|
It's very difficult to gain a complete understanding of the situation through our concepts of power politics alone. What goes on inside the minds of the North Korean leadership is very different from how we see things. There is evidence that N Korea has been attempting to open their nation for years but for the complications of relations with the West and stability of the regime. As long as the West is hostile to the N.K. regime in principle rather than hostile to particular N.K. policies, there will be no opening of the country to the West, and that is the least we can say.
It's possible for N Korea to go the China route with Western cooperation, and it is possible to overthrow N Korea in war with enormous losses and possible nuclear exchanges. But people who wish that N Korea's leadership will suddenly topple like the Soviet Union are practising wishful thinking and severely understimate the stranglehold of official dogma. It's possible that a Gorbachev-like reformer will succeed the present regime and open the country unilaterally, leading to the demise of the entire state, but don't count on it. Any rapproachment policy with North Korea must be based on the understanding that its regime will be de facto recognized and secure. The worst policy for change in N Korea therefore seems to be precisely what the West is presently practising: brandishing it a global pariah, closing it to the West, refusing dialogue, placing it in a defensive panick, forcing it to seek such security guarantees as nuclear weapons, and thereby placing relations on an even worst footing.
It's time to shed the ideological weltanschauung and practise foreign policy as it ought to be.
|
On October 07 2006 14:45 meRz wrote:
Nuclear bombs will result in the destruction of earth. Why on fucking earth do they keep testing and, what would they need it for? USA would just bomb the shit out of anything that would try to launch a nuclear missile anywhere.
You think they're making the bomb to use it?
|
On October 07 2006 16:44 WhatisProtoss wrote: [removed quote within quote]Hmm, a lot of you don't know what's really going on. North Korea does not have intentions of bombing South Korea, that's ridiculous. The US has probably a thousand times more nuclear missiles than North Korea, yet nobody complains about that. Is it because people consider a democracy to be more "civil" and "socially responsible" than a "democracy?" That's preposterous! The reason why North Korea are seen as the "bad guys" and the US as the "good" is because the US is a world leader and powerful. Nobody would dare militarily mess with the United States at this stage in time. Instead of thinking clearly, most people decide to freak out and think of North Korean executives to be insane (which they probably are, I admit), but there should be some underlying reason to it. ( 1 ) North Korea knows that a power struggle would end up in a 100% victory to the United States, so that cannot be a goal for their nuclear missile program. ( 2 ) North Korea without it's nuclear/missile program would be defenseless to foreign policy and with their weak economic system, would have no way of standing up to other nations once it's nuclear program (it's last hope for clinging onto the shred of international voice it has) is stripped. ________________ Reasons for having a nuclear program:Reason 1: There is a considerable threat from the United States following the Korean War. Approximately 30,000 US troops have been stationed in South Korea since then... a presence that both North AND South Koreans feel threatened by. Reason 2: Without nuclear weapons, the North Korean government would be dismissed in international affairs. Any statement made by the DPRK government would carry no political weight whatsoever, since the DPRK does not contribute significantly in any economic, militaristic, or territorial way. Show nested quote +On October 07 2006 16:19 Pika Chu wrote:
cut the crap.. only political games
no one will start a nuclear war (at least not in the next decades)
Exactly, they aren't prepared for a nuclear war, nor do they have any real intention for starting one with the US. ________________ Anyways, I'm just playing devil's advocate since everyone here seems to be "pro-US" and spew their ignorant shit like: "Fuck, why is North Korea so crazy? Why the FUCK would they do that? The US will just bomb the shit out of them." Wow, and listen to what the FUCK people like this are saying. They disapprove of the North Koreans testing bombs, yet want the US to "bomb the shit" out of the North Koreans. Like this kid: Show nested quote +On October 07 2006 14:45 meRz wrote:
Nuclear bombs will result in the destruction of earth. Why on fucking earth do they keep testing and, what would they need it for? USA would just bomb the shit out of anything that would try to launch a nuclear missile anywhere. # 1 No SHIT nukes will result in the destruction of earth. Did you do scientific research to come up with that?? # 2 The USA bombing the shit out of everything will result in the destruction of earth too, you know?  Show nested quote +On October 07 2006 14:48 JudgeMathis wrote:
Cus N Korea wants to fire shit at people. Why doesn't somebody who's less biased make a post regarding this matter? Haduken is right, all they have to bargain with is force. At least there are some level-headed thinkers in here, like Haduken and a-game. Show nested quote +On October 07 2006 15:16 a-game wrote:
it's kind of understandable why a nation like N Korea is doing this. do you think the US of A, or any nation for that matter, would of touched Iraq if it had nukes?
women get raped because they can't defend themselves, but if women carried bazookas around they wouldn't get raped. But of course, TL.net-ers cannot solve world problems. We can just sit here and read what politically-clueless highschoolers have to say. Oh well, it's still fun.  [Not that it matters, but I believe that a unification of the Koreas would result in a better bargain. North Korea would have no need for a nuclear program to get more economically-strong nations to help their poor system and would have South Korea to do that for them. NK's military + SK's economy and technology = Better Korea. But there are too many problems with unification for now, because South Korea's economy isn't strong enough to bolster NK's weak economy. And the divide in leadership and political views is a huge hurdle as well. Whatever, Unification will happen eventually, since it's what both Koreas want.]
Wow you prick. Where did I say USA firing Nukes wouldn't end up in world destruction? All I said was there's no reason for such a small and powerless country to have a nuclear program, (Well yea I swore a lot and wasn't 100% clear but it just pissed me off a lot at the time) Don't call me a kid, and It wasn't like my "Nuclears will result in the end of the world" was supposed to be something new, I just stated it again. Going "NO SHIT man!" Isn't helping anyone, cause yeah really, it's a huge fucking stamp going "NO SHIT" on those words already.
I don't sympathize with USA having nukes either, and I didn't point that out anywhere in my post. I despite USA too for having nukes, but of course as you say, it's necessary looking at present time. But there's no way in hell that it's necessary for north korea. All they do is piss people off, higher the tension and lose respect, instead of gaining it which would be their whole main reason for doing this. You have a lot of good arguments and I agree with a lot of them, but the way you talk other people down makes me sick, and therefor, you are a prick.
|
I don't think nukes will cause world destruction... I mean, theoretically, if things got out of hand, things could get blown up pretty fast. However, everybody knows how dangerous nuclear weapons are. If one country fires on any country I get the feeling the whole world will rally together and absolutely crush that nation.
Maybe if USA (or China and Russia in the future) went insane... but I don't think we have to worry about weaker countries causing global destruction.
|
This thread makes my head hurt. I'm taking a senior seminar on Terrorism and another one on Asian Political Crises, but it deals more with the instability of South East Asia. So far, the answer to both have been utter hopeless resignment from everyone. My school also has a pretty strong military back ground for a public college, with CIA and NSA actively recruiting our school yearly as one of their top recruiting grounds.
I can say these are questions that EVERYONE should have no more than a ?????????? in terms of facts and the only real arguments you can make are on an ideological level. Trust me, NK nor Terrorists have a complete dossier in the USA. Terrorists more so due to recent events, but the clash here is just as strong a political clash as a cultural clash.
I actually agree with Molke on this one, and that's as good as it's gonna get. He didn't post a nazi post for once and I liked it. Also, Kwark is an idiot, and AfricanBoy is this thread's only saving grace. And WhatisProtoss, good opinion, but in the end, you can only make it a weak-ass opinion because it's a lot of bias in there.
Who knows what the real incentives are? North Korea has been a political conundrum with constant threats *sometimes empty* and offences the last two decades. In the grand scope of things, we are about as close to solving this as when the ceasefire agreement was signed 50 years ago. Literally. Simply a slight cultural open-ness from the South Koreans has emerged a bit, but that's about it.
|
|
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On October 08 2006 06:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
It's very difficult to gain a complete understanding of the situation through our concepts of power politics alone. What goes on inside the minds of the North Korean leadership is very different from how we see things. There is evidence that N Korea has been attempting to open their nation for years but for the complications of relations with the West and stability of the regime. As long as the West is hostile to the N.K. regime in principle rather than hostile to particular N.K. policies, there will be no opening of the country to the West, and that is the least we can say.
It's possible for N Korea to go the China route with Western cooperation, and it is possible to overthrow N Korea in war with enormous losses and possible nuclear exchanges. But people who wish that N Korea's leadership will suddenly topple like the Soviet Union are practising wishful thinking and severely understimate the stranglehold of official dogma. It's possible that a Gorbachev-like reformer will succeed the present regime and open the country unilaterally, leading to the demise of the entire state, but don't count on it. Any rapproachment policy with North Korea must be based on the understanding that its regime will be de facto recognized and secure. The worst policy for change in N Korea therefore seems to be precisely what the West is presently practising: brandishing it a global pariah, closing it to the West, refusing dialogue, placing it in a defensive panick, forcing it to seek such security guarantees as nuclear weapons, and thereby placing relations on an even worst footing.
It's time to shed the ideological weltanschauung and practise foreign policy as it ought to be.
Good post
|
ala JSA 
|
A) The only prism in which this is a bad idea for N. Korea is morally.
B) It is clear that morality is a (supposedly relativistic) concept beyond ALL of the self-interested socially/economically elite personally driven countries of the world.
C) Therefore, in acting with their best interests (individually, as all countries act today(hopefully not in the future)) N. Korea's best move is to develop nuclear capabilities and rely on M.A.D. to give them greater economic bargaining power.
It's in Iran's best interest too. You know what? N. Korea is far more repressed economically with more Military pressure yet and still they are able to develop their WMD's first. Iran's scientists suck.
|
P.S. No Merz; you're the prick.
P.P.S. And you're ignorant.
P.P.P.S. I wish there was an ignore function on the forums to deal with 14yr olds like you.
|
The nuke is the only way the polical elite in NK can sustain themselves as they see it. With the invasion of Iraq a precedent was set. Diplomacy broke down. The hedgehock roled up.
And on another note the USA has no right to impose democracy by force.
Anything I missed in those huge ass posts?
|
On October 08 2006 06:27 meRz wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
Wow you prick. Where did I say USA firing Nukes wouldn't end up in world destruction? All I said was there's no reason for such a small and powerless country to have a nuclear program, (Well yea I swore a lot and wasn't 100% clear but it just pissed me off a lot at the time) Don't call me a kid, and It wasn't like my "Nuclears will result in the end of the world" was supposed to be something new, I just stated it again. Going "NO SHIT man!" Isn't helping anyone, cause yeah really, it's a huge fucking stamp going "NO SHIT" on those words already.
I don't sympathize with USA having nukes either, and I didn't point that out anywhere in my post. I despite USA too for having nukes, but of course as you say, it's necessary looking at present time. But there's no way in hell that it's necessary for north korea. All they do is piss people off, higher the tension and lose respect, instead of gaining it which would be their whole main reason for doing this. You have a lot of good arguments and I agree with a lot of them, but the way you talk other people down makes me sick, and therefor, you are a prick.
Wait, what's wrong with the way I talk to other people? I talked quite well to the people who try and make valid arguments. However, you didn't say anything, except bash why the North Koreans are making nukes.
On October 07 2006 14:45 meRz wrote:
Nuclear bombs will result in the destruction of earth. Why on fucking earth do they keep testing and, what would they need it for? USA would just bomb the shit out of anything that would try to launch a nuclear missile anywhere.
I didn't say nuclear bombs WOULDN'T result in the destruction of earth. I said it's OBVIOUS that nuclear weapons would result in the destruction of earth and that it's redundant to say that since everybody knows.
You don't sympathize with the USA having nuclear weapons, but you feel that the nuclear weapons that the US possesses is NECESSARY?! Make up your mind. Tell me how nukes are necessary for the US. To take down another middle eastern country?
Anyways, NKorea in time should get rid of their nuclear program in return for creating a better governmental system and slowly building up their weak economy. In the situation the North Koreans have put themselves in, it is not wise to suddenly give up their nuclear program since big countries like the US will most likely overrun them and put a large military force to contain NKorean actions and that will be a bad situation if the North Koreans want to become an economically stable nation in the future.
So, they have no option but to keep the nukes for now, and wait for a better opportunity. Wise diplomacy is needed in order to get them out of this sticky solution.
[note]: In such political arguments, sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of the enemy, no matter how biased or how angry you are against them. Bush cannot do that and only works towards fulfilling his selfish goals. A good politician can think outside of the box. That's the best way to see a solution.
|
And on another note the USA has no right to impose democracy by force.
Or else... ?
You don't sympathize with the USA having nuclear weapons, but you feel that the nuclear weapons that the US possesses is NECESSARY?! Make up your mind. Tell me how nukes are necessary for the US. To take down another middle eastern country?
So you figure NK needs them, but the US doesnt? Weird reasoning.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
So you figure the US needs them, but NK doesnt? Weird reasoning.
The above is uhjoo's argument. I don't agree, but I can see it from that angle. And I also believe nukes have been their own blessing. Because of nukes, the world has not been involved in full fledged wars between two huge powers, except through proxy battles. In this day and age, a BIG war would almost translate into a world war because the world is far more "international" with alliances than it has ever been. But nukes have really allowed for that to take firm root. MAD is a blessing as well as a curse.
|
On October 08 2006 12:04 WhatisProtoss wrote:
[note]: In such political arguments, sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of the enemy, no matter how biased or how angry you are against them. Bush cannot do that and only works towards fulfilling his selfish goals. A good politician can think outside of the box. That's the best way to see a solution.
What if Bush didn't care, what if he did whatever he wanted anyway? How would the world react?
Replace Bush with Kim and we have the real dilemma.
|
On October 08 2006 13:43 Klogon wrote:
So you figure the US needs them, but NK doesnt? Weird reasoning.
I figure Kim Jong-Il needs them. But I figure NK doesn't. I did not expose my reasoning, how can you claim it's weird?
|
On October 08 2006 13:28 warding wrote:
So you figure NK needs them, but the US doesnt? Weird reasoning [removed quote within quote]
I didn't say that. I said, if the North Koreans are not allowed to have nukes, it is hypocritical for the US to have so many MORE nukes which can be more effectively used. If the US is to impose such laws on countries like North Korea, then the US should strip itself of nuclear weapons as well. That is only fair.
On October 08 2006 13:44 mahnini wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
What if Bush didn't care, what if he did whatever he wanted anyway? How would the world react?
Replace Bush with Kim and we have the real dilemma.
How can you compare Bush to Kim?? Both are idiots. One has more power. Bush has done more damage to the world than Kim.
Why would you even WANT to compare them?? Is it relevant to the point? Man, this topic is digressing rapidly. No use to post anymore here.
|
Merz, you make no sense and have no relevant arguments so just stay out of it
|
On October 08 2006 14:06 WhatisProtoss wrote:
How can you compare Bush to Kim?? Both are idiots. One has more power. Bush has done more damage to the world than Kim.
Why would you even WANT to compare them?? Is it relevant to the point? Man, this topic is digressing rapidly. No use to post anymore here.
I was trying to show you that Kim is doing exactly what you said a politician should not do. Is he not working only to fulfill his selfish goals? Is he putting himself in every other countries' shoes? No, because every other country sees that he is inhumane and selfish. Look at what he is doing to his own people in order to keep his power, what is he willing to do to his enemies?
Nearly every post you make is very biased and outright anti-US. I understand that the US in it's current position asking N. Korea to stop making nukes is contradictory, but so is every other country that has nukes. Do you honestly think that the US with nukes will be more dangerous than N. Korea? The leaders of N. Korea have already shown they care for nothing except their own power.
|
On October 08 2006 08:14 LaZyScV wrote:If they nuke South Korea, say Gee Gee to StarCraft. 
lol..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
