North Korea tests another nuclear bomb

[Balta1701]

Ugh, Again with the bombs.

 

The good news is...this is a little bit less plutonium in their arsenal.

 

The bad news is...they appear to have gotten this one to work correctly, the first one 3 years ago fizzled.

[Rex Kickass]

Better news out of this:

 

China is pissed and is working with the Security Council over this which means that there might be sufficient motivation in the UN to get something severe done.

 

Also, North Korea alerted to the US that it was going to happen within an hour of it happening. A lot of analysts seem to think that this is a purely internally political move as Kim Jong Il is trying to consolidate power after his stroke.

[mr_genius]

This comes, once again, as no surprise.

 

They just want more 'carrots on stick' to stop nuclear program. Of course, the nuclear program is key to getting carrots, therefore it will not end. They will likely get their bribes and 'stop' the program. Also, China's outrage is likely fake.

Edited May 25, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

This comes, once again, as no surprise.

 

They just want more 'carrots on stick' to stop nuclear program. Of course, the nuclear program is key to getting carrots, therefore it will not end. They will likely get their bribes and 'stop' the program. Also, China's outrage is likely fake.

I can't buy that this benefits China when North Korea does things that strongly motivates everyone else to jump on them. China benefits when Korea is pushing some buttons but doesn't bring the hammer down hard on them...in that case, China can use Korean negotiations as leverage to get things they want. When the Koreans go this far though, the Chinese would either have to support the North outright or lose their ability to use them as a negotiating tool, because a nuclear test brings everyone down hard on the north, even people who normally wouldn't have had that much interest.

[mr_genius]

I can't buy that this benefits China when North Korea does things that strongly motivates everyone else to jump on them. China benefits when Korea is pushing some buttons but doesn't bring the hammer down hard on them...in that case, China can use Korean negotiations as leverage to get things they want. When the Koreans go this far though, the Chinese would either have to support the North outright or lose their ability to use them as a negotiating tool, because a nuclear test brings everyone down hard on the north, even people who normally wouldn't have had that much interest.

 

I believe China knew about the test, as I'm sure they spy in N.Korea heavily and likely have contacts within the regime. A nuclear N.Korea is a great bargaining chip for China to hold. Now, after this test, if they decide to take action it will help solidify their place as a major player in gobal politics. China saves the day!

 

Even as globalization takes hold, so many things still require regional solutions.

[southsider2k5]

So in other words, they never did fully shut down their program when they said they did because they just managed to put together a nuclear bomb in six weeks or so.

[kapkomet]

So in other words, they never did fully shut down their program when they said they did because they just managed to put together a nuclear bomb in six weeks or so.

I wonder who they have sold technology/parts/knowledge to during this time.

[Texsox]

So in other words, they never did fully shut down their program when they said they did because they just managed to put together a nuclear bomb in six weeks or so.

 

As long as a country has a University, they have a weapons program. I don't think anyone is ever fooled otherwise.

 

Nothing on this planet elevates a country like oil or a nuclear bomb. Toss in being just crazy enough to use it and instant invitations to all the cool country events.

[lostfan]

So in other words, they never did fully shut down their program when they said they did because they just managed to put together a nuclear bomb in six weeks or so.

I'm shocked.

[southsider2k5]

As long as a country has a University, they have a weapons program. I don't think anyone is ever fooled otherwise.

 

Nothing on this planet elevates a country like oil or a nuclear bomb. Toss in being just crazy enough to use it and instant invitations to all the cool country events.

 

Many are, the UN being the biggest one.

 

[Texsox]

Many are, the UN being the biggest one.

 

I always assumed it was more a diplomatic front, than an actual belief.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can't wait for the swift UN response - "hey stop! seriously this time. or else...we might do something..."

 

 

[Texsox]

I can't wait for the swift UN response - "hey stop! seriously this time. or else...we might do something..."

 

What would you suggest is the proper response for the UN and how would they back it up?

[southsider2k5]

I always assumed it was more a diplomatic front, than an actual belief.

 

Well if the UN is willing to lie to billions of people under the guise of "diplomacy" that really says all you need to know about that particular organization. It probably goes a long way towards explaining the corruption that has racked it recently as well.

[Texsox]

Well if the UN is willing to lie to billions of people under the guise of "diplomacy" that really says all you need to know about that particular organization. It probably goes a long way towards explaining the corruption that has racked it recently as well.

 

Isn't that what the US does as well? It seems every country makes announcements while doing something else. The first examples that comes to mind are moldy oldie, but we denied ever targeting Castro for execution. We denied having operations in Cambodia during Viet Nam. You do not tip your hand fully to the other side.

[southsider2k5]

Isn't that what the US does as well? It seems every country makes announcements while doing something else. The first examples that comes to mind are moldy oldie, but we denied ever targeting Castro for execution. We denied having operations in Cambodia during Viet Nam. You do not tip your hand fully to the other side.

 

That only backs up my claim that the UN is not functioning how it is supposed to if it has agendas like countries do.

[Texsox]

That only backs up my claim that the UN is not functioning how it is supposed to if it has agendas like countries do.

 

I have always considered the UN made up of countries, and has the accumulation, combination, and summation of all those countries agendas. If a strategy works for the US, England, Brazil, and Norway individually, why would those countries abandon that strategy when they are working collectively?

 

I believe we do agree that the UN has a long ways to go to reach its full potential. It brings out the worse in all nations, and I guess, occasionally, the best.

 

I've always respected and enjoyed reading your UN thoughts, so I am trying to understand your point. Could you give me an example of something the UN should be doing that would not be part of some country's agenda? I guess that is where I am lost and perhaps we have a definition discord here.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Texsox
added thought

[Texsox]

Better yet, allow me a concrete example.

 

• I believe it is our best interest that North Korea does not possess a nuclear bomb.
• That makes it an agenda item for the US.
• I believe it is in the world's best interest that North Korea not possess a nuclear bomb.
• That should make it an agenda item for the UN.
• If for example, the US announcing that they believe NK has stopped research, in order to perhaps flush them out, or make them careless, a little diplomatic lie is acceptable.
• I give the UN the same opportunity to use that strategy.

[southsider2k5]

Better yet, allow me a concrete example.

 

• I believe it is our best interest that North Korea does not possess a nuclear bomb.
• That makes it an agenda item for the US.
• I believe it is in the world's best interest that North Korea not possess a nuclear bomb.
• That should make it an agenda item for the UN.
• If for example, the US announcing that they believe NK has stopped research, in order to perhaps flush them out, or make them careless, a little diplomatic lie is acceptable.
• I give the UN the same opportunity to use that strategy.

 

And the billions of people within range of their balastic nuclear missiles be damned. Nope. I don't buy that the UN should be purposefully lying to the world. I really believe that when you start to blur that line, it is when you open yourself up for being no better than the countries you are trying to stop from destroying each other. Look no further than the oil for food program. I am sure they had a great reason for that little white lie, but it does no good for the people murdered in Iraq by the enabling of Hussein for decades.

[Balta1701]

And the billions of people within range of their balastic nuclear missiles be damned. Nope. I don't buy that the UN should be purposefully lying to the world. I really believe that when you start to blur that line, it is when you open yourself up for being no better than the countries you are trying to stop from destroying each other. Look no further than the oil for food program. I am sure they had a great reason for that little white lie, but it does no good for the people murdered in Iraq by the enabling of Hussein for decades.

Iraq is a wonderful counter-example here...because while "Containment" may have been a poor policy there...look at what the alternative got us.

[southsider2k5]

Iraq is a wonderful counter-example here...because while "Containment" may have been a poor policy there...look at what the alternative got us.

 

Iraq is better today than it was under Hussien. It might not be ideal, but it is better, no matter what the liberal blogs say. The UN had no part in that, in fact, they could very easily be blamed for bringing it to the point where W felt an invasion was necesary. It is very easy to imagine a scenario with no money, where his regime collapses under its own weight and is replaced with something in the middle of what history has given us.

[whitesoxfan101]

Iraq is better today than it was under Hussien. It might not be ideal, but it is better, no matter what the liberal blogs say. The UN had no part in that, in fact, they could very easily be blamed for bringing it to the point where W felt an invasion was necesary. It is very easy to imagine a scenario with no money, where his regime collapses under its own weight and is replaced with something in the middle of what history has given us.

 

While I agree Iraq is better today, it doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has been a fiasco. I'm not sure what the best option would be to handle problematic countries/governments, but whatever it is, it hasn't been tried recently.

[Texsox]

And the billions of people within range of their balastic nuclear missiles be damned. Nope. I don't buy that the UN should be purposefully lying to the world. I really believe that when you start to blur that line, it is when you open yourself up for being no better than the countries you are trying to stop from destroying each other. Look no further than the oil for food program. I am sure they had a great reason for that little white lie, but it does no good for the people murdered in Iraq by the enabling of Hussein for decades.

As I suspected, we are thinking about two different things. I do agree with your example. But I'm not certain where you get the bolded. That was not my intent. The lives of those billions should be an agenda item for the US, and the UN. So much so that in the process of protecting those billions of people a lie needs to be told, so be it. I'd rather have the lie, than a nuclear armed North Korea.

 

And I am not in favor of all lying, and certainly not for the corruption in the oil for food program. I will agree with most all of your examples, and there are many. However, there is a time and the place. Talk like 'we're not planning an invasion" while planning the invasion, is a perfect example of what I mean. It is acceptable for the US military and should be acceptable for a UN peace keeping force made up, in part, of US troops. Yes they are lying, but I believe it is acceptable.

[southsider2k5]

As I suspected, we are thinking about two different things. I do agree with your example. But I'm not certain where you get the bolded. That was not my intent. The lives of those billions should be an agenda item for the US, and the UN. So much so that in the process of protecting those billions of people a lie needs to be told, so be it. I'd rather have the lie, than a nuclear armed North Korea.

 

And I am not in favor of all lying, and certainly not for the corruption in the oil for food program. I will agree with most all of your examples, and there are many. However, there is a time and the place. Talk like 'we're not planning an invasion" while planning the invasion, is a perfect example of what I mean. It is acceptable for the US military and should be acceptable for a UN peace keeping force made up, in part, of US troops. Yes they are lying, but I believe it is acceptable.

 

The lie here is exactly what I am talking about. If the UN is saying there is no nuclear program, while there is, they are doing a diservice to the billions of people within thousands of miles of NK that could be hit by their current missiles tipped with nukes.

[kapkomet]

And North Korea has test fired some short range ballistic missiles today. They're really making some noise.