IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Seismic Activity in Korea linked to Nuclear Test, Not Romulan Mining Laser, as First Thought
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 27 2009, 06:02 AM
Post #1





Guests






http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8066615.stm

Scary stuff going down, but at this rate, they could well be out of missiles before anything serious happened.

But of some note here, I'll quote a small snippet of the article:

QUOTE
But in a strongly worded statement, President Obama said the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatened peace and was in "blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council".

"The danger posed by North Korea's threatening activities warrants action by the international community. We have been and will continue working with our allies and partners in the six-party talks as well as other members of the UN Security Council in the days ahead," his statement said.

A spokesman for the South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said the test was a "grave challenge" to international non-proliferation efforts, while Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura said any nuclear test by the North would be "unacceptable".

Both have formed crisis management teams, and said they would ask for action from the UN Security Council.

The UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said he condemned the test "in the strongest terms" and said it would "undermine prospects for peace on the Korean peninsula".


What is the best way to deal with the North Korean regime? How can we protect ourselves and humanity from the threat of nuclear weapons?

Tsjr, why is this a victory for the worker, to be able to kill other workers at the whim of a supreme leader that is utterly and completely out of touch with his people and with reality?

CaptainK and BadgerCam, do you approve of President Obama's measures thus far in dealing with North Korea, or do you want to see physical action taken right now? If so, what action?

Matt, would Kim Jong-Il look more compassionate with a beard?

Will, what objectives should the United States of America have in mind in dealing with these kinds of threats, and how should we accomplish them? Also, can your governor keep an eye on Mr. Kim from her house?

Zzzptm, why are we all screwed anyway, and why is the Christian God the best one to repent to before the inevitable end of the world?



Note: please excuse my attempt to inject humor into some serious discussions, but I think all of our threads could be better and perhaps less contentious and argumentative with a little levity? It's worth a shot, I say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Vitsen_*
post May 27 2009, 07:07 AM
Post #2





Guests






They tested a nuclear device from 10 km underground. That's... absurd? It's a pretty far to dig and I highly doubt that NK has as much resources as Iran when it comes to developing nuclear weapons. I'm calling a bluff.

Also, you're a few days old - this was news like two days ago! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 27 2009, 07:39 AM
Post #3





Guests






QUOTE (Vitsen @ May 27 2009, 12:07 AM) *
They tested a nuclear device from 10 km underground. That's... absurd? It's a pretty far to dig and I highly doubt that NK has as much resources as Iran when it comes to developing nuclear weapons. I'm calling a bluff.

Also, you're a few days old - this was news like two days ago! tongue.gif


Wrong. The article says the U.S. detected seismic activities 10 kilometers underground. No one would bother digging that deep for a 10-20 kiltoton explosion. The first American underground explosion was 1.2 kt and done a mere 17 feet below ground. The formula for determining the scaled depth of burial (or, the distance which an explosion must be underground in order to avoid leaking radiation into the atmosphere) should yield the following result:

100 < m/ kt^(1/3)

So, if we assume that the high side of the Russian government's estimations are true, and the explosion is 20 kilotons, an explosion would not need to be buried any deeper than 271.4 meters to ensure a safe test. I highly doubt that the North Korean government would dig a hole 40 times as deep as necessary.



Also, it was posted on BBC on Monday, and I posted it Tuesday huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Jonesy_*
post May 27 2009, 07:45 AM
Post #4





Guests






I'm insulted that I was not included in the original post. Seeing as how I wasn't given a prompt I can add nothing more to this thread tongue.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 27 2009, 07:49 AM
Post #5





Guests






QUOTE (Jonesy @ May 27 2009, 12:45 AM) *
I'm insulted that I was not included in the original post. Seeing as how I wasn't given a prompt I can add nothing more to this thread tongue.gif


I can always count on you for domestic issues, but would you like to come out of your shell and tell us what you think about foreign policy? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Jonesy_*
post May 27 2009, 07:56 AM
Post #6





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 27 2009, 02:49 AM) *
QUOTE (Jonesy @ May 27 2009, 12:45 AM) *
I'm insulted that I was not included in the original post. Seeing as how I wasn't given a prompt I can add nothing more to this thread tongue.gif


I can always count on you for domestic issues, but would you like to come out of your shell and tell us what you think about foreign policy? wink.gif

The euthanasia should get the same opportunities as the youth in america.
That joke doesn't work as well when you type it out.

Also, semi-serious (or as serious as I get on the internet), I do not like the idea of anyone having nuclear bombs, but now that they've been invented, they probably aren't going away. Kim Jong Il is an attention whore, but I don't know enough about the situation to make a judgment on how much of a threat he actually is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_TheWerg_*
post May 27 2009, 07:59 AM
Post #7





Guests






My opinion on this issue: We must not allow a mineshaft gap!

Or... if we just left those people alone, maybe they'd return the favor. Like Canada.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Captaink_*
post May 27 2009, 01:43 PM
Post #8





Guests






Since you actually posed a question towards me, I will answer it...with some sense of seriousness

In my opinion, we (The US) could easily neutralize the entire political and military mechanisms of North Korea with the contents of one, maybe two ballistic missile subs. However, the funny thing about nukes is that you have to get them all if you try to destroy them preemptively, because one stray nuke still causes a heck of a mess. Granted, North Korean (nee soviet) missile tech isn't that great, and the chances of a missile accurately reaching a populated area of the US is slim to none. But, we have a lot of friends around there who wouldn't want the north getting all riled up and throwing tantrums. Basically, if we had a missile defense system that could get anything that came our (or japan's, or south korea's) way, and a secretary of state who could go on a "state visit" so we'd know where Kim Jong Il was, than I'd say go for it.

But again, we don't have one of those things, so I'm not really advocating strong military action right now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Tsjr1704_*
post May 27 2009, 02:05 PM
Post #9





Guests






QUOTE
What is the best way to deal with the North Korean regime? How can we protect ourselves and humanity from the threat of nuclear weapons?

Tsjr, why is this a victory for the worker, to be able to kill other workers at the whim of a supreme leader that is utterly and completely out of touch with his people and with reality?


Of course this is a defeat for the international working class - when a nuclear bomb is detonated, it targets civilians and military personnel alike. No one should have nukes. It should be a crime for possessing one. And North Korea is not “socialist” even though it claims to be -- it is just as repressive and exploitative as the former military dictatorships of South Korea that received US patronage. It's no suprise though that the country Kim runs is highly militarized. In 1958, Dwight Eisenhower introduced nuclear weapons to the South - in violation of the terms of the 1953 armistice. Every pesident since then has planned to use nuclear weapons against North Korea in case of war - because the North would be unable to respond.

Even today, the U.S. has the nuclear-armed Seventh Fleet right offshore, and over 540,000 South Korean troops and over 100,000 American troops stationed in the area around North Korea. Even after it announced it was withdrawing it's nuclear weapons off the peninsula, the US has continued nuclear exercises, which has provoked Kim to not give up his pursuing of nukes. Kim Jong Il has pointed out - a few times already - that Pyongyang will freeze it's nuclear programme if the United States would end their hostile maneavures in the area. South Koreans view U.S. efforts to "defuse" North Korea as a threat to the successful "Sunshine Policy" of the last decade. It's no suprise that Bush was ranked higher than Kim when South Koreans were asked who the most dangerous man in the world was. Washington is only intervening to make things worse, in a regional situation where the regional parties involved are successfully handling their matters well.

This post has been edited by Tsjr1704: May 27 2009, 02:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Vitsen_*
post May 27 2009, 02:08 PM
Post #10





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 27 2009, 12:39 AM) *
Also, it was posted on BBC on Monday, and I posted it Tuesday huh.gif


Reddit works fast. Really fast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Jonesy_*
post May 27 2009, 06:58 PM
Post #11





Guests






QUOTE (Vitsen @ May 27 2009, 09:08 AM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 27 2009, 12:39 AM) *
Also, it was posted on BBC on Monday, and I posted it Tuesday huh.gif


Reddit works fast. Really fast.

Ya, I'm pretty sure I heard something about this on sunday if not before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Mr. Tree_*
post May 27 2009, 07:46 PM
Post #12





Guests






North Korea having nuclear weapons is reprehensible, but so is America having nuclear weapons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 27 2009, 07:53 PM
Post #13





Guests






QUOTE (Tsjr1704 @ May 27 2009, 07:05 AM) *
It's no suprise that Bush was ranked higher than Kim when South Koreans were asked who the most dangerous man in the world was. Washington is only intervening to make things worse, in a regional situation where the regional parties involved are successfully handling their matters well.


Well that's something I even have a problem with. I'd consider Barack Obama the most dangerous man in the world (President of the United States is serious business...) right now, but that doesn't mean I don't trust him (a lot) more than Kim Jong-Il.

Secondly, I'm not really so sure any blame for intervention is the fault solely of Washington. As far as I'm aware, neither Moscow or Beijing are particularly pleased with the idea of a nuclear Korea, and Soviet and Chinese influence has existed in the peninsula far longer than American presence.

As far as our impact on the Sunshine Policy, I'd like to refer to its three basic principles:

-No armed provocation by North Korea will be tolerated.
-South Korea will not attempt to absorb North Korea in any way.
-South Korea actively seeks cooperation.

I would consider the nuclear tests of 2006 as a clear and direct violation of the first principle (as did South Korean voters in 2008, when they voted Lee Myung-bak into office by a landslide to take a more hard-line stance against North Korea. I do not see how the presence of American missiles would violate any of those three principles.

Now that the Sunshine Policy is over, however, North Korea has an incredibly lucrative economic incentive to end its nuclear weapons testing and ultimately begin reuniting Korea. President Lee has offered massive amounts of economic aid that North Korea desperately needs if Kim would just give up its nuclear weapons program. In response to this, which Pyongyang viewed as "confrontational," and proceeded to expel South Korean officials from a joint industrial complex, fire missiles into the ocean, and described the need for a "nuclear deterrent." Since then, Kim has deployed fighter units and infantry increasingly close to the DMZ.

I think South Korea has taken the most plausible route towards peace, and his pledged aid makes it seem completely illogical for Kim to refuse. Now, the entire region faces an oppressive dictator who is very obviously deranged with nuclear capabilities. It's our concern, and the world's concern at this point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Tsjr1704_*
post May 27 2009, 09:23 PM
Post #14





Guests






And it always come down to a crazy, unreasonable little man that wants to rule the world, defies everyone and builds more nukes for no reason. It's deeper than that. Bush had insisted that North Korea (despite of being in negotiations with them at that time) was a member of the "axis of evil", and moved in the nuclear-armed Seventh Fleet. That's not diplomatic overature. In fact, if China were to pull in a fleet off the coast of California and say that we are an evil power, I'm sure we'd attack them with military force. It was discovered, at that time, that the United States had not removed nuclear missiles from the Korean Peninsula. The President canceled talks, and refused to fulfill prior promises of concessions. Only then did North Korea change their demeanor. And while the election of Lee was seen as a "reversal" of friendly attitudes towards the north, most Koreans didn't see it that way.

QUOTE
SEOUL: The United States is more responsible than North Korea itself for Pyongyang's nuclear test, according to a South Korean poll published Monday.

Forty-three percent of respondents picked the United States as most to blame, followed by 37.3 percent who chose the country which actually conducted the October 9 test.

Nearly 14 percent said South Korea was most responsible, 2.4 percent picked China and one percent singled out Japan.


06' was when the anti-war movement gained momentum in South Korea. Not only from South Korean involvement in Iraq, but also against the continued intervention in Korean affairs by the United States. Fifty percent of South Koreans view U.S. unilateralism as a critical threat to their vital interests. Seventy-four percent of South Koreans feel that the United States is playing the role of the 'world policeman' more than it should be. South Koreans do not view North Korea nearly as coldly as Americans do. On a thermometer scale of 0 to 100 in which 0 is very cold, 100 is very warm, and 50 is neutral, South Koreans still give North Korea 46 degrees, while Americans give it 28 degrees.

This post has been edited by Tsjr1704: May 27 2009, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Tsjr1704_*
post May 27 2009, 09:52 PM
Post #15





Guests






QUOTE
Secondly, I'm not really so sure any blame for intervention is the fault solely of Washington. As far as I'm aware, neither Moscow or Beijing are particularly pleased with the idea of a nuclear Korea, and Soviet and Chinese influence has existed in the peninsula far longer than American presence.


The Soviets didn't provide it's defense or share it's military technology with North Korea.

If I was the leader of a country with military hardware that was inferior in quality, and that lacked an industrial base that could adequately resupply my forces in the event of a conventional war, then I'd head a weak country that is susceptible to foreign bullying. If I lost a key ally, and proposed a non-aggression pact to the most powerful country in the world, who responded by rejecting it while maintaining it's own forces in the south, then they'd be more likely to pick on me, and would even be a threat to my security. And if this all happened while cold war sanctions and blockades were left in tack, then I'd have a reason to be worried that those foreign powers have an intention of destroying me. If I had a cache of chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, however, I'd have a deterrence against interventions and repeated aggressions from those foreign powers.

This post has been edited by Tsjr1704: May 27 2009, 09:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_monica_*
post May 28 2009, 04:05 AM
Post #16





Guests






It's so disconcerting to think back to the people and things I saw when I was in Kaesong last year. On one hand, it's hard to believe the government has the ability to fund these sorts of projects given the outrageous lack of resources in the country. On the other, the overwhelming oppression and abject poverty of the everyday citizen points to the fact that the military's goals will always trump the ability of the citizens to feed, clothe, and house themselves.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Crow_*
post May 28 2009, 05:16 AM
Post #17





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 26 2009, 11:02 PM) *
What is the best way to deal with the North Korean regime?


To blatantly thieve an opinion from somewhere else on the internet, the best solution for this particular crisis may be to ignore it. Kim Jong Il isn't the youthful, spry dictator that he once was, and we all probably remember the rumors of his demise last year. At some point, he'll need to announce a clear successor. Probably the best time to do this would be when there are some warm, fuzzy feelings amongst the citizens for their government. Of course, warm fuzziness is something of a rare commodity in North Korea, so copious amounts of propaganda are in order. The recent nuclear and missile tests might just be propaganda fuel for consumption by the North Korean populace rather than preparations for greater trouble.

If I find the link to a much better version of this theory, I'll slap it up here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 28 2009, 06:01 AM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (Crow @ May 27 2009, 10:16 PM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 26 2009, 11:02 PM) *
What is the best way to deal with the North Korean regime?


To blatantly thieve an opinion from somewhere else on the internet, the best solution for this particular crisis may be to ignore it. Kim Jong Il isn't the youthful, spry dictator that he once was, and we all probably remember the rumors of his demise last year. At some point, he'll need to announce a clear successor. Probably the best time to do this would be when there are some warm, fuzzy feelings amongst the citizens for their government. Of course, warm fuzziness is something of a rare commodity in North Korea, so copious amounts of propaganda are in order. The recent nuclear and missile tests might just be propaganda fuel for consumption by the North Korean populace rather than preparations for greater trouble.

If I find the link to a much better version of this theory, I'll slap it up here.


So...we wait and see how crazy the next nuclear dictator is?

huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Tsjr1704_*
post May 29 2009, 01:09 AM
Post #19





Guests






North Korea has indicated to a number of delegations that it's eager to talk to Obama. Barak could push for a peace treaty to replace the Korean War armistice, take concrete steps towards normalization, etc. If you focus on their missile program, then you are going to get nowhere, and it will also allay Japanese and South Korean moves towards economic and diplomatic cooperation. If I can repeat this - the "sunshine policy" was ended by US intervention. Adopting new sanctions, pulling out of negotiations, not fulfilling promised concessions, and issuing terrifying threats is not the road to peace.

If there is no military threat, then the emphasis on military production would lose it's political importance. The North Korean ruling class would have no material reason to not feed their people, so it would have to change its course or face sizable domestic problems.

This post has been edited by Tsjr1704: May 29 2009, 01:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 29 2009, 01:29 AM
Post #20





Guests






QUOTE (Tsjr1704 @ May 28 2009, 06:09 PM) *
North Korea has indicated to a number of delegations that it's eager to talk to Obama. Barak could push for a peace treaty to replace the Korean War armistice, take concrete steps towards normalization, etc. If you focus on their missile program, then you are going to get nowhere, and it will also allay Japanese and South Korean moves towards economic and diplomatic cooperation. If I can repeat this - the "sunshine policy" was ended by US intervention. Adopting new sanctions, pulling out of negotiations, not fulfilling promised concessions, and issuing terrifying threats is not the road to peace.


North Korea was never interested in cooperating with the Sunshine Policy anyway. In 1998, South Korea offered to trade fertilizer for the opportunity to set up a program to reunite families. North Korea denounced this idea, and refused to trade or negotiate in any way. Even if American and Japanese pressure on North Korea is part of why they continued to create a nuclear program, the Sunshine Policy had no effect on improving relations between the two countries, it only gave resources to Kim's oppressive regime based on hopes that acts of good faith would improve relations.

South Korea spent $300 million in aid a year to tighten Kim's grasp on the North, and it's clear in my eyes that the Sunshine Policy was extremely ineffective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd July 2018 - 10:39 AM