General discussions : Non mobile discussion : north korea may the ballsy'est country at the moment
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> north korea may the ballsy'est country at the moment
Bookmark topic
@bandit
I agree.
Everytime he opens his mouth his foot goes right in it. Just yesterday he was saying the US had not intention of attacking NK. Now he's saying the opposite.
What a guy! (doh!)
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 17:48:53
Edit :
Quote
Diplomacy was never his strong point!
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 17:50:08
Edit :
Quote
Either you have nuclear weapons or you don't. If you have a stockpile of hydrogen bombs at your disposal, you don't have any right to stop any country from pursuing nuclear ambitions. One reason why India has NOT signed the NPT or the CTBT.. Let all countries collectively "dispose" off these threat to humanity.But i guess nuclear bombs are big factor when it comes to conflicts.The only reason why India did not attack pakistan in 02 was the fear of a nuclear escalation and due to its no first use doctrine.
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 17:56:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-10-13 17:56:00, whizkidd wrote:
Either you have nuclear weapons or you don't. If you have a stockpile of hydrogen bombs at your disposal, you don't have any right to stop any country from pursuing nuclear ambitions.
Absolutely agree with you there,The U.S thinks it has a god given right to stockpile every conceivable weaponry on the face of the planet...they should stop harrassing other sovereign nations on what to do...sort out your own house before you tell someone else to fix there's.
Quote:
On 2006-10-13 17:56:00, whizkidd wrote:
One reason why India has NOT signed the NPT or the CTBT.. Let all countries collectively \"dispose\" off these threat to humanity.But i guess nuclear bombs are big factor when it comes to conflicts.The only reason why India did not attack pakistan in 02 was the fear of a nuclear escalation and due to its no first use doctrine.
Again the U.S should be the first to dispose of its nukes and set an example to everyone else,also it would greatly help if the U.S also makes Israel disarm its nukes aswell.....less powerfull nations such as Pakistan and India would automatically follow suit.
The reason India did'nt attack Pakistan in 02 was not only because of the Nuclear escalation in the region,but since Pakistan is also Nuclear power India also feared an attack.
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 18:09:55
Edit :
Quote
@axxxr, that was what i said. India definitely feared a nuclear escalation since Pakistan does not have an official nuclear doctrine. India however has this "no first use" policy which means it will only use nuclear weapons if it faces a nuclear attack. I guess nuclear weapons might have actually averted some of the bloodiest conflicts that could have occurred.
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 18:20:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-10-13 18:20:00, whizkidd wrote:
@axxxr, that was what i said. India definitely feared a nuclear escalation since Pakistan does not have an official nuclear doctrine. India however has this \"no first use\" policy which means it will only use nuclear weapons if it faces a nuclear attack. I guess nuclear weapons might have actually averted some of the bloodiest conflicts that could have occurred.
Pakistan doesn't have a first use doctrine because it is smaller nation compared to India and India has always been against the idea of Pakistan,don't forget that they have had 3 wars since 1947 so its easy to understand why pakistan would have such a stance....Thankfully the two countries are on much better terms these days,they should just learn to accept that both countries are here to stay and get just along after all they have so much in common,culture,religion,tradition ect..practically the same....The only countries that stand to benefit from a Pakistan/India War would be Israel and the U.S....but thats another debate.
Are we getting awefully off topic here or what.
I think everyone is waiting for NK reaction to the decision that will be passed at the U.N....sanction ect.
If NK does attack South Korea or Japan its bound to get very messy!
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 18:35:44
Edit :
Quote
However.... I may add.. A nuclear war would be bloodier than any conventional conflict.. Nuclear weapons are a good deterrent but we can only hope its only a "deterrent".
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 18:38:00
Edit :
Quote
@axxxr. i highly doubt that KJI will give the order to attack anyone. N.Kr will collapse if it does. There will be no support from China nor Russia. They'll be on their own.
If KJI plays his cards right however, he might get the war mongering bush to make the first mistake, retaliate as a 'victim', and get China and Russia in behind him.
But if he's smart, he'll rattle his sabre a little longer, enough for everyone to take him seriously, and negotiate at the table to help his impoverished nation.
~LB
--
Posted: 2006-10-13 20:19:58
Edit :
Quote
What a naive point of view.
If the US has nukes it doesn't have the right to stop anyone else having them
People who use this argument obviously haven't thought this through at all. Its a childish, naive point of view and this argument always gets wheeled out because of the principle involved - playground politics.
What you're actually saying is, let any country in the world who wants nukes to have them? OK. Lets just save them the trouble and just give every country in the world nukes, just deal them out like sweets to a classroom - see how bloomin ridiculous that sounds!!!!
If the US has nukes then why not N Korea? By the same token, if N Korea has nukes then why not Iceland, oh, no we can't leave out the Isle of Man- there ya go Isle of Man there's a handful for you too - use them wisely, there's not many left!!!!
The fact is nukes do exist and the only way to get rid of them is to control them 1st of all. If you don't control them you have a Nuclear arms race. If your ideal world is one where thousands of nukes exist without control then you are f*ckin crazy
Oh and btw, if you think that "if one country give up 100% of its nukes then all of the others would automatically follow" then you're living in a dream world. Humans aren't that dependable.
_____________
My Friends 3G World Analysis Mobizines[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-14 10:10 ]
--
Posted: 2006-10-14 10:57:39
Edit :
Quote
@goldenface your totally correct just cause someone has something does that mean we can all have it. i know some one with a porchse does that mean i should have one (hope so).
really if your going to possess such weapons you have to be capable and intelligent enough to know how to handle them ie youhave to be responsible.
since n koreas people dont live in fantastic conditions the money would be better spent on feeding and clothing people.
so no i dont think everyone should have them if you cant demonstarte your responsible.
the current people who do have them have never used them in over 60 years and never shown any signs of using them so i think we can assume they have the maturity and intelligence to handle them.
[ This Message was edited by: slattery69 on 2006-10-14 12:27 ]
--
Posted: 2006-10-14 13:12:17
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
