Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
Happy SWEET 1st Birthday Harper Grace8 years ago
-
My Fitness Pal11 years ago
-
Less Waiting. More Doing.11 years ago
-
Moo12 years ago
-
Forgive . . . Love14 years ago
-
It's Been Awhile...14 years ago
-
#20 - War vs. Hell14 years ago
-
18 comments:
It's not just the US that doesn't want North Korea or Iran, for example, to have nuclear weapons. No one - not even China or Russia - wants nuclear weapons in the hands of psychotic, unstable dictators.
But should any of those countries be able to regulate what another country is doing?
To add on to what Joseph said and more clearly articulate the same thought, it isn't the US alone. The United Nations wants this. If you are a member of the United Nations, you must abide by the rules set in place and adhere to the regulations put on you by other members. The reason that I'm guessing you are saying the US is because we have always been the prominent country attempting to regulate Nuclear weaponry as well as power. The reason for this is most likely due to the US' never-dying desire to control the rest of the world and let you keep your title.
Actually...it's probably more due to the fact that we're the most powerful country in the world and one of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Now, to answer your question directly, if the country is a member of the UN, then yes, the UN should be able to block their ability to obtain nuclear capabilities, weaponized or other.
Then why does the US get to develop them? Why should we get to play by our own set of rules?
It isn't us playing by our own set of rules. And it isn't that the UN has banned nuclear research worldwide, it's that they have chosen to 'forbid' it for certain countries. Israel (?), Pakistan, France, Russia, the UK, and India have nuclear capabilities and they weren't forbidden to test. I'm not positive it wasn't discouraged though.
An interesting note: the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council are also the only 5 countries with known Nuclear weapon capabilities. Although others are thought to possibly have them.
You are making my point. Why should N. Korea listen to the U.N. when they ARE allowing other countries to do research and testing? If I were N. Korea I would be insulted when the U.N. says, "we trust other countries to not shoot us with a missile, but we don't trust you." I just don't get what game the U.N. is trying to play.
Ok, let's start from 1991. That is the year that NKorea joined the UN.
(Taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1132268.stm)
In 1992 NKorea (under leader Kim Il-sung, Kim Il-jong's father) agreed to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but over next two years they refused access to sites of suspected nuclear weapons production.
In 1994 Kim Il-sung passes and is succeeded by Kim Il-jong. North Korea agreed to freeze nuclear program in return for $5bn worth of free fuel and two nuclear reactors.
In 1995 the US agreed to provide two modern nuclear reactors designed to produce less weapons-grade plutonium.
In 1996 Pyongyang announced it will no longer abide by the armistice that ended the Korean War, and sent troops into the demilitarized zone. Additionally, a NKorea sub ran aground in SKorea.
In 1998 NKorea launched a rocket which flies over Japan and lands in the Pacific Ocean. Pyongyang insisted it fired a satellite, not a missile. Also, SKorea captured a NKorean mini-submarine in its waters. Nine crew inside were found dead. (I'd be interested to know if they were REALLY 'found' dead.)
In early 2002 former president George W. Bush declared NKorea part of 'Axis of Evil' with Iraq and Iran. Pyongyang responded by saying Mr Bush had not stopped far short of declaring war.
Mid 2002 North and South gunships engage and more than 30 people are killed.
In late 2002 Washington declares that NKorea has admitted to having a secret weapons program. International inspectors are thrown out of the country and NKorea begins to reactivate its Yongbyon reactor.
In January of 2003 NKorea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a key international agreement aimed at preventing the spread of atomic weapons.
In April 2003 delegates from the US, China and NKorea meet in Beijing to discuss NKorea's nuclear ambitions.
In June 2003 NKorea announces it has enough plutonium to create nuclear bombs.
In late 2003 talks in Beijing regarding NKorea's nuclear program fail. Pyongyang then said it had reprocessed 8,000 nuclear fuel rods, obtaining enough material to make up to six nuclear bombs.
In mid 2004 the third round of Six-nation talks end in failure and NKorea pulls out of scheduled meetings for late 2004.
In early 2005 NKorea announces that it has nuclear weapons for self defense.
In late 2005, a year after the scheduled meetings NKorea pulled out of, Six-nation talks conclude. NKorea agreed to give up it's nuclear weapons in return for aid and security guarantees. However, later they demanded a civilian reactor.
In 2006 NKorea test-fired a long-range missile, and some medium-range ones, to international outcry. Despite reportedly having the capability to hit the US, the long-range Taepodong-2 crashed shortly after take-off, US officials said.
Also in 2006, NKorea claims to have tested nuclear weapons for the first time.
In early 2007, Six-nation talks on NKorea's nuclear program resume. NKorea agrees to close its main nuclear reactor in exchange for fuel aid.
In mid 2007, IAEA inspectors verify shutdown of Yongbyon reactor.
In late 2007 Pyongyang pledges to disable three nuclear facilities and declare all its nuclear programs by year-end. Additionally, leaders from the North and South seek talks to formally end the Korean war.
In early 2008 the US says that NKorea failed to meet its end-of-2007 pledge on declaring nuclear activities. China urges NKorea to honor their commitments.
In February 2008, SKorean President Lee Myung-bak said aid to NKorea conditional on nuclear disarmament and humans rights progress.
Spring of 2008 North and South relations deteriorate. NKorea expels Southern managers from joint industrial base. They test fire short-range missiles and accuse President Lee Myung-bak of sending warships into Northern waters.
In June 2008, 6 months late, NKorea declares its nuclear assets.
In late 2008, NKorea accuses the US of not fulfilling its part of a disarmament-for-aid deal and prepares to restart the Yongbyon reactor.
In October 2008 the US removes NKorea from its list of countries which sponsor terrorism. In return, Pyongyang agreed to provide full access to its nuclear sites. (You can't really support terrorism if you don't talk to anyone?)
In December 2008 Pyongyang says it will slow work to disassemble its nuclear prograrm in response to US decision to suspend energy aid.
In January 2009 NKorea says it is scrapping all military and political deals with SKorea, accusing Seoul of 'hostile intent'.
In April 2009 NKorea launches a rocket carrying what it says was a communications satellite. Its neighbors accuse it of testing long range missiles. After criticism from the UN Security Council, NKorea walks out of six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear program.
In May 2009 NKorea says it successfully carried out an underground nuclear test, its second ever, drawing protests from the US, China, and Russia. Additionally, it announces that it no longer considers itself bound by the terms of the 1953 truce that ended the war between the two Koreas.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the US 'will not accept' a nuclear-armed NKorea.
In June NKorea proposes reopening talks with SKorea on the factory park which was shut down in early 2008.
The UN Security Council votes unanimously to impose tougher sanctions. Pyongyang responds by saying it will view any US-led attempt to blockade the country as an 'act of war' and that it plans to 'weaponize' its plutonium stocks.
------------
Alright, now that we know the back story, I think you can clearly see that the US has led several attempts to provide NKorea with nuclear reactors (non weapons-grade). NKorea continually responded by weaponizing it and then saying they would back down in return for aid. The UN Security council voted UNANIMOUSLY to impose tougher sanctions on NKorea.
You need to see that this isn't about halting nuclear reactors, but stopping the spread of nuclear weapons!
The US has it relatively easy compared to a lot of other countries. We have borders with only 2 countries (maybe 3 if you consider the Bering Straight). We don't deal with the same tensions that other countries do in regards to invasion and border war. I just don't get why you're so interested in this. You seem to either be really really really liberal and dumb, or just playing devil's advocate for NKorea. Yes, I just called you liberal. :)
Explain yourself.
The end of that is really quite weak. Let me make some more statements/comments...
We don't have to deal with the same border fear that SKorea, Japan and China deal with in regards to NKorea. They should clearly fear NKorea nuclear capabilities! They are very close and could be destroyed if NKorea were dumb enough to attack them.
I think the US has led several missions to attempt to end NKorea's stubborn attitude regarding nuclear testing and attempt to appease them in other ways. They just seem determined to press on and make the world a more dangerous place.
The reason the UN Security Council is so worried about NKorea having nuclear power is because they know what destruction that could bring. I'm not sure if you really grasp that.
Another threat from NKorea: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear
So here is my question....If they say they want the capabilities of nuclear power for defense reasons, and they haven't done anything to attack or really make us think otherwise, then why should we care.
It is obvious that we aren't too worried about them if we continue to give them supplies to make weapons grade plutonium.
I would be interested to see why they 'walked out' of those talks.
I think that the UN/US is afraid that someone else is going to have the same capabilities as the US. But we don't trust them, even though they haven't used this technology as anything other than defense. And they haven't even used it as that yet. It feels like the US is the greedy kid in the school room that always wants to have all the toys to himself....
First of all, they are clearly testing long range capabilities. Meaning they are testing their abilities to attack. We can't trust them because while no, they haven't used them on anyone else (they wouldn't be here if they did), they have proven they can't be trusted! They will weaponize it.
Secondly, nuclear weapons aren't defensive! No matter how you slice it, nuclear weapons aren't defensive. They are offensive. You can't set off a nuclear weapon on your own land without severe backlash.
You don't need nuclear weapons to be defended. We have the ability to shoot down ICBMs without using nuclear weapons!
Ok, So they are testing long range capabilities? the article you sent me said they may be testing missiles that range up to 310 miles..... Kentucky is roughly 340 miles wide. So the missiles that they are testing wouldn't even fire across the entire state of Kentucky.
Side note: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2006/11/19/Japanese-man-travels-310-miles-on-stilts/UPI-30181163985580/
Secondly, nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon. Did we start WWII? No, but we defended ourselves by crippling Japan with a nuke. 6 days after they were nuked they surrendered to the Allied forces. It was a defensive move so that we would put Japans attacks to a halt.
Why should the US (and the other people that are part of the UN that have nukes) be able to wag them in the face of other countries and get them to co-operate with whatever we want at that time? If we have the expectation that no countries should have nuclear capabilities, then we should be willing to get rid of our stash. It could be a modern "bra-burning" session. Everybody meet at the south pole and were going to set all of our nukes off at the same time and see if we can kill all of the people on Antarctica....oh wait no one lives there....
The Taepodong-2 missile they tested in 2006 has a range of 4000 miles. That is still out of reach of Hawaii, but I'd be willing to guess they've improved that range in 3 years. That's a wider than the continental US.
The nuclear weapons used in WWII and the weapons now are vastly different. See: http://www.blogiseverything.com/files/pics/nuclear_bomb_comparison.gif
In that picture, you see Bravo. My understanding is that it is one typical of US weapons (I know it was one at one time). I'm sure UK, France and clearly Russia have some of the same capabilities.
You can't consider a nuke a defensive weapon! I would agree that we used it to cripple the Japanese but it was aggressive and there is no doubt that it ended the war in the Pacific. The reason I don't agree that it was defensive is because they looked at invading Japan but determined that casualty numbers would be catastrophic (500k+).
I don't think we should be able to wag them in the face of countries to get our way. Again, it isn't about stopping nuclear capabilities, its about stopping nuclear weapons. As far as I'm concerned I'm ok with us having the power. I'd rather be on the side with the least radiation poisoning.
The last statement that you made is the problem with the entire situation. We are so concerned with making sure that we have the bigger guns, that we lose sight that they are real people. I mean, God (the same God) created them too, as equals. We should stop trying to control what everyone else is doing, and worry about helping other people that can't help themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
HA! Just because I want to be on the winning side doesn't mean I don't realize they are people. People are evil though. You have to accept that. I have nothing against the NKorean people, just their leadership. As far as I'm concerned we should send their people aid during droughts. That said though, when the button is pressed and the missiles are launched, I still hope to be in the side with the least radiation poisoning. Unless of course I'm poisoned, then I'd rather just be dead fast. :)
Post a Comment