Quote: Original post by interNEKO
The fact is, left unchecked, they will use a nuke against someone. The question is S.Korea, Japan or China? Either way, after it happens, N.Korea will be wiped off the map, and then the world will remember once again the horrors of using nukes. Either that, or it will spur everyone to arm themselves again.

North Korea wouldn't dare use a nuke precisely for that reason -- the nation would be utterly destroyed by US nuclear retaliation. They just want the enormous leverage that comes with membership in the nuke club. The biggest danger is in what they choose to export given that arms sales to other unsavory nations (Iran) are a large source of revenue for them. It is widely believed that the North Koreans and the Pakistanis had some sort of a working relationship concerning their nuclear and missile programs.

Quote: Original post by interNEKO
The fact is, left unchecked, they will use a nuke against someone. The question is S.Korea, Japan or China? Either way, after it happens, N.Korea will be wiped off the map, and then the world will remember once again the horrors of using nukes. Either that, or it will spur everyone to arm themselves again.

I think,it will be "tactical" nuclear weapon against South Korea army (and US military bases).Of couse,N.K can be wiped using nuclear weapons,but with what price? (and what NK neighbours will do? A couple nuke bombs will be not enough,evidently.Radioactive clouds and so on...)
N.K is not a terrorist organisation like Al-Kayeda,this is simply a Huge Military Base,the "country-army".In comparison with Iraq they are like a ...err.. a piece of concrete,monolith-without religious and national division. Patrio o muerte[smile]
I want to pay your attention to such fact that the last "total mobilizations" were in the times of second world war. The next will be in case of NK invasion in SK,or in case if comebody will attack NK.I doubt that their "military spirit" has changed sufficiently since 1950's war.And they will use a nuclear bombs at own territory in needed.They are not so stupid to launch missiles against Japan and US.Against China (and Russia)? It's simply a nonsense.

[Edited by - Krokhin on April 29, 2009 11:25:55 PM]

Quote: Original post by owl
Perro que ladra, no muerde

Very interesting. I've never heard that saying before (at least in Spanish or English).

Quote: North Korea assumes that the best way to attain benefits and ensure its survival is to put pressure on Washington through its nuclear and missile programs.

Here's what I would say if I were the US President:

"North Korea is trying to manipulate the US policy towards themselves. I will not be manipulated and I will not stand for it. The United States will take the apathetic position and have no further dealings with the DPRK. If it happens to be that the DPRK launches a nuclear weapon at the USA or any country, the USA will respond in kind and use nuclear weapons to blow them to smithereens.

So long as the DPRK has nuclear weapons, they assure themselves a nuclear war if hostilities resume. Their chances of survival in a nuclear war are exactly zero. In a kinetic war, they have much better odds. With regard to their national security and future survival, it is in their best interests to NOT develop nuclear weapons because they would be on the losing side of a nuclear exchange.

The stability of the South East Asian region is fragile enough. When a rogue nation with an irrational leader acquires nuclear weapons, it is in the best interests of its neighbors to remove that threat. This is an Asian problem which should be resolved by Asian nations. I call on China, the DPRK's closest supporter, to use their influence with the DPRK leadership to defuse tensions on the Korean Peninsula. I hope for a future with peace and mutual understanding between nations, but a nuclear DPRK is a step away from that direction."

What would you say if you were the most powerful man/woman on Earth?

slayemin, you are assuming that North Korea would choose to lash out at us.

The greater fear is that the North Koreans will make a move on the South. They have artillery within range of Seoul and there is nothing we can do to stop them from destroying substantial parts of the city and slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians. Protecting South Korea and its economy is certainly worth the diplomatic effort and monetary expenditure required to put up with North Korea's petulance.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Personally I blame our sanctions against them. Korea gets to blame all its problems on "those evil americans" (and whoever else is sanctioning them, it's not just us I know), so the people are tricked into directing their rage externally and not towards their real problems. Thus no revolution. Same thing in Cuba, really.

That makes a lot of sense. Sanctions against Iraq resulted in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but did absolutely nothing to weaken Saddam's grip on power - it probably just strengthened it... In the end it was military, not economic intervention that took him out and triggered civil revolt.

Quote: Original post by trzy
The thought of Islamic extremists taking control of a nuclear-armed country is truly terrifying. The US will have no option but to either occupy the country or destroy its nuclear capability.

Pfft.... The thought of Christian extremists and ex-genocidal-communists controlling nuclear-armed countries is truly terrifying too, but we've learned to get over it - M.A.D. and all...

Some of the "god is on our side" or "good vs evil" statements that Bush made while in power scared me just as much as any "crazy Islamist", and he had control of a lot more fire-power (Hiroshima x 1000, anyone?)

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
Pfft.... The thought of Christian extremists and ex-genocidal-communists controlling nuclear-armed countries is truly terrifying too, but we've learned to get over it - M.A.D. and all...

What Christian extremists? There no Christian extremists comparable to Islamic extremists, and certainly none in control of any nuclear-armed countries.

Quote:
Some of the "god is on our side" or "good vs evil" statements that Bush made while in power scared me just as much as any "crazy Islamist", and he had control of a lot more fire-power (Hiroshima x 1000, anyone?)

Evidently you have trouble distinguishing between moral rhetoric and actual actions and intentions. It must be a frightening world you live in!

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Personally I blame our sanctions against them. Korea gets to blame all its problems on "those evil americans" (and whoever else is sanctioning them, it's not just us I know), so the people are tricked into directing their rage externally and not towards their real problems. Thus no revolution. Same thing in Cuba, really.

That makes a lot of sense. Sanctions against Iraq resulted in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but did absolutely nothing to weaken Saddam's grip on power - it probably just strengthened it... In the end it was military, not economic intervention that took him out and triggered civil revolt.

Military intervention is not always feasible, otherwise we would have invaded Iran, Sudan, and North Korea by now. It is true that sanctions often fail to topple regimes but they do severely weaken their ability to project power abroad, curtailing outright expansionism. This sort of containment is preferable to letting rogue dictators run wild terrorizing their innocent neighbors.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Personally I blame our sanctions against them. Korea gets to blame all its problems on "those evil americans" (and whoever else is sanctioning them, it's not just us I know), so the people are tricked into directing their rage externally and not towards their real problems. Thus no revolution. Same thing in Cuba, really.

That makes a lot of sense. Sanctions against Iraq resulted in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but did absolutely nothing to weaken Saddam's grip on power - it probably just strengthened it... In the end it was military, not economic intervention that took him out and triggered civil revolt.

So, as sick as this may sound, what would happen if all economic aid - food, medial supplies, etc., were cut off from N. Korea? Would the country eventually hit a stage where all the people starve to death, leaving only the military? What would happen then? Would the military turn on it's leader who got them into the situation, or would they lash out and attack somewhere else? My guess is that someone would break down and give them aid long before such a situation would happen, but still...

Quote: Original post by Moe

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Personally I blame our sanctions against them. Korea gets to blame all its problems on "those evil americans" (and whoever else is sanctioning them, it's not just us I know), so the people are tricked into directing their rage externally and not towards their real problems. Thus no revolution. Same thing in Cuba, really.

That makes a lot of sense. Sanctions against Iraq resulted in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but did absolutely nothing to weaken Saddam's grip on power - it probably just strengthened it... In the end it was military, not economic intervention that took him out and triggered civil revolt.

So, as sick as this may sound, what would happen if all economic aid - food, medial supplies, etc., were cut off from N. Korea? Would the country eventually hit a stage where all the people starve to death, leaving only the military? What would happen then? Would the military turn on it's leader who got them into the situation, or would they lash out and attack somewhere else? My guess is that someone would break down and give them aid long before such a situation would happen, but still...

It would be up to the leadership. They would either be forced to sue for peace or, feeling that they have nothing to lose, would attack the South out of desperation while they still had the capability to do so.