6 ms·

Why is it wrong that NK do Nuclear testing? I agree NK has some human rights issues, that should be addressed, but testing nuclear weapons is no different to P

by Volpe 14y ago

Why is it wrong that NK do Nuclear testing? I agree NK has some human rights issues, that should be addressed, but testing nuclear weapons is no different to Pakistan or India, and there are no sanctions against them.

mikegioia 14y ago
It's the manner with which they're conducting the tests. Do you think nuclear testing should be done in private by an authoritarian regime, or do you think it should be done with the acceptance and supervision of the world's scientists?
- Volpe 14y ago
  Erm... you mean like Pakistan did?
- defrost 14y ago
  In their last round of tests neither Pakistan nor India performed them "with the acceptance and supervision of the world's scientists". US intelligence was completely wrongfooted at the time of India's five Pokhran-II tests.
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>or do you think it should be done with the acceptance and supervision of the world's scientists? Firstly, no self respecting nation is ever going to wait for 'acceptance' and 'supervision' of some other nation. In fact that very thing implies some sort of master-slave relationship. Countries act in their own interests(just like every other country).
nemonemo 14y ago
NK is aiming the weapon at US and its allies, unlike India or Pakistan who aim at each other. B.R. Myer's talk explains the motive behind NK's nuclear program pretty well. http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11315/The+Cleanest+Race+How+North+Koreans+See+Themselves+And+Why+It+Matters.aspx http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11315/The+Cleanest+Race+How+Nort...
- Volpe 14y ago
  Right, so it makes sense that the US would be worried... not why the UN should sanction them. I'm referring to the inconsistency. The implication of what you are saying is: "The UN only intervenes when it suits the US". To me that makes me think LESS of the UN sanctions, not more.
  - nemonemo 14y ago
    Your comment conveys another implication that UN is supposed to be impartial to issues between member countries. That cannot explain veto power of five permanent members of UN security council, which no other country has. On consistency: I don't think UN, as a group of nations with conflicting goals, tries to behave in a consistent way, although people are free to blame it for its inconsistency.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      > Your comment conveys another implication that UN is supposed to be impartial to issues between member countries. It is isn't it? Otherwise it isn't a union... > That cannot explain veto power of five permanent members of UN security council, which no other country has. That's completely true... turns out there are more problems with the UN than just being a veil for US aggression... colour me surprised.
panacea 14y ago
Seriously? 'some human rights issues'? There could be up to 200,000 political prisoners in North Korean gulags. It's an extreme dictatorship.
- Volpe 14y ago
  Yes, they are severe. my 'some' wasn't refering to the severity of the issues. Regardless this has nothing to do with whether sanctions should be applied for testing weapons.
  - panacea 14y ago
    You seem to think having nuclear weapons is some sort of national right or something. It's not. Nobody wants an unstable, belligerent, nasty dictatorship to have the ability to nuke other countries.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      > You seem to think having nuclear weapons is some sort of national right or something. No, I don't think that. > Nobody wants an unstable, belligerent, nasty dictatorship to have the ability to nuke other countries. The US opened this can of worms and created an imbalance in the world. North Korea is surrounded by nuclear enabled countries (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). As an aside: What exactly is 'unstable' about North Korea... it's been the same ruling family for 50 years... I realise propaganda has permeated all of our views and it's difficult to see through the fog of misinformation but think about the words you use as you write them. North Korea (from all credible reports) is a mess, and quite horrible for A LOT of people, THAT needs to change. I would not rate it any more "belligerent" than the US. It is definitely not unstable and its Nastiness extends only as far as its borders...
      - cpleppert 14y ago
        >> You seem to think having nuclear weapons is some sort of national right or something. Well if it isn't a general principle you are defending then simply acquiring nuclear weapons is a good thing. Now if you think North Korea should have the ability to gain nuclear weapons then you certainly support any other country also getting access to nuclear weapons. >The US opened this can of worms and created an imbalance in the world. North Korea is surrounded by nuclear enabled countries (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). Hardly. Multiple states were developing nuclear weapons at the same time and the US developed them first. >>What exactly is 'unstable' about North Korea... A country that keeps 200,000 of its own citizens in camps doesn't exactly seem to scream stability. Now given that China is worried about a collapse of the North Korean economy and political structure your assertion is flatly ridiculous. >>North Korea (from all credible reports) is a mess so it is a 'mess' yet also not unstable. Countries that can't provide basic resources to their own citizens seem to be also be unstable. I wonder why that is... >>and quite horrible for A LOT of people, THAT needs to change. I'm not sure how getting nuclear weapons fixes that issue. In fact, North Korea spends upwards of 50% of its GDP on the military including its nuclear program.
pfraze 14y ago
Pakistan and India haven't closed off so many diplomatic options that direct economic pressure is the only option.
refurb 14y ago
I'm guessing the issue is that NK is an openly hostile country that is not only threatening its southern neighbor but also the region. India and Pakistan may have a beef with each other, but they weren't a destabilizing force in the region, or maybe more accurately, if they were, it wasn't a huge concern of the superpowers at the time.
- Volpe 14y ago
  NK v SK conflict is not that different to India v Pakistan. The difference is... there are US troops sitting on the border of NK/SK, so agression between those to parties involves the US. So who is the destabilising force in the region? I'm pretty sure "stability" isn't the goal (for the US) it's "Democracy".
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > NK v SK conflict is not that different to India v Pakistan. Uh, maybe if you ignore the magnitude of severity?
    - Volpe 14y ago
      I was talking politically... They are not too different. Ideologically opposed nations that were once a single nation (to over simplify a bit)
  - dba7dba 14y ago
    There are NO US troops sitting on the DMZ. There are a very few US GIs acting as sort of UN monitor type near DMZ. Most of the US troops are well away from the DMZ. Btw, N Korea has a regular standing army numbering a million. S Korea has 550,000. US has just a few thousands. And let's not forget who STARTED the whole Korean War.
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    The difference is so much greater than that. North Korea is a completely irrational regime. It is lost in a fantasy world. Pakistan, though it's stability is questionable, is not off on some bizarre ideological island. It's not as if the Pakistani government could convince it's citizens of the sort of nonsense the North Korean government does.
cpleppert 14y ago
I'm a little confused here. Your position is one that not even the biggest benefactor of North Korea supports (china) and is indistinguishable from the position that every regime regardless of its political structure should be able to access nuclear weapons. In other words, there should be little restrictions on the proliferation of nuclear technology. The fact that they are conducting tests is also rather interesting. The simple devices they have developed do not require any testing and given their limited plutonium stockpile they are reducing the amount of deployable weapons by conducting their third test in six years. I assume you would have supported South Africa's nuclear program?
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Are you kidding me? The DPRK is one of the most horrific regimes in the last 2 centuries, and that includes the Nazis and the Stalinist Soviet Union. Of all the regimes that can't be trusted with nuclear weapons they are pretty much at the top of the list.
- arcadeparade 14y ago
  The USA has nuclear weapons in South Korea, and they are the only country to actually use them. If they withdrew then maybe the two Koreas could negotiate peace.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    WARNING: in this post I am going to be an "asshole", I make no apologies. I am going to make this bold prediction: you are utterly ignorant of North Korean history, even in broad strokes. And this has allowed you to form utterly irrational and indeed insane opinions of that country. Please stop commenting about the subject until you correct your ignorance. Or do you wish to challenge my assumptions by producing extensive evidence that you are actually in fact supremely well informed about the North Korean regime and its history?
    - rooshdi 14y ago
      WARNING: The following contents contain "assholic" statistics: http://costsofwar.org/ http://costsofwar.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
      - InclinedPlane 14y ago
        I don't know what point you're trying to make here but it's lost on me. Are you trying to imply that it's a good idea for North Korea to have nuclear weapons? That it avoids misery in some way? That's pathological. Go read my other posts in this thread. If I had one wish it would be that the DPRK regime would step down so that the rest of the world would have the "opportunity" to dig the North Korean people out of the positively savage hell-hole they are living in right now. The best case scenario is that that happens and then it costs tens of billions of dollars to fix North Korea and put them on a level of, oh, say Yemen or Bangladesh, let alone South Korea. For that I'll be happy to see an increase in my taxes. In the meantime millions of North Korean citizens are living in a stalinist police state, many of them a hair's breadth away from conditions of starvation. Oh, and their country is under the tyranny of a megalomaniac who is happy to continue the traditions of squandering his nation's few resources to build weapons to terrorize the rest of the world (to add to the long list of efforts in the same vein using everything from terrorism, such as when they downed Korean Air Flight 858, to espionage to exporting missile technology) rather than try to dig his country out of brutal, crushing poverty. If there was a way to get rid of the North Korean regime without causing millions of civilian deaths on the Korean peninsula I'd probably be supportive of it, even if it meant an otherwise horrifying number of civilian deaths. Every year an unknown number of North Koreans are killed by the regime, perhaps as many as tens of thousands. Some estimates are that as many as 1.5 million North Koreans were killed in gulags during Kim Il Sung's reign. This is one of those rare cases where bringing up the Nazis and Hitler does not "Godwinize" the thread and is instead a fully apt and sobering point of comparison. A holocaust of North Koreans has happened, and the only reason it hasn't received the attention it deserves is because the country is very closed off and people are more concerned about what horrible thing to the world outside of North Korea the regime is likely to do next.
jeswin 14y ago
Or the thousands of tests conducted by the p5. These arsenals aren't any more legitimate than Indian and Pakistani arsenals. What is needed is comprehensive disarmament, which the US and the rest of p5 are opposed to.
svdad 14y ago
There's no "right" or "wrong" about NK doing nuclear testing, although for convenience we might phrase it that way. We don't want them to have nuclear weapons because we believe they're a belligerent, unstable regime. Yes, we opened the can of worms, but that doesn't change the power balance.
dba7dba 14y ago
Did you say 'SOME' human rights issues? Please read this http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Camp-14-Remarkable-Odyssey/dp/0670023329 http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Camp-14-Remarkable-Odyssey/dp/0... And maybe then someone will take you seriously.
caf 14y ago
Pakistan and India were sanctioned after their tit-for-tat round of nuclear testing in 1998: http://articles.cnn.com/1998-06-18/world/9806_18_india.pakistan.sanctions_1_india-and-pakistan-nuclear-tests-pakistan-blasts?_s=PM:WORLD http://articles.cnn.com/1998-06-18/world/9806_18_india.pakis... Furthermore, as a member of the United Nations, North Korea has agreed to abide by binding decisions of the Security Council; UNSC resolution 1718 demands that North Korea not conduct any further nuclear test. This resolution was adopted under Chapter VII, meaning that the UNSC has identified North Korea's nuclear testing as a threat to the peace. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1718%282006%29 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1718%2...

by Volpe 14y ago

mikegioia 14y ago

It's the manner with which they're conducting the tests. Do you think nuclear testing should be done in private by an authoritarian regime, or do you think it should be done with the acceptance and supervision of the world's scientists?

Volpe 14y ago
Erm... you mean like Pakistan did?
defrost 14y ago
In their last round of tests neither Pakistan nor India performed them "with the acceptance and supervision of the world's scientists". US intelligence was completely wrongfooted at the time of India's five Pokhran-II tests.
kamaal 14y ago
>>or do you think it should be done with the acceptance and supervision of the world's scientists? Firstly, no self respecting nation is ever going to wait for 'acceptance' and 'supervision' of some other nation. In fact that very thing implies some sort of master-slave relationship. Countries act in their own interests(just like every other country).

nemonemo 14y ago

NK is aiming the weapon at US and its allies, unlike India or Pakistan who aim at each other. B.R. Myer's talk explains the motive behind NK's nuclear program pretty well. http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11315/The+Cleanest+Race+How+North+Koreans+See+Themselves+And+Why+It+Matters.aspx http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11315/The+Cleanest+Race+How+Nort...

Volpe 14y ago
Right, so it makes sense that the US would be worried... not why the UN should sanction them. I'm referring to the inconsistency. The implication of what you are saying is: "The UN only intervenes when it suits the US". To me that makes me think LESS of the UN sanctions, not more.
- nemonemo 14y ago
  Your comment conveys another implication that UN is supposed to be impartial to issues between member countries. That cannot explain veto power of five permanent members of UN security council, which no other country has. On consistency: I don't think UN, as a group of nations with conflicting goals, tries to behave in a consistent way, although people are free to blame it for its inconsistency.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    > Your comment conveys another implication that UN is supposed to be impartial to issues between member countries. It is isn't it? Otherwise it isn't a union... > That cannot explain veto power of five permanent members of UN security council, which no other country has. That's completely true... turns out there are more problems with the UN than just being a veil for US aggression... colour me surprised.

panacea 14y ago

Seriously? 'some human rights issues'? There could be up to 200,000 political prisoners in North Korean gulags. It's an extreme dictatorship.

Volpe 14y ago
Yes, they are severe. my 'some' wasn't refering to the severity of the issues. Regardless this has nothing to do with whether sanctions should be applied for testing weapons.
- panacea 14y ago
  You seem to think having nuclear weapons is some sort of national right or something. It's not. Nobody wants an unstable, belligerent, nasty dictatorship to have the ability to nuke other countries.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    > You seem to think having nuclear weapons is some sort of national right or something. No, I don't think that. > Nobody wants an unstable, belligerent, nasty dictatorship to have the ability to nuke other countries. The US opened this can of worms and created an imbalance in the world. North Korea is surrounded by nuclear enabled countries (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). As an aside: What exactly is 'unstable' about North Korea... it's been the same ruling family for 50 years... I realise propaganda has permeated all of our views and it's difficult to see through the fog of misinformation but think about the words you use as you write them. North Korea (from all credible reports) is a mess, and quite horrible for A LOT of people, THAT needs to change. I would not rate it any more "belligerent" than the US. It is definitely not unstable and its Nastiness extends only as far as its borders...
    - cpleppert 14y ago
      >> You seem to think having nuclear weapons is some sort of national right or something. Well if it isn't a general principle you are defending then simply acquiring nuclear weapons is a good thing. Now if you think North Korea should have the ability to gain nuclear weapons then you certainly support any other country also getting access to nuclear weapons. >The US opened this can of worms and created an imbalance in the world. North Korea is surrounded by nuclear enabled countries (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). Hardly. Multiple states were developing nuclear weapons at the same time and the US developed them first. >>What exactly is 'unstable' about North Korea... A country that keeps 200,000 of its own citizens in camps doesn't exactly seem to scream stability. Now given that China is worried about a collapse of the North Korean economy and political structure your assertion is flatly ridiculous. >>North Korea (from all credible reports) is a mess so it is a 'mess' yet also not unstable. Countries that can't provide basic resources to their own citizens seem to be also be unstable. I wonder why that is... >>and quite horrible for A LOT of people, THAT needs to change. I'm not sure how getting nuclear weapons fixes that issue. In fact, North Korea spends upwards of 50% of its GDP on the military including its nuclear program.

pfraze 14y ago

Pakistan and India haven't closed off so many diplomatic options that direct economic pressure is the only option.

refurb 14y ago

I'm guessing the issue is that NK is an openly hostile country that is not only threatening its southern neighbor but also the region. India and Pakistan may have a beef with each other, but they weren't a destabilizing force in the region, or maybe more accurately, if they were, it wasn't a huge concern of the superpowers at the time.

Volpe 14y ago
NK v SK conflict is not that different to India v Pakistan. The difference is... there are US troops sitting on the border of NK/SK, so agression between those to parties involves the US. So who is the destabilising force in the region? I'm pretty sure "stability" isn't the goal (for the US) it's "Democracy".
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > NK v SK conflict is not that different to India v Pakistan. Uh, maybe if you ignore the magnitude of severity?
  - Volpe 14y ago
    I was talking politically... They are not too different. Ideologically opposed nations that were once a single nation (to over simplify a bit)
- dba7dba 14y ago
  There are NO US troops sitting on the DMZ. There are a very few US GIs acting as sort of UN monitor type near DMZ. Most of the US troops are well away from the DMZ. Btw, N Korea has a regular standing army numbering a million. S Korea has 550,000. US has just a few thousands. And let's not forget who STARTED the whole Korean War.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  The difference is so much greater than that. North Korea is a completely irrational regime. It is lost in a fantasy world. Pakistan, though it's stability is questionable, is not off on some bizarre ideological island. It's not as if the Pakistani government could convince it's citizens of the sort of nonsense the North Korean government does.

cpleppert 14y ago

I'm a little confused here. Your position is one that not even the biggest benefactor of North Korea supports (china) and is indistinguishable from the position that every regime regardless of its political structure should be able to access nuclear weapons. In other words, there should be little restrictions on the proliferation of nuclear technology. The fact that they are conducting tests is also rather interesting. The simple devices they have developed do not require any testing and given their limited plutonium stockpile they are reducing the amount of deployable weapons by conducting their third test in six years. I assume you would have supported South Africa's nuclear program?

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Are you kidding me? The DPRK is one of the most horrific regimes in the last 2 centuries, and that includes the Nazis and the Stalinist Soviet Union. Of all the regimes that can't be trusted with nuclear weapons they are pretty much at the top of the list.

arcadeparade 14y ago
The USA has nuclear weapons in South Korea, and they are the only country to actually use them. If they withdrew then maybe the two Koreas could negotiate peace.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  WARNING: in this post I am going to be an "asshole", I make no apologies. I am going to make this bold prediction: you are utterly ignorant of North Korean history, even in broad strokes. And this has allowed you to form utterly irrational and indeed insane opinions of that country. Please stop commenting about the subject until you correct your ignorance. Or do you wish to challenge my assumptions by producing extensive evidence that you are actually in fact supremely well informed about the North Korean regime and its history?
  - rooshdi 14y ago
    WARNING: The following contents contain "assholic" statistics: http://costsofwar.org/ http://costsofwar.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      I don't know what point you're trying to make here but it's lost on me. Are you trying to imply that it's a good idea for North Korea to have nuclear weapons? That it avoids misery in some way? That's pathological. Go read my other posts in this thread. If I had one wish it would be that the DPRK regime would step down so that the rest of the world would have the "opportunity" to dig the North Korean people out of the positively savage hell-hole they are living in right now. The best case scenario is that that happens and then it costs tens of billions of dollars to fix North Korea and put them on a level of, oh, say Yemen or Bangladesh, let alone South Korea. For that I'll be happy to see an increase in my taxes. In the meantime millions of North Korean citizens are living in a stalinist police state, many of them a hair's breadth away from conditions of starvation. Oh, and their country is under the tyranny of a megalomaniac who is happy to continue the traditions of squandering his nation's few resources to build weapons to terrorize the rest of the world (to add to the long list of efforts in the same vein using everything from terrorism, such as when they downed Korean Air Flight 858, to espionage to exporting missile technology) rather than try to dig his country out of brutal, crushing poverty. If there was a way to get rid of the North Korean regime without causing millions of civilian deaths on the Korean peninsula I'd probably be supportive of it, even if it meant an otherwise horrifying number of civilian deaths. Every year an unknown number of North Koreans are killed by the regime, perhaps as many as tens of thousands. Some estimates are that as many as 1.5 million North Koreans were killed in gulags during Kim Il Sung's reign. This is one of those rare cases where bringing up the Nazis and Hitler does not "Godwinize" the thread and is instead a fully apt and sobering point of comparison. A holocaust of North Koreans has happened, and the only reason it hasn't received the attention it deserves is because the country is very closed off and people are more concerned about what horrible thing to the world outside of North Korea the regime is likely to do next.

jeswin 14y ago

Or the thousands of tests conducted by the p5. These arsenals aren't any more legitimate than Indian and Pakistani arsenals. What is needed is comprehensive disarmament, which the US and the rest of p5 are opposed to.

svdad 14y ago

There's no "right" or "wrong" about NK doing nuclear testing, although for convenience we might phrase it that way. We don't want them to have nuclear weapons because we believe they're a belligerent, unstable regime. Yes, we opened the can of worms, but that doesn't change the power balance.

dba7dba 14y ago

Did you say 'SOME' human rights issues? Please read this http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Camp-14-Remarkable-Odyssey/dp/0670023329 http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Camp-14-Remarkable-Odyssey/dp/0... And maybe then someone will take you seriously.

caf 14y ago

Pakistan and India were sanctioned after their tit-for-tat round of nuclear testing in 1998: http://articles.cnn.com/1998-06-18/world/9806_18_india.pakistan.sanctions_1_india-and-pakistan-nuclear-tests-pakistan-blasts?_s=PM:WORLD http://articles.cnn.com/1998-06-18/world/9806_18_india.pakis... Furthermore, as a member of the United Nations, North Korea has agreed to abide by binding decisions of the Security Council; UNSC resolution 1718 demands that North Korea not conduct any further nuclear test. This resolution was adopted under Chapter VII, meaning that the UNSC has identified North Korea's nuclear testing as a threat to the peace. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1718%282006%29 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1718%2...