Do you blame North Korea or any country for coveting a viable nuclear deterrent?

[NNN0LHI]

After watching the last US Republican administration attack and invade a sovereign country and basically turn Iraq into one large prison camp. Murdering and torturing thousands of their people while doing so. And with no international consequences for doing it either. If you didn't live in America, and just saw that happen, would you want the leaders of your country to devise something, if they could, that would prevent the next American Republican administration from doing the same thing to your country?

I know I would.

Don

[ejpoeta]

1. i can't blame other countries for wanting to be able to protect themselves.

we have nuclear weapons and so do many countries. so if iran or North Korea want to have them, who the hell are we to go around telling everyone else what to do!!! plus, when on the Today show this morning they were talking about the violation of international law... all i could think was.... well, we violate international law. we tortured people, which is a violation of international law. how is it ok when we do it, but not others. we have no moral standing in any situation regarding international laws as far as i am concerned. at least until we hold accountable anyone in our OWN country who has violated them before accusing anyone else.

[Pavulon]

13. All about the odds my friend..

the odds of a quality made us thermonuclear weapon detonating over seoul is low. The odds of lil kim popping off a nuke over there is much greater. This guy does not need access to a bb gun, never mind a nuke.

Given the perspective of a s. korean your position becomes quite moot.

Killing people is not about morality, morals are not at work in this equation.

[ejpoeta]

17. to me it seems like someone feeling like they are being bullied.

it is about morality, because we could have a president that would be a war hawk and want to blow people up. i know what you are saying, but i think the reason these countries want to have nuclear power is to be able to protect themselves. as far as north korea is concerned... i think it is more a matter of getting something out of us. almost like extortion. it has worked so well for them in the past.... as for places like india... i think it has more to do with not having people steamroll you or threaten you.

[Pavulon]

24. Nuclear power is not a deterrent, nuclear weapons MAY be

depends on the actions at hand. Some things would trigger their use. India's status as a nuclear power does not provide leverage in talks with the US. It does make them more likely to burn in a war with pakistan.

Again lil kim is not concerned about morality or he would take the money it takes to make a circa 1945 nuke and feed people.

[ejpoeta]

26. i hear you. but they THINK it will. and it's quite obvious what kim jong ill wants...

i picture him as an insolent child that didn't get his way throwing a fit. wonder what will happen when he is gone... he can't live forever.

[wyldwolf]

2. They coveted nuclear weapons before the last administration

If they feel they need a deterrent, it's only in their leader's mind. N. Korea's (and Iran's) desire for such weapons is to intimidate their neighbors.

[cali]

3. blame doesn't factor into it for me.

I don't see much that can practically be done about it, but my assessement of the situation is that N.Korea is highly unstable and dangerous. Not to us, but to the South Koreans. If you were a S. Korean, how would you feel about N. Korea posessing nukes?

[NNN0LHI]

5. S. Korea has had US nukes in their country since the 50's

[Statistical]

7. No longer true.

US no longer has nukes stationed outside the US.

Some treaty with the Soviets back in the 1970s.

It doesn't really matter though

All 3 major elements of the nuclear triangle (Minuteman ICBM, Strategic Bomber with Cruise Missiles, Trident SLBM on Strategic Submarine fleet) can hit any target anywhere in the world from any launch location anywhere in the world.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Two questions

1. Does the US military go anywhere without tactical nuclear weapons?

2. Are there currently tens of thousands of US soldiers stationed in South Korea?

Don

[davidpdx]

31. The answer to your two questions

South Korea does not have nuclear weapons, nor would the US have tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula. However, the US does have large bases in Japan and aircraft carriers based out of that country, so it is possible they could use those kinds of weapons from those bases.

Right now the US has about 28,000 troops. That's down from 36,000 when I first came a few years ago.

As to the original question, I think you'd feel much different if you lived in a neighboring country. While I understand they feel threatened, the point you have missed is they have been doing this since way back into the Clinton Administration. Also their human rights record is atrocious. Sending entire families to gulags for decades. Many people are not fully aware of just how bad their people are treated. It is pretty sick.

[CreekDog]

4. No, but that's a lot different than trusting them with one

:dilemma:

[madokie]

6. I'm in agreement

[stray cat]

8. Selling nuclear weapons to terrorists is also good for their economy -can they be blamed for that?

after they want respect and a strong economy - oh and the people starving in the country can just go ahead and starve because the North Korean leader has better things to worry about.

[NNN0LHI]

16. You think if we use some Shock and Awe on the starving North Korean people ...

... they might welcome us with dancing in the streets and flowers for liberating them?

Don

[stray cat]

9. I understand why Al Queda wants weapons too - but that doesn't mean I want them to have them

[AllentownJake]

10. The leadership in N. Korea is batshit insane

I don't even want to know what they want Nukes for.

[pnorman]

11. "An Armed Society Is a POLITE Society"!

n/t

pnorman

[Pavulon]

12. Yep, They just increase the probability

that they die with permanent orange afros. NK is run by idiots and having a nuclear weapon does not deter anything. It just makes any conflict cost more in lives. Nothing magical about nuclear weapons.

[spanone]

14. we have roughly 10,000 nuclear warheads....we must be seriously dangerous to the world

oh, and by the way, we're the only ones who have used them.

[Pavulon]

15. The russians have many more and are more dangerous?

again all about the odds. Odds of a little bottled sunshine rising in seoul, low. Odds of lil kim popping off a nuke, or doing something to get nuked, higher. He just made any war that would happen in the korean theater take less time. Not much else happens now.

[Juche]

18. North Korea's nuclear program is 50 years old

They didn't start with Bush.

On another note, North Korea is the most evil, totalitarian government on earth. They will do evil, unpredictable things no matter what America is doing. They are so oppressive and poor that people are amazed at how wealthy and free they become when they escape North Korea and end up as refugees in rural China.

And the N. Korean gov. doesn't give a damn what its people want. They are pursuing a nuclear program as a form of blackmail and intimidation.

Also, North Korea is already a giant prison camp that tortures and murders its own people. Nothing the US is capable of doing to North Korea could compare to what the North Korean leadership already does.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a bad philosophy.

[anonymous171]

19. North Korea just wants attention. nt

[lunatica]

21. How would one or two nuclear weapons deter thousands?

Using one nuclear weapon against the US would do some serious damage, but the retaliation would get you and your entire country killed very quickly. Why bother? It's insane to think otherwise.

[sarah553807]

22. Do you know who kim yong-Il is?

That man is not sane in the least bit

[lunatica]

23. Yes, I know he's nuts.

So you think someone who might rule North Korea and were considered sane would give up their newly acquired nuclear weapons? I don't.

You don't have to be nuts to think owning nuclear weapons is viable.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. No, But. . . .

. . .in this case there is a beter way to get the protection. Being needlessly provacative and looking to get one's ass kicked is hardly productive. Motivation is one thing. Poor decision making is a completely different thing.
GAC

[armyowalgreens]

27. No one should have nuclear weapons...

But let's not act naive here. North Korea should not be allowed to create a nuclear arsenal. To compare the NK government to the US is ludicrous even when you take in to account US atrocities. At least the US has some sort of system with the potential to reform. NK is built on a system that is perpetually oppressive and dangerous.

[BzaDem]

28. Are you kidding me?

Do you know anything about North Korea, or the conditions under which North Koreans live? You are actually defending Kim Jong-Il?

[Delphinus]

29. No.

I've said for a long time, especially when the boy king was in office, that if we're going to bully everyone else, they have to have a way to defend themselves. If we have to have nuclear weapons, let the entire world have nuclear weapons. That includes Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, etc.

[armyowalgreens]

30. That is just dumb

N. Korea and Iran are ruled by insane, ruthless dictators that have thrown out democratic rule altogether. To suggest that they deserve or need nuclear weapons is insane.

The US has done horrible things as of late. But relative to these other countries, we look like god damn angels. And at least we have a political system that makes it possible to have peaceful reform. These other countries are going to remain oppressed and dangerous to the world around them until a violent revolution occurs.

And that's the kind of country you want to have nuclear weapons? Just take a look at Pakistan, the terrorists/rebels 70 miles away from a nuclear arsenal, and think of that in multiple countries. Talk about nuclear holocaust. And that is assuming the murderous dictators don't fire them at the "Jews" or "White devils" and kill everyone first.