7 ms·

There's nothing "random" about picking on Al-Qaeda. Also, the facts are that NK has nuclear capabilities. So yes, we believe the CIA about that.

by gareim 14y ago

Volpe 14y ago
Iraq, and Afghanistan are also apparently "terrorist nations"... but not Pakistan? Or Yemen? (Despite Al-Qaeda having proven links to both). But why is NK having nukes a problem? There is no proof they want to use them. Just posturing... Very similar to India and Pakistan. Edit: Did the CIA get upset when France developed and tested nuclear weapons? Do some countries deserve trust while others don't? What has North Korea done, that caused the mistrust? [Edit Typos]
- gareim 14y ago
  I can't speak about everything because I don't keep up with most of this. But frankly, the situation is shaky. Pakistan is fairly developed considering the region it's in. It's also unstable because of the military from what I can understand. So it's reasonable not to label them as a terrorist nation and possibly pushing them into a more unstable state. That's the analysis that I've heard, but I don't know much about Pakistan. We have problems with North Korea having nuclear weapons because they are extremely volatile. Their interactions with the South prove it. Those tunnels into SK that they used to send commandos in an assassination attempt? Or maybe the sinking of the South Korean warship? The shelling of an island? The list is LONG and a cursory glance of their Wikipedia page will prove that. Can you honestly tell me that you'd feel safe if North Korea had nukes?
  - saryant 14y ago
    The issue with Pakistan is that there are a number of competing elements within the government and military. Some are sympathetic to American interests, some are hostile. Sme sympathetic to al-Queda, some afraid of radicalized Islam. Parts of the ISI, their counterpart to the CIA, helped foster terrorist training camps in Afghanistan with the aid of American weaponry and money during our covert push against the Soviets. This was partly done so that fighters trained in those camps could then be shipped to Kashmir to do battle against the Indian army in that region. Pakistan is a very difficult topic. I recommend two books by Steve Coll to understand it better, "On the Grand Trunk Road" and "Ghost Wars," two fascinating books on the recent history of this region. I recently read both and they're worth your time.
- taligent 14y ago
  North Korea having nukes is a huge problem if you are South Korea or Japan or Hong Kong or anyone else in the region. They don't want a child dictator who is clearly bored and with a point to prove having nuclear weapons. I just came back from North Korea and it is like stepping back 50 years. But one thing is very clear they very much believe in a reunified Korea under Kim Jong Un. And as has been demonstrated with their previous tunnel attempts under the DMZ they are willing to do this by force. Show me where France has on repeated occasions attacked their neighbours and destabilised the region.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    > North Korea having nukes is a huge problem if you are South Korea or Japan or Hong Kong or anyone else in the region. I'm not sure I accept that premise. But the U.S isn't listed there? So where is the U.S interest here? Or are we going to go with "stability in the region is in the USes interest"? North Korea, by and large, is a problem for South Korea. Just as Taiwan is a problem for China (or vice versa). Where does a country draw the line of "national interest"? Because it seems (in the case of the CIA) to have gotten out of hand. Edit: > Show me where France has on repeated occasions attacked their neighbours and destabilised the region. Substitute France with Israel then. There is no consistency with the U.Ses labeling of 'Evil'/'terrorist' regimes.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      The US isn't within current strike range of NK. The other countries are. South Korea, notably, has its capital (and 25 million inhabitants) within 35 miles of the North Korean border. There's some debate as to how much of the NK artillery force is capable of striking Seoul, but there's no doubt that at least some of it can. And that's just conventional weaponry (explosives, possibly chemical and biological weapons). Nukes are a completely different ballgame. NK could disrupt affairs in countries in which the US has significant economic and strategic relationships. But its ability to directly affect the US is somewhat less. At least so long as you're thinking in terms of artillery and missile launches. A ship-board nuke could still make for a really bad day in New York, LA, Houston, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, or even Chicago or other Great Lakes ports. http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-korea-could-destroy-seoul-in-two-hours-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-kore... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/seoul-imagery-artillery.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/seoul-image...
- bmelton 14y ago
  This article might illuminate some of your questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation... The simple answer about France vs India and Pakistan is that France signed and supposedly adheres to the Non-Proliferation Treaty on Nuclear Weapons, but has joined as a 'nuclear weapon state', and are one of the five members of the UN Security Council. Being on the council means that they can have weapons, but agree to use them responsibly, and their adherence to the treaty means that they can verify the safety of their devices, that they are adhering to the treaty's requirements on inspection by the IAEA, and that they are abiding all disarmament requirements specified therein. India and Pakistan, having not ever accepted the treaty in the first place, are in a different position. Their nukes are treated with skepticism naturally, but they haven't ever agreed to anything so are exempt from its guidelines. North Korea is a unique case, in that it did sign the treaty, but later withdrew its acceptance and are now, as you say, 'posturing', after never having come into compliance when they were abiding the treaty and having acceded. That there are questions as to their governmental leadership, and that they are testing nuclear devices in secret only exacerbates that, at the very least, we need to keep our eyes on what they are doing.
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  This is absurd. A nuke can kill millions in one go. I'd sooner let Joe the Plumber have nukes than North Korea. "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    > "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine. That's literally what the measure of allowing countries nukes is. Though, granted, North Korea withdrew from the "pinkies crossed" promise. But there are other countries (India, Pakistan, Israel) that have nuclear weapons but haven't promised to use them responsibly. Which no one seems to phased about, so why North Korea?
    - taligent 14y ago
      You keep bringing this up and I keep answering you. North Korea has repeatedly attacked its neighbours with no good cause. Those other countries haven't.
      - Volpe 14y ago
        I answered you directly (where you brought it up). Israel repeatedly attacked/s its neighbours (even occupying them). North Korea is timid in comparison. Good cause is debatable (for both Israel, and North Korea).
        taligent 14y ago
        Care to provide an example why North Korea has good cause to invade South Korea ? You know they keep trying right ?
        Volpe 14y ago
        Much like the Israel/Palestine conflict. They believe the country is theirs. Hence why they want unification. As I say, good cause is debatable.
- bdunbar 14y ago
  Did the CIA get upset when France developed and tested nuclear weapons? France at the time was a member of NATO. So, no, probably not. Do some countries deserve trust while others don't? I would rephrase it 'do some governments deserve trust ... Yes. Intent matters. The UK is not possibly going to blow up New York City. For a while there in the 50s and 60s the same could not be said for the USSR. What has North Korea done, that caused the mistrust? In no particular order ... Last remaining Stalinist regime in the world. Kidnap foreigners for entertainment purposes. Started a war in 1950. One that isn't officially over. In that war executed tens of thousands of citizens of the country they invaded. Once in a while they do insane stuff like shell their neighbor' land, blow up parts of their navy. Constantly dig tunnels under their border with ROK in order to bypass border defenses.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    As I've said in other threads. How about Israel, they do all of those things[1], have Nukes, and are massive aggressors in their part of the world. [1](Except the Stalinism)
    - bdunbar 14y ago
      1. Israel is an ally of the US. 2. Intention matter. 3. So does governance. 4. Did you really compare North Korea to Israel, say they are comparable? If Y there is no talking to you. Have a nice day.
      - Volpe 14y ago
        What's North Korea's intent? (I thought unification) What's Israels intent? (I thought unification) Are they comparable? Seems, at face value, they are. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the governance point. > If Y there is no talking to you. Have a nice day. Really? That's the position you want to take?
        bdunbar 14y ago
        I'm not sure what you are getting at with the governance point. Type of government - representative democracy versus totalitarian dictatorship. That's the position you want to take? Yes.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > But why is NK having nukes a problem? There is no proof they want to use them. Just posturing... Very similar to India and Pakistan. True that. I never thought about it that way. > What has North Korea done, that caused the mistrust? They're frickin nuts. They run horrific internment camps. Their ideology includes our defeat. (The western capitalist powers.) Pakistan is a hodge-podge, which includes terrorist and islamist elements. I'm not up on the situation in Yemen.
_delirium 14y ago
Al-Qaeda isn't random, but a lot of the people in Guantanamo do seem to be pretty random, mostly low-level Taliban schmucks who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were inaccurately sold out by someone looking for a reward. Even the U.S. has admitted that in a few cases.

There's nothing "random" about picking on Al-Qaeda. Also, the facts are that NK has nuclear capabilities. So yes, we believe the CIA about that.

by gareim 14y ago

There's nothing "random" about picking on Al-Qaeda. Also, the facts are that NK has nuclear capabilities. So yes, we believe the CIA about that.

Volpe 14y ago

Iraq, and Afghanistan are also apparently "terrorist nations"... but not Pakistan? Or Yemen? (Despite Al-Qaeda having proven links to both). But why is NK having nukes a problem? There is no proof they want to use them. Just posturing... Very similar to India and Pakistan. Edit: Did the CIA get upset when France developed and tested nuclear weapons? Do some countries deserve trust while others don't? What has North Korea done, that caused the mistrust? [Edit Typos]

gareim 14y ago
I can't speak about everything because I don't keep up with most of this. But frankly, the situation is shaky. Pakistan is fairly developed considering the region it's in. It's also unstable because of the military from what I can understand. So it's reasonable not to label them as a terrorist nation and possibly pushing them into a more unstable state. That's the analysis that I've heard, but I don't know much about Pakistan. We have problems with North Korea having nuclear weapons because they are extremely volatile. Their interactions with the South prove it. Those tunnels into SK that they used to send commandos in an assassination attempt? Or maybe the sinking of the South Korean warship? The shelling of an island? The list is LONG and a cursory glance of their Wikipedia page will prove that. Can you honestly tell me that you'd feel safe if North Korea had nukes?
- saryant 14y ago
  The issue with Pakistan is that there are a number of competing elements within the government and military. Some are sympathetic to American interests, some are hostile. Sme sympathetic to al-Queda, some afraid of radicalized Islam. Parts of the ISI, their counterpart to the CIA, helped foster terrorist training camps in Afghanistan with the aid of American weaponry and money during our covert push against the Soviets. This was partly done so that fighters trained in those camps could then be shipped to Kashmir to do battle against the Indian army in that region. Pakistan is a very difficult topic. I recommend two books by Steve Coll to understand it better, "On the Grand Trunk Road" and "Ghost Wars," two fascinating books on the recent history of this region. I recently read both and they're worth your time.
taligent 14y ago
North Korea having nukes is a huge problem if you are South Korea or Japan or Hong Kong or anyone else in the region. They don't want a child dictator who is clearly bored and with a point to prove having nuclear weapons. I just came back from North Korea and it is like stepping back 50 years. But one thing is very clear they very much believe in a reunified Korea under Kim Jong Un. And as has been demonstrated with their previous tunnel attempts under the DMZ they are willing to do this by force. Show me where France has on repeated occasions attacked their neighbours and destabilised the region.
- Volpe 14y ago
  > North Korea having nukes is a huge problem if you are South Korea or Japan or Hong Kong or anyone else in the region. I'm not sure I accept that premise. But the U.S isn't listed there? So where is the U.S interest here? Or are we going to go with "stability in the region is in the USes interest"? North Korea, by and large, is a problem for South Korea. Just as Taiwan is a problem for China (or vice versa). Where does a country draw the line of "national interest"? Because it seems (in the case of the CIA) to have gotten out of hand. Edit: > Show me where France has on repeated occasions attacked their neighbours and destabilised the region. Substitute France with Israel then. There is no consistency with the U.Ses labeling of 'Evil'/'terrorist' regimes.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    The US isn't within current strike range of NK. The other countries are. South Korea, notably, has its capital (and 25 million inhabitants) within 35 miles of the North Korean border. There's some debate as to how much of the NK artillery force is capable of striking Seoul, but there's no doubt that at least some of it can. And that's just conventional weaponry (explosives, possibly chemical and biological weapons). Nukes are a completely different ballgame. NK could disrupt affairs in countries in which the US has significant economic and strategic relationships. But its ability to directly affect the US is somewhat less. At least so long as you're thinking in terms of artillery and missile launches. A ship-board nuke could still make for a really bad day in New York, LA, Houston, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, or even Chicago or other Great Lakes ports. http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-korea-could-destroy-seoul-in-two-hours-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-kore... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/seoul-imagery-artillery.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/seoul-image...
bmelton 14y ago
This article might illuminate some of your questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation... The simple answer about France vs India and Pakistan is that France signed and supposedly adheres to the Non-Proliferation Treaty on Nuclear Weapons, but has joined as a 'nuclear weapon state', and are one of the five members of the UN Security Council. Being on the council means that they can have weapons, but agree to use them responsibly, and their adherence to the treaty means that they can verify the safety of their devices, that they are adhering to the treaty's requirements on inspection by the IAEA, and that they are abiding all disarmament requirements specified therein. India and Pakistan, having not ever accepted the treaty in the first place, are in a different position. Their nukes are treated with skepticism naturally, but they haven't ever agreed to anything so are exempt from its guidelines. North Korea is a unique case, in that it did sign the treaty, but later withdrew its acceptance and are now, as you say, 'posturing', after never having come into compliance when they were abiding the treaty and having acceded. That there are questions as to their governmental leadership, and that they are testing nuclear devices in secret only exacerbates that, at the very least, we need to keep our eyes on what they are doing.
cynicalkane 14y ago
This is absurd. A nuke can kill millions in one go. I'd sooner let Joe the Plumber have nukes than North Korea. "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine.
- Volpe 14y ago
  > "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine. That's literally what the measure of allowing countries nukes is. Though, granted, North Korea withdrew from the "pinkies crossed" promise. But there are other countries (India, Pakistan, Israel) that have nuclear weapons but haven't promised to use them responsibly. Which no one seems to phased about, so why North Korea?
  - taligent 14y ago
    You keep bringing this up and I keep answering you. North Korea has repeatedly attacked its neighbours with no good cause. Those other countries haven't.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      I answered you directly (where you brought it up). Israel repeatedly attacked/s its neighbours (even occupying them). North Korea is timid in comparison. Good cause is debatable (for both Israel, and North Korea).
      - taligent 14y ago
        Care to provide an example why North Korea has good cause to invade South Korea ? You know they keep trying right ?
        Volpe 14y ago
        Much like the Israel/Palestine conflict. They believe the country is theirs. Hence why they want unification. As I say, good cause is debatable.
bdunbar 14y ago
Did the CIA get upset when France developed and tested nuclear weapons? France at the time was a member of NATO. So, no, probably not. Do some countries deserve trust while others don't? I would rephrase it 'do some governments deserve trust ... Yes. Intent matters. The UK is not possibly going to blow up New York City. For a while there in the 50s and 60s the same could not be said for the USSR. What has North Korea done, that caused the mistrust? In no particular order ... Last remaining Stalinist regime in the world. Kidnap foreigners for entertainment purposes. Started a war in 1950. One that isn't officially over. In that war executed tens of thousands of citizens of the country they invaded. Once in a while they do insane stuff like shell their neighbor' land, blow up parts of their navy. Constantly dig tunnels under their border with ROK in order to bypass border defenses.
- Volpe 14y ago
  As I've said in other threads. How about Israel, they do all of those things[1], have Nukes, and are massive aggressors in their part of the world. [1](Except the Stalinism)
  - bdunbar 14y ago
    1. Israel is an ally of the US. 2. Intention matter. 3. So does governance. 4. Did you really compare North Korea to Israel, say they are comparable? If Y there is no talking to you. Have a nice day.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      What's North Korea's intent? (I thought unification) What's Israels intent? (I thought unification) Are they comparable? Seems, at face value, they are. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the governance point. > If Y there is no talking to you. Have a nice day. Really? That's the position you want to take?
      - bdunbar 14y ago
        I'm not sure what you are getting at with the governance point. Type of government - representative democracy versus totalitarian dictatorship. That's the position you want to take? Yes.
stcredzero 14y ago
> But why is NK having nukes a problem? There is no proof they want to use them. Just posturing... Very similar to India and Pakistan. True that. I never thought about it that way. > What has North Korea done, that caused the mistrust? They're frickin nuts. They run horrific internment camps. Their ideology includes our defeat. (The western capitalist powers.) Pakistan is a hodge-podge, which includes terrorist and islamist elements. I'm not up on the situation in Yemen.

_delirium 14y ago

Al-Qaeda isn't random, but a lot of the people in Guantanamo do seem to be pretty random, mostly low-level Taliban schmucks who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were inaccurately sold out by someone looking for a reward. Even the U.S. has admitted that in a few cases.