North Korea tests another nuclear bomb

[Soxbadger]

Im leaving work, Ill post more later.

 

But in the original Gulf War, the US did not penetrate to Baghdad, nor did it destroy the weapons capability (unless you dont believe George W. Bush).

 

So what would be the point of another Gulf War where you just have to fight a second war 9-10 years later?

 

I was comparing the forces of the second Gulf War, when they were actually able to get rid of Saddam and theoretically destroy the weapon making capabilities.

 

(Ill comment more later, just wanted to clarify that I was exclusively referring to the second Gulf War).

[lostfan]

Technically that's the third Gulf War depending on who you ask.

[Balta1701]

Im leaving work, Ill post more later.

 

But in the original Gulf War, the US did not penetrate to Baghdad, nor did it destroy the weapons capability (unless you dont believe George W. Bush).

 

So what would be the point of another Gulf War where you just have to fight a second war 9-10 years later?

 

I was comparing the forces of the second Gulf War, when they were actually able to get rid of Saddam and theoretically destroy the weapon making capabilities.

 

(Ill comment more later, just wanted to clarify that I was exclusively referring to the second Gulf War).

This is unimportant. IN 1991, the coalition armies could have danced their way to Baghdad if they wanted to. After the ground assault, the Iraqi Army was broken, their tanks were gone, their soldiers were surrendering by the hundreds of thousands. Even the crack, well equipped "Republican Guard" for all practical purposes had been obliterated. The first President Bush made the choice that ripping down the government would destabilize the region more (see: 2003-present) and chose not to take Baghdad. The defeat was so complete that the Iraqis gave up a huge amount of military sovereignty; they allowed the U.N. to dismantle their WMD programs (and they did in fact do so) and no-fly zones were established covering like 1/2 of that country.

[Cknolls]

What's the alternative? Keep telling them no while we watch them build and test and then eventually obtain a nuke? We've tried economic sanctions, they agreed to stop, but they lied (same response twice now right?) I think strategic missile strikes and ousting Kim Krazy would be sufficient to send the message. I dont think it would be easy, or without a cost, but what's the purpose of obtaining a nuke? To use it right? So whose going to be the victim and is it in our best interest to protect them?

 

And who comes to their aid? I really dont think either China or Russia would stand in the way if Europe, Asia and the US give it the green light.

 

 

Nuclear Japan.

[NorthSideSox72]

Nuclear Japan.

Are we saying Japan has nuclear weapons? Because I didn't think that was the case.

 

[kapkomet]

Are we saying Japan has nuclear weapons? Because I didn't think that was the case.

If they do, they're at our military bases in the area.

 

[lostfan]

I think Japan has it somewhere in their constitution or somewhere that they'll never have nuclear weapons.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think Japan has it somewhere in their constitution or somewhere that they'll never have nuclear weapons.

Not sure about nukes, but it does indeed say in their Constitution that they can't have offensive weapons or go to war other than purely national defense (or something like that). I also believe that amendments to change that have occasionally come up in Japan, and been voted down.

 

[Soxbadger]

You really believe this? Do you think criminals should be allowed to carry guns just because the police can?

 

How many nukes have been used in war? One right? Out of how many thousands that have been created? Of those countries that hold them, exclusing maybe Pakistan, how many aren't third world countries?

 

The notion that nuclear technology is some right is ludicrous. And the idea that we have to pay countries NOT to develop that technology is equally ridiculous. I'm guessing that if a country like Australia stood up and said, hey we're going to build a nuke, there wouldn't be a world wide reaction of "hell no!" (I have no idea if Australia has a nuke, so that might be a bad example, but I think you get my point).

 

Well statement number 1: You really believe this?

 

Do I really believe what I typed, yes.

 

Do you think criminals should be allowed to carry guns just because the police can?

 

Well that obviously depends. I believe that the current interpretation of the US constitution guarantees that US citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore I believe that citizens have the right to carry arms. As to the "criminal" that suggests that they have been found guilty in a court of law. Once they have been found guilty there rights may change, I personally think that conviction of a felony should probably bar future gun ownership.

 

The problem is that the situation is completely distinguishable.

 

The US are not "police" and NK are not criminals.

 

Both countries are "citizens". So if the US, one citizen, can have nuclear weapons, then NK, another citizen, should be able to as well.

 

Now I know most will argue that NK is a bad guy and the US is a good guy, but unfortunately in the case of nukes, it isnt so clear, as we are about to find out in your next line of questioning.

 

How many nukes have been used in war?

 

1 by the United States of America

 

Of those countries that hold them, exclusing maybe Pakistan, how many aren't third world countries?

 

Right now countries believed to have nuclear weapons are:

 

US, Russia, UK, China, France, India and Pakistan (arguable NK and Israel).

 

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/thir...d_countries.htm

 

And if you are counting by country it would go:

 

First World:

 

US, France, UK

 

Second World:

 

Russia

 

Third World:

 

China, India and Pakistan

 

So to answer your question, 3 First World Countries have Nukes, 1 Second World Country and 3 Third World.

 

So Im not sure what this means, other than to show that at the end of World War II people thought there were 3 worlds. The First was the US sphere, the Second was USSR sphere and the third was everyone else.

 

The notion that nuclear technology is some right is ludicrous. And the idea that we have to pay countries NOT to develop that technology is equally ridiculous. I'm guessing that if a country like Australia stood up and said, hey we're going to build a nuke, there wouldn't be a world wide reaction of "hell no!" (I have no idea if Australia has a nuke, so that might be a bad example, but I think you get my point).

 

Well I think that countries have the right to be treated equally and the right to defend themselves. So as long as certain countries can have nukes, then all countries should be able to have them. Your speculation about Australia, just proves my point.

 

Why should Australia get nuclear weapons?

 

No one should have them is my opinion.

 

Is it because Australia is white? Because they speak English? What exact metric are we using to decide who can have them and who cant?

 

Its certainly not, "What countries have used nukes to kill people." because if that was the standard than the US would not be allowed to have nukes.

 

People act like Western countries are some how incapable of being the bad guys, that as long as nukes are in "our hands" the world is fine. But Germany prior to Hitler, was considered one of the most forward thinking and technologically advanced nations. They are the ones who produced Hitler, not some Third World country.

 

I guess its just this idea that the US and Western nations are some how the "police" and are the ones who are always in the right.

 

 

 

This is unimportant. IN 1991, the coalition armies could have danced their way to Baghdad if they wanted to. After the ground assault, the Iraqi Army was broken, their tanks were gone, their soldiers were surrendering by the hundreds of thousands. Even the crack, well equipped "Republican Guard" for all practical purposes had been obliterated. The first President Bush made the choice that ripping down the government would destabilize the region more (see: 2003-present) and chose not to take Baghdad. The defeat was so complete that the Iraqis gave up a huge amount of military sovereignty; they allowed the U.N. to dismantle their WMD programs (and they did in fact do so) and no-fly zones were established covering like 1/2 of that country.

 

Im not exactly going to get into speculation about what might have happened.

 

I will say that I would expect a North Korean war to be very different from an Iraq war and that I would expect casualties to be considerably higher.

 

I doubt that it would be as bad as Vietnam, but would be some where between the 2 conflicts.

[Texsox]

And the idea that we have to pay countries NOT to develop that technology is equally ridiculous.

 

Not ridiculous at all. We bribe countries all the time to be our friends or to conform with certain behaviors. That is why a large chunk of our foreign aid is spent where it is. For example we could offer to protect country X from any invasions if they use our brand of nukes instead of building their own.

 

Our collective wealth is one of our best defensive, and offensive weapons.

[southsider2k5]

This is unimportant. IN 1991, the coalition armies could have danced their way to Baghdad if they wanted to. After the ground assault, the Iraqi Army was broken, their tanks were gone, their soldiers were surrendering by the hundreds of thousands. Even the crack, well equipped "Republican Guard" for all practical purposes had been obliterated. The first President Bush made the choice that ripping down the government would destabilize the region more (see: 2003-present) and chose not to take Baghdad. The defeat was so complete that the Iraqis gave up a huge amount of military sovereignty; they allowed the U.N. to dismantle their WMD programs (and they did in fact do so) and no-fly zones were established covering like 1/2 of that country.

 

Thanks for the assist B. I had my first Planning Comission meeting tonight, and had to prepare.

[Soxbadger]

Another oddity is that Wiki is inconsistent on the numbers, from its article "Gulf War":

 

545,000 (100,000 in Kuwait)+

649 fighters

4,500 tanks (Chinese Type-59s, Type-69s, & self produced T-55 T-62, about 500 Soviet Union T-72) [4]

 

That number has Iraqi forces at 550k, not even close to the 1mil number in the other article.

 

I tried to locate both books, but have been unable to.

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/...ersian-Gulf-War

 

Encyclopedia Brittanica puts the number at:

 

There are no official figures for the Iraqi military operation. Estimates of the number of Iraqi troops in the Kuwait theatre range from 180,000 to 630,000, and estimates of Iraqi military deaths range from 8,000 to 100,000. The allies, by contrast, lost about 300 troops in the conflict.

 

The coalition that fought it also most likely outnumbered it:

 

On November 29 the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against Iraq if it did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. By January 1991 the allied coalition against Iraq had reached a strength of 700,000 troops, including 540,000 U.S. personnel and smaller numbers of British, French, Egyptians, Saudis, Syrians, and several other national contingents. Ṣaddām steadfastly refused to withdraw Iraqi forces from Kuwait, however, which he maintained would remain a province of Iraq.

 

It is my belief that the North Korean army outnumbers the Iraqi army even in 1991 after further review of the facts.

[southsider2k5]

Another oddity is that Wiki is inconsistent on the numbers, from its article "Gulf War":

 

 

 

That number has Iraqi forces at 550k, not even close to the 1mil number in the other article.

 

I tried to locate both books, but have been unable to.

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/...ersian-Gulf-War

 

Encyclopedia Brittanica puts the number at:

 

 

 

The coalition that fought it also most likely outnumbered it:

 

 

 

It is my belief that the North Korean army outnumbers the Iraqi army even in 1991 after further review of the facts.

 

Let me ask you this... Do you believe NKs published numbers? This would mean that fully one in twenty people in the entire country is serving in the army, and one in about 15 from ages 15-64. Especially with the complete lack of food and fuel, to me it is a falacy to really believe that they could mobilize even anything but a fraction of that one million people into a war, without crippling their country more than it already is.

[Soxbadger]

The problem is that unlike Saddam, Kim Il-Jong (or whichever son you believe will be the successor) may believe his own cult of personality that he is invincible and may be willing to send thousands to there deaths without even caring about crippling the country.

 

Im not sure how strong the North Korean army is, I dont think anyone is.

 

I just dont think that attacking North Korea is advisable.

[Texsox]

The problem is that unlike Saddam, Kim Il-Jong (or whichever son you believe will be the successor) may believe his own cult of personality that he is invincible and may be willing to send thousands to there deaths without even caring about crippling the country.

 

Im not sure how strong the North Korean army is, I dont think anyone is.

 

I just dont think that attacking North Korea is advisable.

 

I believe he would send tens or even hundreds of thousands to their deaths. Which makes him having a nuke a bit worrisome.

[Rex Kickass]

It's problematic on either side because any kind of actual warfare could result in some serious civilian casualties on either side of the DMZ. Seoul is very close to that line.

 

The reactions from South Korea, Japan, China have been somewhat reassuring though. They don't seem to think that this is more than sabre rattling - even though the propaganda coming from the North is at a fever pitch at the moment. The question seems to be, is North Korea finally backed into that corner that might make them lash out in one desperate attempt at survival? Or is it just more brinkmanship from them to get some more aid - or maybe just an effort by Kim Jong Il to consolidate power within North Korea?

[kapkomet]

It's problematic on either side because any kind of actual warfare could result in some serious civilian casualties on either side of the DMZ. Seoul is very close to that line.

 

The reactions from South Korea, Japan, China have been somewhat reassuring though. They don't seem to think that this is more than sabre rattling - even though the propaganda coming from the North is at a fever pitch at the moment. The question seems to be, is North Korea finally backed into that corner that might make them lash out in one desperate attempt at survival? Or is it just more brinkmanship from them to get some more aid - or maybe just an effort by Kim Jong Il to consolidate power within North Korea?

I've seen you say that three (at least two) times now. What is there to consolidate? I mean, he's running the show. Everyone knows it. What's the point?

[Rex Kickass]

I've seen you say that three (at least two) times now. What is there to consolidate? I mean, he's running the show. Everyone knows it. What's the point?

 

He had a major stroke last year. He's not running as much of the show as you think, and he's trying to name his heirs (63 year old brother in law, 20-something third son).

[kapkomet]

He had a major stroke last year. He's not running as much of the show as you think, and he's trying to name his heirs (63 year old brother in law, 20-something third son).

Got it. Now I understand what you're getting at.

 

[Cknolls]

Are we saying Japan has nuclear weapons? Because I didn't think that was the case.

 

 

I was replying to his "What's the alternative" statement.

[Cknolls]

I think Japan has it somewhere in their constitution or somewhere that they'll never have nuclear weapons.

 

 

I think the increased hostility fron NK. will go a long way in changing minds in Japan.

[lostfan]

Why does Japan need them if we have them? Don't we have a defense pact with Japan?

[southsider2k5]

The problem is that unlike Saddam, Kim Il-Jong (or whichever son you believe will be the successor) may believe his own cult of personality that he is invincible and may be willing to send thousands to there deaths without even caring about crippling the country.

 

Im not sure how strong the North Korean army is, I dont think anyone is.

 

I just dont think that attacking North Korea is advisable.

 

The relative strength of their army IS the whole point here. If their army is a paper tiger, just like Iraq, it will lead them to fold quickly, just like I believe they would.

[NorthSideSox72]

The relative strength of their army IS the whole point here. If their army is a paper tiger, just like Iraq, it will lead them to fold quickly, just like I believe they would.

But in the meantime, Seoul and other western-aligned areas in the region get blitzed by a metric f***-ton of artillery, China gets all up in arms, there is a chance you don't get all the nukes and they get some out or whatever, and then you have the power vacuum problem.

 

I dislike the current approach too, but an invasion would be a massive mistake.

 

[southsider2k5]

But in the meantime, Seoul and other western-aligned areas in the region get blitzed by a metric f***-ton of artillery, China gets all up in arms, there is a chance you don't get all the nukes and they get some out or whatever, and then you have the power vacuum problem.

 

I dislike the current approach too, but an invasion would be a massive mistake.

 

Let me ask this. Will more people die when Il decides to use a nuclear device?