MERGED ---> what's up with north korea? + North Korea exports missles - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-27-2002, 11:59 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:05 PM
North Korea has been a threat for 50 years. What keeps them from being a greater threat than Iraq? The South Korean military with full U.S. backing. Iraq has no such opposing army on its borders.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-27-2002, 12:38 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
North Korea has been a threat for 50 years. What keeps them from being a greater threat than Iraq? The South Korean military with full U.S. backing. Iraq has no such opposing army on its borders.
Good point.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-28-2002, 03:00 AM   #18
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Ya but are there any defense to a nuke? Well with the exeption of another nuke.

They have gotta be stopped. They are pretty much doing this right in the faces of the US and trying to piss them off. Both countries are threats but a country that is activaly saying and making prep. to make nukes should pose the bigger threat.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-28-2002, 02:34 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:05 PM
We need to be mindful of the potential responses to an attack against North Korea's nuclear plant.

An attack against Iraq will yield a response against ___ (?) Israel? Iran? Kuwait?

North Korea can always direct an attack against South Korea, no matter who lobs a cruise missle into their nuclear plant.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 08:04 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Popmartian,

North Korea has made the same threats to the USA and South Korea for nearly 50 years now. Their statements are often hostile but have never ever materialized into action or war since 1950. It is significant that there has been peace on the Korean peninsula for the past 50 years. This is in stark contrast to the middle east and the Persian Gulf. Saddam and Iraq, when it comes to behavior, are in many ways the opposite of North Korea. Saddam has invaded and attacked multiple countries in recent history. North Korea has not attacked anyone in recent history. Saddam has used every weapon that he has had. North Korea has not.

Bottom line, the thing that makes Iraq so much more dangerous than North Korea is BEHAVIOR! Merely having weapons of mass destruction does not make a country dangerous. It is first and that Countries behavior then combined with weapons of mass destruction that makes a country enormously dangerous.

North Korea is a threat, but not in the way that Iraq is a threat. North Korea is primarily and isolated country bordered by two Nuclear Powers, Russia and China, and then South Korea which has a large military itself with 700,000 troops on active duty. While North Korea has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction, they have basically been completely contained for 50 years now, unlike Iraq.

Does North Korea have the potential to strike South Korea and hit other countries in the regions with Ballistic missiles? Yes. Does their behavior over the past 50 YEARS suggest that they will? NO! Behavior is the chief difference between Iraq and North Korea. Its the reason military action may be necessary in Iraq, and why a more conservative course of action needs to be taken with North Korea.

North Korea has had Nuclear Weapons most likely since 1994 when the first crises began. Their hostile words have been the same year after year since 1953. Yet, their actions have shown that these hostile words have been nothing but that, words. North Korea is not a risk taker, in the way and degree, that Iraq is.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 08:34 PM   #21
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Sting,

Do you not think the beavior of kicking the UN ispectors out of North Korea is hostile? I do.

You are coming across as being more reactive. What if NK attacked a country tommorow then do we act? You are being preventive with Ira but think talking to NK is the solution? Isnt this how 911 came along? Now you are reacting to that attack. An attack can come at anytime, should we wait till that time before we respond to hostile words and actions from NK
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:03 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Bonoman,

When I speak of hostile action, I mean mass violent action on a massive scale that occurs in attacking another country or a full scale invasion. North Korea has certainly decided to not honor its agreement with the UN from 1994, but that in of itself is not a hostile action.

I've never stated that military action with North Korea is not an option, but that Iraq poses a greater threat because of its BEHAVIOR. Again, its behavior + Weapons of Mass destruction that makes the need for military action a very real possibility.

One does not want to use military force if it is not needed. Judging by North Korea's behavior of the past 50 years, they are not about to attack anyone. North Korea is not in violation of 16 United Nations resolutions past under chapter 7 rules. Again, the mere fact that a country possess WMD materials is not the trigger for military action, its BEHAVIOR plus WMD that creates the need for military action. The USA never contemplated military action against South Africa or Brazil despite the fact that at one time South Africa had a nuclear weapon and Brazil could have built one. The reason of course was that their Behavior in foreign policy was not threatening.

But North Korea is still a threat but not in the way that Iraq is. Disarming North Korea could require an invasion of North Korea. Do to the size of the North Korean Army it would require more US military forces than what would be needed to defend South Korea from an attack. It is a much more difficult task to pull off because of the size of the North Korean Military. The North Korean Military's proximity to Seoul South Korea presents a delicate problem not present in the situation with Iraq. Most of North Korea's 10,600 + Conventional Artillery is in range of Soul South Korea. It is a certainty that North Korean Artillery could cause massive damage in Seoul South Korea if there is a military invasion of North Korea. A substantial amount of North Korean Artillery is built into the side of mountains with large concealed concreate doors that open up when they fire. Finding and Taking these large fortified guns out will take time. During this time, massive losses could be inflicted on the civilian population of Seoul to a degree that Iraq is not immediately capable of doing to any of its neighbors. Seoul is less than 30 miles from the Border with North Korea. North Korea's side of the border is a massive military fortification. This is a tactical and technical situation that does not exist with Iraq.

The above facts does not mean that the USA should completely avoid striking North Korea if that becomes necessary, but that there are many considerations that have to be taken into account that are not problems in military intervention against Iraq.

Of course the above does not take into account the fact that North Korea has Nuclear Weapons while Iraq currently does not but is trying to get them. The risk in attacking a Nuclear armed country is immeasurably greater than attacking one with just Bio/Chem weapons. This is another problem and risk that does not exist in yet in the Iraq situation. It is also an obvious reason that Iraq should be dealt with now before it obtains a Nuclear weapon.

Bottom line, Iraq's Behavior + WMD equal a threat that must be disarmed by military force if necessary. North Korea's technical abilities are very threatening, but their behavior over 50 years does not indicate that they are about to attack anyone or fire a ballistic missile at anyone. North Korea has not been at war with anyone in 50 years. That fact is not something you can just sweep under the rug.

No one wants to use military action if it is not necessary. Events in Iraq right now are leading to military action being a necessity. The Question to ask in BOTH situations on North Korea and Iraq is this: Is the risk of continueing with just containment greater than the risk of invasion?

In the case of Iraq, it is a greater risk to simply continue with just containment vs. invasion, if Iraq does not comply soon. In the case of North Korea, an invasion would be more risky than the policy of containment that has worked for 50 years, at the moment. The risk factor with North Korea could change though.

Iraq's actions have proven that it is an aggressive nation. North Korea's actions over the past 50 years in regards to its actions against other countries have been passive comparitively to Iraq.

Its not simply about prevention or reacting but rather a solution based on the level of risk in both situations and risk in the different senerio's for resolving those situations.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:26 AM   #23
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:05 PM
allright...i will agree with you on the fact that iraq posses the most immediate threat but i still rermain unconvinced that NK threat (as in how many ppl can be killed) is still there and should be dealt with very soon.

I am not sure of this but has NK ever been in the business of selling weapons? Would they ever support Iraq in a war with US?
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:54 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Bonoman,

The North Korean threat you speak of has been there by most estimates since 1994 when it is believed they most likely built their first Nuclear Weapons. Their Conventional, and Chem/Bio Weapons have been there for nearly 50 years. The Risk now is that they could increase their stockpile from about 5 to several dozen.

North Korea has sold Ballistic Missiles to Iran, Yemen, and Pakistan. Ballistic Missiles are considered to be conventional weapons but can be fitted with Nuclear/Bio/Chem warheads instead of conventional ones.

They do not have the ability to support Iraq against the USA unless they found a way to smuggle them Ballistic missiles or other weapons. Sanctions have kept such large weapons platforms out of Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:57 AM   #25
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:05 PM
We can never know what iraq has. They could be hiding their abilities.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 03:03 PM   #26
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Montréal, Québec
Posts: 317
Local Time: 08:05 PM
"North Korea exports missiles"

That's nothing new. Besides, the first exportation of the US is weapons or military-related. I don't see why the Americans are fussy about other countries having nuclear military capacities, since their country has the most and the most weapons and their economy first stuff is related to weapons.
__________________
Holy John is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 01:36 AM   #27
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Holy John
"North Korea exports missiles"

I don't see why the Americans are fussy about other countries having nuclear military capacities...
Maybe you'd be singing a different tune if Canada was a potential target for nukes sold to terrorists from Iraq or North Korea. The people of all FREE nations are in the war on terrorism, not just the US, eh?
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 03:26 AM   #28
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:05 PM
What and you figure that Canada and the US arent one in the same?

Anything that happens south of my border effects me just as much, through economics, health and safety. Remember Canada is the the little Devil!
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 06:26 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Holy John
"North Korea exports missiles"

That's nothing new.
Maybe it isn't. Having reread the article, tha major deal is that they were being exported to YEMEN. Yemen, the country in which the USS Cole was bombed, and a country in which many Al-Qaeda operatives seem to like to hang out in. Maybe, that is the reason it was a big deal at the time. Within 24 hours, when it was realized who the missles were for, they were released.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 11:36 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23


Maybe you'd be singing a different tune if Canada was a potential target for nukes sold to terrorists from Iraq or North Korea. The people of all FREE nations are in the war on terrorism, not just the US, eh?
Have any nukes been sold to terrorists by whoever? We don´t know.

Has any A weaponry been sold to whoever by Iraq or NK? We don´t know, but don´t think so; Iraq not capable of selling, NK probably not evil enough (but who knows - we don´t know).

How many nations are free? How many have agreed w the war on terrorism? Have all so-called free nations agreed? How many have agreed w the war on terrorism in general, how many have agreed w U.S. methods of fighting terrorism?

Maybe you´d be singing a different tune if you learned to research correctly and to express your opinions more eloquent.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com