4 ms·

>Why is it widely condemned when North Korea launches a satellite? Because most countries view it as a cover for an ICBM program. Anything that can launch a s

by gozur88 11y ago

>Why is it widely condemned when North Korea launches a satellite? Because most countries view it as a cover for an ICBM program. Anything that can launch a satellite into orbit can carry a nuke to the other side of the world. >Why does the article quote North Korea's "right" to explore space in a peaceful manner? Doesn't it have that right? Who is to say North Korea can't launch satellites? This is a tricky thing for other countries to navigate. We really don't have the right to tell them they can't have satellites or nuclear power. Other countries collectively launch satellites every week or so, and there are 438 operating nuclear reactors. On the other hand... nobody trusts the Norks, and with good reason. I guess it's like interpersonal communications - reputation matters.

mikeash 11y ago
Reputation and precedent. It's long past time to complain about the US's ICBMs. And for everyone sarcastically wondering why the US gets a pass, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of criticism at the time over the US's (and Soviets') nuclear buildup.
- Outdoorsman 11y ago
  I backpacked Australia in 1986... I was asked, very straightforwardly, by a woman I met,"Why does Ronald Reagan want to destroy the world with nuclear weapons?"...I replied that I doubted very much that he did... The U.S. has certainly received scrutiny abroad...
- gozur88 11y ago
  Still, can't you see it from their side? I'm pretty sure if I were running North Korea or Iran I'd be doing whatever I needed to do to acquire a credible nuclear deterrent. Particularly after Libya. When the US invaded Iraq the Libyans decided the best way to avoid the same fate was to accede to demands from the West. They gave up their nuclear program, paid compensation for Lockerbie, and generally stopped messing with other countries. And when it was convenient, we (mostly the UK and France, but the US too) provided the air power to overthrow the Libyan government. Kadaffi himself was tortured to death. If you're Kim Jong Un, what lesson do you draw from that sequence of events?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Sure, I can see it from their side. What you say makes complete sense. But I'm not on their side. I'm sure it hasn't been handled well, but the answer isn't to just welcome them into the community of nuclear nations and applaud every time they conduct a weapons test.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      Well, okay, I agree with that, but when we go to other countries in the region and say "We'd really like your help in putting pressure on North Korea to give up its missile program," we have to have an answer ready when they say "You have lots of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. If you're not willing to give up your weapons, why should we help you strong-arm the Koreans into giving up theirs?"
      - krapp 11y ago
        I think the argument can be made on behalf of their own rational self-interests. Do other countries in the region feel safer with North Korea maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Japan and South Korea probably do not. Would China prefer that North Korea have long-range nuclear strike capabilities that guarantee the US can never leave the hemisphere, and that NK can effectively challenge their political authority in the region? Probably not. All things being equal, the choice is between the US' nukes, and the US' nukes aimed at NK's nukes, and NK's nukes aimed who knows where (not necessarily just as the US.)
      - JabavuAdams 11y ago
        Other countries in the region (with the exception of China) want DPRK to be constrained. It's not like we need to convince them. As mentioned in one of the other replies -- sure, I can't fault a government for wanting to pursue nukes and space-launch capability. History has shown that you're either a US-ally, a nuclear power, or largely powerless over your country's destiny. That doesn't mean I want adversaries to have the same tech as I do. So, the condemnations make perfect sense. It's all a game.
      - mikeash 11y ago

by gozur88 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

Reputation and precedent. It's long past time to complain about the US's ICBMs. And for everyone sarcastically wondering why the US gets a pass, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of criticism at the time over the US's (and Soviets') nuclear buildup.

Outdoorsman 11y ago
I backpacked Australia in 1986... I was asked, very straightforwardly, by a woman I met,"Why does Ronald Reagan want to destroy the world with nuclear weapons?"...I replied that I doubted very much that he did... The U.S. has certainly received scrutiny abroad...
gozur88 11y ago
Still, can't you see it from their side? I'm pretty sure if I were running North Korea or Iran I'd be doing whatever I needed to do to acquire a credible nuclear deterrent. Particularly after Libya. When the US invaded Iraq the Libyans decided the best way to avoid the same fate was to accede to demands from the West. They gave up their nuclear program, paid compensation for Lockerbie, and generally stopped messing with other countries. And when it was convenient, we (mostly the UK and France, but the US too) provided the air power to overthrow the Libyan government. Kadaffi himself was tortured to death. If you're Kim Jong Un, what lesson do you draw from that sequence of events?
- mikeash 11y ago
  Sure, I can see it from their side. What you say makes complete sense. But I'm not on their side. I'm sure it hasn't been handled well, but the answer isn't to just welcome them into the community of nuclear nations and applaud every time they conduct a weapons test.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Well, okay, I agree with that, but when we go to other countries in the region and say "We'd really like your help in putting pressure on North Korea to give up its missile program," we have to have an answer ready when they say "You have lots of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. If you're not willing to give up your weapons, why should we help you strong-arm the Koreans into giving up theirs?"
    - krapp 11y ago
      I think the argument can be made on behalf of their own rational self-interests. Do other countries in the region feel safer with North Korea maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Japan and South Korea probably do not. Would China prefer that North Korea have long-range nuclear strike capabilities that guarantee the US can never leave the hemisphere, and that NK can effectively challenge their political authority in the region? Probably not. All things being equal, the choice is between the US' nukes, and the US' nukes aimed at NK's nukes, and NK's nukes aimed who knows where (not necessarily just as the US.)
    - JabavuAdams 11y ago
      Other countries in the region (with the exception of China) want DPRK to be constrained. It's not like we need to convince them. As mentioned in one of the other replies -- sure, I can't fault a government for wanting to pursue nukes and space-launch capability. History has shown that you're either a US-ally, a nuclear power, or largely powerless over your country's destiny. That doesn't mean I want adversaries to have the same tech as I do. So, the condemnations make perfect sense. It's all a game.
    - mikeash 11y ago