hypocritical? I don't see any relevance in knowing wether or not North Korea is hypocritical when it comes to viewing USA or any other nation as hypocritical. The USA hypocrisy is in no way tied together with North Korean hypocrisy. North Korea could be the definiton on honesty and good moral, and USA could still be hypocritical...

Quote[/b] ]So you agree that it ishypocritical on all sides?

I agree that there are pro-USA people who are hypocritical, that there are anti-USA people who are hypocritical, that there's most likely people in between pro-/anit-USA who's hypocritical and that North Korea probably is hypocritical too in some ways. It would be very strange if you couldn't find one person within such large groups of people who wasn't hypocritical.

Quote[/b] ]Then why bother commenting such? Just throwing unrelated hypotheticals is not going to be a good idea since it dilutes the focus of the problem.

Because some guy said he didn't understand how people can mean nuclear weapons contribute to world peace in any way. So I gave him my view. And I found it to be pretty clear that it was a answer to him, and not part of the discussion wether or not USA is is hypocritical, since I first quoted his statement and then gave him my view.

Quote[/b] ]So I can kill some innocent person and that is just labeling? There is difference between labeling and fact. Fact is that NK has nukes and claims to have one and world doesn't like it. It is a fact that NK is the agressor.

If you kill a person, who knows what reason you had? If he killed your mom, is it right to label you as a bad nutjob? If you wasn't sane when you did it, is it right to label you as bad? How can people know why it happened? A person being a bad guy isn't a fact, it's a label given after considering the facts. People look different at facts deoending on their background/culture/way of life etc. When the muslim world labels countries and people as bad, do that justify their actions? Was 9/11 ok because the muslim world meant USA was a bad guy and that the US people deserved punishment?

And I was speaking in general. And yes, North Korea have deserved it's label as a bad guy.

Quote[/b] ]Considering finlands history there is more then one main "war" for WW2. Research before you start posting about topics you don't have enough information about ; ).

If you were refering to me, then no, I don't know too much about Finland during WWII. What I do know, which was the point, was the Finland was succsessfully invaded by Soviet, i.e the whole country was never taken.

Quote[/b] ]Actually, Garcia is wrong in that quote. North Vietnam did not conquer South Vietnam until the United States withdrew the bulk of its military from South Vietnam and Congress pulled military funding for South Vietnam. Additionally, the United States was not in total war "mode" and the United States did not attempt to invade North Vietnam due to China fears.

I know that North Vietnam didn't conquer South Vietnam. I may have been unclear, so I'll make it more clear. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. They then successfully fought off USA, and then when USA had to back out, they had a easy time taking South Vietnam. North Vietnam fought against a much stronger part, economically, technologically and military. USA was pretty far from winning the war. Even though USA wasn't giving it all in the war, it still shows, along with Finland during WWII and Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, that it happens. Of course, the main difference from these 3 examples to a North Korean attack on South Korea would be all the weak parts in the examples got support from a stronger part, and I don't see where North Korea would get support from.

Quote[/b] ]The problem is - if one goes off, who knows what the response will be? If as we are speaking a western city turns into glass, what would the international community do? Was it an accident? Terrorist attack? 'Pre-Emptive Strike'?

I don't think a pre-emtive strike would be a option if one of US' own nukes went off, if that's what your thinking about. If that happened, USA wouldn't have any way knowing who to pre-emtive strike against. They would just have to blow every probable country then, which wouldn't be a good idea. Though, of course, you can never rule out something like this happening.

[868 0]

Quote[/b] ]In essence, China are causing the problem by continuing to supply 70% of NK's food and fuel aid. They don't want to stem the supply as they are afraid of the state collapsing, and the flood of refugees that would inevitably arrive.

China has everything to benefit from the collapse of Kim's regime in the long run.

[Sophion-Black 0]

China has everything to benefit from the collapse of Kim's regime in the long run.

Think of North Korea as Poland in the cold war. Poland was a "satellite" of the USSR, as is NK being China's.

China and Russia are both major factors that are keeping the US from a military solution. China, being the most important factor, does not want a crisis in the Korean Peninsula. Thus, they are trying to bring the US to "sit down" with NK and figure out a peaceful way.

Right now... its past negotiations. Japan is looking to change its constitution to allow an actual military. India has turned into a spy. South Korea, The Philippines, and Taiwan looks like they're all ready to duck and cover. Europe (general) is outraged about his "provocative act." The wold looks like its slipping back into another cold war (according to the history books; but in reality... its still going on).

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Think of North Korea as Poland in the cold war. Poland was a "satellite" of the USSR, as is NK being China's.

I'd rather look at North Korea as being Poland in WW2... It's a possibility that China could invade North Korea thus "settle the North Korea Issue" for the whole world... But I bet China would use it just as a stepping-stone and invade South Korea next... thus incurring in hostility with the U.N. ... and paving the way for WW3...  

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

BUZZARD @ Oct. 13 2006,00:09)]

Think of North Korea as Poland in the cold war. Poland was a "satellite" of the USSR, as is NK being China's.

I'd rather look at North Korea as being Poland in WW2... It's a possibility that China could invade North Korea thus "settle the North Korea Issue" for the whole world... But I bet China would use it just as a stepping-stone and invade South Korea next... thus incurring in hostility with the U.N. ... and paving the way for WW3...  

please, you been reading too much tom clancy, why the hell would China want to invade south korea?  there would be little benefit, China is against North Korea in this inident, well its definatly not supporting it anyway.

[868 0]

China and Russia are both major factors that are keeping the US from a military solution. China, being the most important factor, does not want a crisis in the Korean Peninsula. Thus, they are trying to bring the US to "sit down" with NK and figure out a peaceful way.

Did you think of the possibility that South Korea do not want a

conventional war as well.

Right now... its past negotiations.

It is never too late for negotiations.

Japan is looking to change its constitution to allow an actual military.

Japan wanted to do that before Kim's latest act of defiance.

India has turned into a spy.

Always been.

South Korea, The Philippines, and Taiwan looks like they're all ready to duck and cover.

Please do not swiftly associate South Korea, with the likes of Phillippines nor Taiwan. Besides the regional similarity, they have not that many things in common in the political sense.

Europe (general) is outraged about his "provocative act." The wold looks like its slipping back into another cold war (according to the history books; but in reality... its still going on).

Wars are never ending, whether it be on the field, or behind a desk of a government official or in business. So yes, "it's still going on."

[EiZei 0]

BUZZARD @ Oct. 13 2006,00:09)]

Think of North Korea as Poland in the cold war. Poland was a "satellite" of the USSR, as is NK being China's.

I'd rather look at North Korea as being Poland in WW2... It's a possibility that China could invade North Korea thus "settle the North Korea Issue" for the whole world... But I bet China would use it just as a stepping-stone and invade South Korea next... thus incurring in hostility with the U.N. ... and paving the way for WW3...  

please, you been reading too much tom clancy, why the hell would China want to invade south korea?  there would be little benefit, China is against North Korea in this inident, well its definatly not supporting it anyway.

More like paying lip service in order not to look like total douchebags.

[Baff2 0]

I honestly think that the U.S. would love to invade but doesn't have the military capability for decisive victory. And I don't see North Korea as the only party giving bullshit.

North Korea doesn't have an army poised ready to go on U.S. borders. How do you expect them to behave? Like the U.S. is not there?

Like U.S. civilians are not crying out for war and their leaders not making threats?

Why are the U.S. even there? The South wants re-unification. So does the North. It's not just the North Koreans prevaricating.

I do think that Russian and Chinese nukes have limited the willingness of the U.S. to consider using them in that theatre.

You are basically regurgitating NK's claim. SK is the one that faces threat of NK's troops. But I guess that is ok, right?

The reason why US is there is because NK started the Korean war which is technically not over. You sound like some of those NK symphatisers.(there goes my spelling ) US is there because NK started war. SK wants reunification, but that doesn't mean they want it in NK's terms.

Quote[/b] ]This is the same U.S. that refuses bi-lateral talks? That won't sign a non aggression pact?

This is the very essence of the problem. If NK wants to deal with peace, they should talk to SK, not US. It has been that way since the Clinton administration. NK has been askig for direct confirmation from US that they will not attack NK. And to secure that they want US troops out of SK. So even in case when NK attacks SK, US can't attck NK since they made the deal.

It seems like you have no respect for SK and their soverign state.

Quote[/b] ]The North has co-operated with the south on a number of re-unification projects including repatriations, the opening of the borders, bulding road and rail links and a joint industrial park. North south trade is currenlty at about $1 billion a year.

NK has stalled a lot of projects including train rails between NK and SK. The only cooperation they give is the one where NK makes money. They haven't opened borders, they haven't paid repatriations for their attack in 1950.

That's right South Korea is the one that faces the threat of North Korean retaliation. The U.S. is out of range. That's why everyone in range doesn't want a war and the U.S. is still up for it.

As long as the the U.S. is out of range of North Korean missiles, all it's allies in the area are in danger of taking that reprisal instead. The price may not be too high for America to pay, but it is for everyone else. There will be no war.

South Korea doesn't want war, it wants to be Korea again. Just like the North.

The reason the U.S. is in Korea is not because the North Koreans tried to drive them out in 1955, but because they were fighting the Japanese there in 1945. The same reason the Russians were there.

1955 should not be seen in isolation of the Cold War. The Korean war was one war of many. Both the Chinese and the Russians have left Korea, the U.S. still thinks it can hang on.

I agree that neither South Korea nor North Korea can agree terms on reunification, however the longer the U.S. interferes the harder it will be. A unified Korea is not in U.S. intrests.

I have plenty of respect for South Korea's sovereignty, that is why I don't like seeing it used as a cold war pawn.

The Cold War is over.

As for the only co-operation being the co-operation where North Korea makes money, isn't that the best kind? People co-operating to make money is the antithesis of war.

If you want peace, this is the way. The U.S. should try it, trying to provoke a war isn't going to work.

The time for hard power is over. Soft power now holds the key. The war's over, lets all make some money.

[m@ster 0]

War =

Testing atom weapons =

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did you think of the possibility that South Korea do not want a conventional war as well.

No one does, especially if both sides has nukes.

Quote[/b] ]It is never too late for negotiations.

have you took a minute to look around? you'll notice that there has already been step towards war. so in this case, yes... NK can't hide behind China's cloak for much longer.

Quote[/b] ]Please do not swiftly associate South Korea, with the likes of Phillippines nor Taiwan. Besides the regional similarity, they have not that many things in common in the political sense.

1) South Korea is about to duck and cover because they know they will be the first to go

2) The Philippines, being a strong ally in the WOT due to Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines. they know that NK will sell nukes to anyone who is willing to pay. And guess who's going to have their hand seen first? Abu Sayyaf or Jemaah Islamiyah? both of which are being fought in the Philippines.

3) The Republic of China knows that if war breaks out and the PRC gets involved. The political situation of Taiwan will escalate to a hostility. Putting more tension in that region.

Quote[/b] ]Wars are never ending, whether it be on the field, or behind a desk of a government official or in business. So yes, "it's still going on."

The Cold War is still going on, not just any. everyone may think "The USSR has collapsed! they like us now!"... uh no. They still think the US is an "Evil Empire" and still believe the propaganda that was fed to them in the late 80's. Besides the USSR may not exist anymore, but that's because its under a different name now. The Commonwealth of Independent States. but it you recall in 1999 a new name popped out from the Soviet Bloc "The Union of Russia and Belarus."

Surprise!!! (sarcasm)

[868 0]

Why are the U.S. even there? The South wants re-unification. So does the North. It's not just the North Koreans prevaricating.

Quote[/b] ]This is the same U.S. that refuses bi-lateral talks? That won't sign a non aggression pact?

This is the very essence of the problem. If NK wants to deal with peace, they should talk to SK, not US. It has been that way since the Clinton administration. NK has been askig for direct confirmation from US that they will not attack NK. And to secure that they want US troops out of SK. So even in case when NK attacks SK, US can't attck NK since they made the deal.

That's right South Korea is the one that faces the threat of North Korean retaliation. The U.S. is out of range. That's why everyone in range doesn't want a war and the U.S. is still up for it.

As long as the the U.S. is out of range of North Korean missiles, all it's allies in the area are in danger of taking that reprisal instead. The price may not be too high for America to pay, but it is for everyone else. There will be no war.

South Korea doesn't want war, it wants to be Korea again. Just like the North.

I agree that neither South Korea nor North Korea can agree terms on reunification, however the longer the U.S. interferes the harder it will be. A unified Korea is not in U.S. intrests.

I have plenty of respect for South Korea's sovereignty, that is why I don't like seeing it used as a cold war pawn.

The Cold War is over.

As for the only co-operation being the co-operation where North Korea makes money, isn't that the best kind? People co-operating to make money is the antithesis of war.

If you want peace, this is the way. The U.S. should try it, trying to provoke a war isn't going to work.

The time for hard power is over. Soft power now holds the key. The war's over, lets all make some money.

Absolutely agree with those statements.

[bn880 5]

Okay well this is a disaster.

Not only the fact that DPRK may have gotten closer to a strategic nuclear bomb, but actually even more so that the UN will sanction as a result.

Let us not beat around the bush here as with Afghanistan and Iraq. We ALL know the sanctions will only result in more poverty and death for common people. Simple as that. Sanctioned or not, if they desire a nuclear warhead and delivery system, they will eventually make one. That is unless there is an attack.

IMHO you can condemn this all you want, the only way to fight it fairly is to give incentives for abandoning such a project. Such as signing various agreements not to attack such a nation , sending food and conventional weapons or money...providing a nuclear reactor, and so forth. Asking DPRK not to create this bomb is a wish, it's not our right to make such demands especially since we already have this capability anyway.

Lastly, provoking the DPRK is quite a bad idea. You won't get cooperation this way.

bn out