- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I didn't know that "nuclear weapons" was spelled o-i-l.Robert DiMaggio said:
-
🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪 -
🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥
North Korea now has Nuclear Weapons
- Thread starter Navyguy808
- Start date
im sure bush could take kim jong il. no worries. bush might be small, but im willing to bet money he is a scrapper in a fight, like a homeless dog, a little underfed, but mean as hell. did you see him stare down al gore in those debates of 2000. gore was scared. ha ha ha. and kim jong il that little bastard has been eathing too many twinkies. he never learned martial arts thats why he became a dictator, so he could have someone else do it for him. if this ever gets to blows i got $50 on bush and im giving 2/1 odds. ha ha ha
I'm with Rob on this one. In order for somebody to successfully have alternative motives, there have to be people that blindly follow.cfs3 said:
Always question authority.
thatguy said:So instead of war, the country's leaders just get in a ring like the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
Good idea. Not sure how Bush would do. The Korean probably knows some kind of martial art.
Ken Shamrock for President!
Thats exactly how things should be fought, save lives, let the leaders themselves fight over it. But of course, that will never happen.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Let's see:
1) North Korea has a history of selling weapons.
2) North Korea has sold weapons to enemies of the USA.
3) North Korea has nuclear weapons.
4) It's reasonable to believe that North Korea would sell nuclear weapons to enemies of the USA.
1) North Korea has a history of selling weapons.
2) North Korea has sold weapons to enemies of the USA.
3) North Korea has nuclear weapons.
4) It's reasonable to believe that North Korea would sell nuclear weapons to enemies of the USA.
WTF? So if I have an alternative motive, it's not really an alternative motive unless there are one or more people that will blindly follow???Luke9583 said:
cfs3 said:
lets hope they dont sell any nukes to other countries. i truthfully think kim jong il wanted these as a deterent. he saw us go in and take care of buisness in afganistan and iraq and was scared he was next. but with the amount of weapons grade material he could get from those rods out of his nuke plant he probably only has 2-3 low yield nuclear devices. not really a stockpile yet to be selling to others. lets hope. i hope we send every damn special forces guy we have avialable to nk to assasinate his transvestite lookin ass. navy seals, force recon, delta force, air combat controller, cia sharpshooters, hell lets even send in a couple of civilian swat teams. even our gang members, crypts, bloods, and lets not forget the feminists, aint nobody wants to screw with a feminist on her period. kim jong il will be begging us for political asylum once we send in our femenazi's. yeah thats what we should do.
How about we just give him a billion dollars and tell him to put the toy's away and behave like a good little boy?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
So you see no difference between the USA and North Korea? Really?Luke9583 said:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Too true.busyLivin said:I'll never understand liberals.
The same liberals who are crying and bemoaning the actions of the US, didn't say dick when Saddam was out torturing and murdering innocents. It's funny how they think that way. Well, maybe think is a overestimation.
cfs3 said:
Thanks for proving a point I made a year or 2 ago, that N Korea should have been before Iraq.
On the other note, I think we are using different criteria for destruction. Surely you believe that chemical or germ warfare can take out as much if not more life than a Nuclear weapon. And I do believe those are both types of WMDs. I am talking about life not infrastructure.
Regarding your point about Clinton...George Washington thought the British were a threat, does that mean they still are? Well, the same would go for whether or not Sadam had WMDs currently. Everyone knows he HAD them at some point, but do you fight a war over shit that happened 10+ years ago without knowing if the former reason is still a current one?
On a side note, do you believe N Korea will be before Iran?
I. Introduction
Peter D. Zimmerman, professor of science and security at King's College London and a former chief scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, writes: "While Bush looked for nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq - as Condoleezza Rice suggested, to ensure that the next warning did not come as a mushroom cloud - the capability to generate plenty of mushroom clouds was being acquired by North Korea."
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Nautilus Institute. Readers should note that Nautilus seeks a diversity of views and opinions on contentious topics in order to identify common ground.
II. Essay by Peter D. Zimmerman
-"We Had Power to Prevent N. Korea from Going Nuclear"
By Peter D. Zimmerman
NANJING, China -Senior Chinese nuclear scientists attending an international arms control meeting in this ancient capital city, as well as senior officials and scholars in Beijing, express significant fears over the twin developments on Taiwan and in South Korea. Both countries have been caught red-handed producing enriched uranium or plutonium which can be used in nuclear weapons. Both countries are also a long way from being able to build atomic weapons. But the same Chinese scientists are even more worried about the failure of the Six Party Talks intended to end the North Korean nuclear program. They do not want yet another nuclear power on their borders; Russia and India are enough.
The question most frequently asked in Chinese scientific circles is whether the Six Party Talks, including North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and the United States have any chance to succeed. These are the talks of which George W. Bush appears to be so proud because he is reaching out to "form a coalition." My Chinese counterparts point out that the dispute over a nuclear North Korea, formally called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, does not involve four of the six parties. Early on North Korea cast the issue as a simple one between the United States and itself, and it has stuck to that formula.
What North Korea wants, and the Chinese impressed this on me most strongly, is some kind of normal relations with the United States along with a pledge that the United States will not invade the DPRK. In principle, these should have been easy for the United States to grant. Diplomatic recognition does not state that the United States approves of a government; it merely says that we acknowledge that the government controls a specific piece of land, and that we will talk to that government should problems arise. As to the security pledge, it's obvious that we have no intention of going to war on the Korean Peninsula for a second time, so long as the DPRK does not attack our ally, South Korea. North Korea's immense artillery formations along the Demilitarized Zone could pulverize Seoul, the South Korean capital city, in a matter of hours, no matter what the United States did short of a major nuclear first strike practically on the city limits of Seoul.
Among the NATO nations, the United States stands practically alone in refusing to extend diplomatic recognition to North Korea. Most of our closest friends and allies, including France, Britain, Canada and Germany, accredit ambassadors to Pyongyang.
In the fall of 2002, long before the North Koreans broke the seals placed on its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and months before they ejected the IAEA's inspectors, the DPRK stated officially and publicly that it would agree to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, if the United States would discuss the outstanding issues face to face.
Face-to-face negotiations are precisely what George W. Bush rejects. His first state visitor after he was sworn in in 2001 was Kim Dae Jung, then-president of South Korea and a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his attempts to build bridges to the North. Secretary of State Colin Powell, after meeting with President Kim, announced that the United States would continue to support Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy" toward the DPRK and would continue the Clinton administration's policy of openness to both countries. A few hours later, President Kim had met with Bush and been told that because the U.S. president "loathed" Kim Jong Il, the mercurial and sometimes very oddly behaving "Dear Leader" of North Korea, American support for the sunshine policy and the Clinton policy was withdrawn.
While Bush was focusing on spurious intelligence to spur the United States to war with Iraq, Pyongyang was desperately sending signals that it did not particularly want to reprocess the plutonium in its nuclear reactor, but that U.S. actions were forcing just such a decision. While the Bush administration looked high and low for a nonexistent Iraqi nuclear program, Kim Jong Il's scientists were preparing to reprocess plutonium, ordering the chemicals and, finally, ejecting the IAEA inspectors from its Yong Byong nuclear installation.
The Bush administration, its attention on Iraq to the exclusion of real problems, failed to do much to meet North Korea even a quarter of the way. In the end, all the Bush team could do was convene six nations, at least three of which were impotent when it came to solving the bilateral problem with North Korea, and hold three meetings, none of which made much progress.
While Bush looked for nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq - as Condoleezza Rice suggested, to ensure that the next warning did not come as a mushroom cloud - the capability to generate plenty of mushroom clouds was being acquired by North Korea.
I cannot guess the probable outcome had the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration's initiatives on North Korea. The DPRK is a very difficult negotiating partner, and even their principal friends, the Chinese, agree. But I cannot imagine that we would have been worse off with bilateral negotiations and a few small concessions made by the United States. It would have hurt nothing to try. Indeed, my Chinese counterparts still urge such a course with China acting to interpret honestly each side's problems with the other. North Korea is now a nuclear power, with four to six nuclear usable weapons assembled on Bush's watch - built only after the DPRK told us exactly what we could have done to prevent it.
Without question, George W. Bush has failed the American people and put them and their Northeast Asian friends in harm's way so that he could avoid talking in one direction while starting an unnecessary war in the other. His statement during the third presidential debate that Six Party Talks on North Korea were better than bilateral talks because more nations were involved was self-serving and duplicitous. After all, he refused any kind of multilateral diplomacy concerning Iraq.
Peter D. Zimmerman, professor of science and security at King's College London and a former chief scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, writes: "While Bush looked for nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq - as Condoleezza Rice suggested, to ensure that the next warning did not come as a mushroom cloud - the capability to generate plenty of mushroom clouds was being acquired by North Korea."
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Nautilus Institute. Readers should note that Nautilus seeks a diversity of views and opinions on contentious topics in order to identify common ground.
II. Essay by Peter D. Zimmerman
-"We Had Power to Prevent N. Korea from Going Nuclear"
By Peter D. Zimmerman
NANJING, China -Senior Chinese nuclear scientists attending an international arms control meeting in this ancient capital city, as well as senior officials and scholars in Beijing, express significant fears over the twin developments on Taiwan and in South Korea. Both countries have been caught red-handed producing enriched uranium or plutonium which can be used in nuclear weapons. Both countries are also a long way from being able to build atomic weapons. But the same Chinese scientists are even more worried about the failure of the Six Party Talks intended to end the North Korean nuclear program. They do not want yet another nuclear power on their borders; Russia and India are enough.
The question most frequently asked in Chinese scientific circles is whether the Six Party Talks, including North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and the United States have any chance to succeed. These are the talks of which George W. Bush appears to be so proud because he is reaching out to "form a coalition." My Chinese counterparts point out that the dispute over a nuclear North Korea, formally called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, does not involve four of the six parties. Early on North Korea cast the issue as a simple one between the United States and itself, and it has stuck to that formula.
What North Korea wants, and the Chinese impressed this on me most strongly, is some kind of normal relations with the United States along with a pledge that the United States will not invade the DPRK. In principle, these should have been easy for the United States to grant. Diplomatic recognition does not state that the United States approves of a government; it merely says that we acknowledge that the government controls a specific piece of land, and that we will talk to that government should problems arise. As to the security pledge, it's obvious that we have no intention of going to war on the Korean Peninsula for a second time, so long as the DPRK does not attack our ally, South Korea. North Korea's immense artillery formations along the Demilitarized Zone could pulverize Seoul, the South Korean capital city, in a matter of hours, no matter what the United States did short of a major nuclear first strike practically on the city limits of Seoul.
Among the NATO nations, the United States stands practically alone in refusing to extend diplomatic recognition to North Korea. Most of our closest friends and allies, including France, Britain, Canada and Germany, accredit ambassadors to Pyongyang.
In the fall of 2002, long before the North Koreans broke the seals placed on its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and months before they ejected the IAEA's inspectors, the DPRK stated officially and publicly that it would agree to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, if the United States would discuss the outstanding issues face to face.
Face-to-face negotiations are precisely what George W. Bush rejects. His first state visitor after he was sworn in in 2001 was Kim Dae Jung, then-president of South Korea and a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his attempts to build bridges to the North. Secretary of State Colin Powell, after meeting with President Kim, announced that the United States would continue to support Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy" toward the DPRK and would continue the Clinton administration's policy of openness to both countries. A few hours later, President Kim had met with Bush and been told that because the U.S. president "loathed" Kim Jong Il, the mercurial and sometimes very oddly behaving "Dear Leader" of North Korea, American support for the sunshine policy and the Clinton policy was withdrawn.
While Bush was focusing on spurious intelligence to spur the United States to war with Iraq, Pyongyang was desperately sending signals that it did not particularly want to reprocess the plutonium in its nuclear reactor, but that U.S. actions were forcing just such a decision. While the Bush administration looked high and low for a nonexistent Iraqi nuclear program, Kim Jong Il's scientists were preparing to reprocess plutonium, ordering the chemicals and, finally, ejecting the IAEA inspectors from its Yong Byong nuclear installation.
The Bush administration, its attention on Iraq to the exclusion of real problems, failed to do much to meet North Korea even a quarter of the way. In the end, all the Bush team could do was convene six nations, at least three of which were impotent when it came to solving the bilateral problem with North Korea, and hold three meetings, none of which made much progress.
While Bush looked for nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq - as Condoleezza Rice suggested, to ensure that the next warning did not come as a mushroom cloud - the capability to generate plenty of mushroom clouds was being acquired by North Korea.
I cannot guess the probable outcome had the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration's initiatives on North Korea. The DPRK is a very difficult negotiating partner, and even their principal friends, the Chinese, agree. But I cannot imagine that we would have been worse off with bilateral negotiations and a few small concessions made by the United States. It would have hurt nothing to try. Indeed, my Chinese counterparts still urge such a course with China acting to interpret honestly each side's problems with the other. North Korea is now a nuclear power, with four to six nuclear usable weapons assembled on Bush's watch - built only after the DPRK told us exactly what we could have done to prevent it.
Without question, George W. Bush has failed the American people and put them and their Northeast Asian friends in harm's way so that he could avoid talking in one direction while starting an unnecessary war in the other. His statement during the third presidential debate that Six Party Talks on North Korea were better than bilateral talks because more nations were involved was self-serving and duplicitous. After all, he refused any kind of multilateral diplomacy concerning Iraq.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I don't agree with this. While North Korea was becoming a large threat, the terrorist based in Iraq and Afghanistan where a more immediate threat. I do believe that we should have taken care of North Korea way before now though.Dale Mabry said:
I don't believe that the current state of chemical weapons puts it on the same level as nuclear weapons. The death to weapon ratio is too low. Germ warfare is close to being on the same level, but at this point is far less a threat than nuclear weapons due to the scarcity of the technology. And I'm not talking about anthrax.Dale Mabry said:
Dale Mabry said:
Not even the same Dale. You're reaching again. George Washington lived a long time ago and the US/British relationship has changed a lot too. Clinton was the President only two years before we attacked Iraq and the situation (and the threat of) Iraq had not changed.
North Korea. They already have the nukes and the missiles to deliver them (to nearby countries). Perhaps if the US remove both the bombs and Kim Jong Jr. in one fell swoop Iran will rethink their position on nuclear weapons and a war could be averted. If we hit Iran first we'll still have to go to war against North Korea.Dale Mabry said:
North Korea has had nuclear weapons for some time. Americans didnt want to acknowledge that they did. Wake up people. Their are still a few American civilians out there that knew this awhile back. There just wasnt much talk about it.
cfs3 said:
No, I do! But you're points sucked. You're points don't explain the evils of NK and communism.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I was addressing why North Korea is a threat to the USA.Luke9583 said:
If you don't know what the difference is (you say do) between North Korea and the USA, that's your problem.
cfs3 said:
The differences in the two countries and the reason why NK is a threat are two completely different things.
Your points sucked because there are countless countries that would apply to those statements (including us).
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
The differences of the countries is important. Think in terms of the administrations policies, general stability, and access to the basic requirements of life.Luke9583 said:
Saying that over and over and over isn't going to make it true. And no, it couldn't be applied to any country. There is only one US. And as for someone possessing nukes with a willingness to givet them to enemies of the US, there are currently only two that fit the bill: North Korea and Iran.Luke9583 said:
So, keep up the mantra, if it makes you feel better.
cfs3 said:
I've got great respect for you man, but I think this is the hang up between you and me cfs3.
I don't beleive that it should be our duty to facilitate the perfection of everybody else's country.
When something is messed up in your G'ment, you need to stand your own ass up.
We are the father that spoils his little daughter. If they possed a real threat to us as citizens, I would be joining the army and defending what I 'have' here at home.
But what they really are threatening is the 'american idealism'. IMHO it's more of a holy war.
We have nuclear weapons, we have given Weapons to countries that are a threat to even our own country, and we sell weapons.
This is all undeniably true. That breaks down your arguement. That is why your points sucked.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I'm not talking about fixing everyone else's government. Honestly, I don't really care. I'm only concerned with those that pose an active threat to my country. That's it. I don't find it hard to believe that North Korea would sell nukes, they really need the money. They've been building and selling weapons for a long time.
"We have nuclear weapons, we have given Weapons to countries that are a threat to even our own country, and we sell weapons."
You tried to make a connection that doesn't exist. Yes, we do have nukes. And yes we have sold, or just given, weapons to others. But we do not sell nuclear technology on a first come, first serve basis. You started with nuclear and moved on to general weapons.
Keep trying.
"We have nuclear weapons, we have given Weapons to countries that are a threat to even our own country, and we sell weapons."
You tried to make a connection that doesn't exist. Yes, we do have nukes. And yes we have sold, or just given, weapons to others. But we do not sell nuclear technology on a first come, first serve basis. You started with nuclear and moved on to general weapons.
Keep trying.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
No, but I do believe they'll sell them to those who will.
cfs3 said:
Cool man
Send me some money and I'll rush it over to Prez Bush for you.
Although, I would rather see that money pay for your kids education.
cfs3 said:
You are acting blindly. All you have to do is look back 40 years and you'll see we've already been through this. (that was 20 years before me, and even I can see it
)You are the type of person that lead us into the cold war. This is what "they" want. The cold war made them rich. Somebody profits from EVERYTHING.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
No, I'm the type of who have prevented the Cold War. Did you know that for a period of about 8 months after the end of WW2, the US was the only nuclear power on the planet? We could have used that power to prevent the Russians from ever making nukes. And thus, no Cold War.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
After the fact.Robert DiMaggio said: