Nuclear Discussion

[Rhaps]

I forgot where I found the article, but the U.S. has been doing "naval drills/practices" in the waters of North Korea. Large warships aren't typically used in practice to my knowledge, and North Korea agrees. They have threatened to deploy their nuclear arms, but the ships have not backed off. Now, this leads me to wonder "What if they deploy?"
Then, won't other countries fire off too? We have enough nuclear weapons on the planet to destroy it 10 times over, so that can't be good.
What are your opinions on nuclear arms? Issue with North Korea? Ideologies on what countries will fire where and why?
Personally I think my area will be a tactical place to strike. Our Parkway is a Nuclear Arms Transport highway, still in use to this day, and if they decide to attack our offense, I'm doomed.

[Aerif]

This is the first I've heard of the US doing any sort of naval drills, but then I'm in Scotland and we're more concerned about the commonwealth games in Delhi just now.

I find it disgusting that any country should even have nuclear arms. If every country in the world that has nuclear arms had any kind of sense then they'd realise that they were just big flashy toys that can't be taken out of the boxes. But to answer your questions...

What are your opinions on nuclear arms?

Nuclear arms are an unnecesssary evil in this world. Yes, it's true that they do offer some sort of insurance against war, since nobody's going to invade a country with nukes. But the main objective of war (which I strongly oppose), is not to slaughter as many of the enemy's civillians as possible, it is to get your demands.

Issue with North Korea?

To be honest I haven't really got any major issues with North Korea. There are worse countries in the world.

I'm no human rights expert, and North Korea is mentioned so infrequently in the UK, so I'm not sure what's going on over there. But it's probably a lot better than what's going on in the majority of African countries.

I do think that N. Korea has a right to be upset with the US about the naval practices in their water. It gives the US a great advantage should diplomatic relationships turn sour. If you saw a kid in your garden with a rock, aiming at your windows, you'd be ready to take action as well.

Ideologies on what countries will fire where and why?

I think that the country most likely to fire first would be either China or the USA. I can't imagine the USA just firing out of the blue, but they would be likely to retaliate to some sort of threat if necessary.

Europe would probably stay out of any kind of nuclear conflict since, geographically, if one of the countrys are hit, they're all hit. This includes the UK.

Enemies to the US would probably strike New York, or nuclear bases. I'd think they'd leave Washington D.C. alone, in order for negotiations to take place if necessary.

If they attacked the UK (no doubt under the impression that we're the friggin' 51st state), they'd go for London or our naval bases. Screw talking to David Cameron, he's a git anyway.

I wish I didn't live just down the river from a naval base

[DragonHeart]

I poked around a little bit and found this news article, is this the incident you're referring to? N. Korea rips the U.S and S. Korea for holding war games.

I doubt anything will come of it, but I do admit I'm not really familiar with the current situation in that area. I've only heard snippets here and there and I've been too busy to catch up on the news lately.

As per your other questions, while I don't agree with having nuclear arms we can't exactly make them not exist, either. Using them is never necessary, but because the technology exists, I think possessing them might be, at least at this point in time.

And as I said, I'm not well versed in the current Korean situation so I can't really remark on it either way. If anyone could point me to a decent source or two I'd appreciate it. I don't think anyone's going to fire, though. Seems like a lot of posturing. I do know tensions are running high in the area but N. Korea and S. Korea have never not been at war anyways, right? They signed an armistice, not a peace treaty.

~DragonHeart~

[Alpha]

The political situation in North Korea presently is rather fascinating, but not altogether surprising.

Saudi Gazette - N. Korea to pursue stable succession

Note: the best media, seriously, comes from the stable parts of the Middle East. If you ever want balanced reporting on issues that involve the US or Israel, funnily enough, head to the Middle East. Al Jazeera especially.

Kim Jong-un, youngest son of ailing leader Kim Jong-il, was given powerful posts in the ruling party on Tuesday, confirming his status as ruler-in-waiting of the impoverished but nuclear-armed nation.

The North has already indicated willingness in principle to return to nuclear disarmament talks which it abandoned in April 2009, a month before staging a second atomic weapons test.

But Seoul and Washington, which accuse Pyongyang of a deadly March attack on a South Korean warship, have responded warily.

The North denies sinking the ship but has began making conciliatory gestures to the South, after freeing an American detainee in August.

So 'Dear Leader' is about to die, and he's establishing a family dynasty. Really, really terrible. But there are moves to appease US aggression in the region. I say "US aggression", because, from their perspective, that's what it is. Though both sides are complicit in any stand-off.

I mean, the very action of performing military exercises near North Korea is aggression. They could drill anywhere they like -- so why there? They're demonstrating power. And it is a credible demonstration: South Korea and the United States could crush the North faster than Iraq. The difference being, this time the 'enemy' actually has weapons of mass destruction. It only takes one nuclear strike to royally **** things up.

Given the North's limited range, I'm fairly sure there are no missles aimed at the USA. I'm more concerned about South Korea. I mean, look how close Seoul is to the North. They literally live in fear of a nuclear missile attack. That's a big axe overhead.

http://goodbackpackers.com/wp-conten...05/mnkorea.gif

And that fear is pretty well-justified:



The US helps with a pretty damn epic missile defence system. That's the kind of defence spending I could get behind. Paying for, you know, defence.

I would theorise that the North would be more likely to strike first. The US would not look good if it launched a nuke -- it is a clear display of dis-proportionate retaliation. The North, with less concern for international reputation, could strike first if threatened. Then the missile defence system would kick in, and hopefully prevent damage. Then the US would have a reason to retaliate with (several) nuclear weapons, and probably annihilate Pyongyang. Which would not actually be nice for the people of the North, who are already in immeasurable suffering -- politically and physically.

The key to preventing this is thus to not threaten North Korea. North Korea can't do shit anyway. Don't threaten it, and it won't retaliate. By all means, keep up the defence, but maintain a control on the offence, however subtle it currently is.

------------------------------

In terms of nuclear weapons more generally... well, it is very difficult. The pacifist in me says 'No! They're all bad!' While the realist points out that 'our' allies having nuclear weapons deters our 'enemies' from using theirs. If the United States, France, the UK etc. did not have the ability to launch nukes, it would only take a single 'rogue state' (Iran or North Korea) to have that ability to cause a serious shift not only in world stability, but in the global balance of power.

While I think the US's unilateral position could do with going down a peg, unilateralism is peace, for most people, most of the time.

A difficult situation to be sure. I'm content with advocating a reduction in nuclear arms, and a complete stop to nuclear proliferation.

A related problem with nuclear weapons is nuclear testing. Lest we forget, Rainbow Warrior.

I visited this mural in January. Really moving stuff.

http://www.kroad.com/3_Arts/310_Arts/images/VAANA.JPG

[DragonHeart]

Well, according to the linked article the North isn't likely to strike at all, at least not while Kim Jong-un is transitioning into power. That would put them in a very bad spot, I think. So really they're sabre-rattling because they can't not respond to us being aggressive in their direction. Also, since supposedly they want to improve their international relations I would think they'd want to avoid doing something as rash as launching nukes. Particularly since they know what will happen if they do.

I'm more concerned about what would happen if Kim Jong-il dies before his son is able to take full control. As long as power stays with the Kims we have at least an idea of what to expect. If someone else takes control via coup or whatever else, we won't know how much better or worse that person would be. And in that sort of a struggle, who would have control of the nukes?

~DragonHeart~

[Selcopa]

North Korea is such a ridiculous joke, I remember a few months back, "somebody" sunk a south korean ship, south koreans said it was north. The north responded with "No it wasn't us, and if you keep saying it was us, we are going to blow up one of your ships."

The fact that south korea did naval drills ANYWHERE in the world would piss N. Korea off, I don't mind the drills right on their doorstep, display of power you might say. As far as provoking them, doing it during a power shift would be the BEST time to cause problems.

And if n korea 'cant do shit anyway' by all means be agressive towards them.

Nuclear in general? I have no problem with it, Nobody in the age of swords was trying to get people to stop using cannons and rifles, yes these are more devastating, but to think that people won't hide a few away, or that no one will keep pursueing them, is ignorant thinking. Keep it out in the open is the best way

Also I do love my nuclear power plants, so I like keeping it around.

[Sasquatch]

I highly doubt that any actual country will ever use a nuclear weapon again. The only organization that would use one is a rogue terrorist organization that doesn't have to worry too much about having their land completely destroyed by the entire world's retaliation. Iran and North Korea are smart enough not to use nukes, because as soon as they do, most of the civilized world will form an alliance against them. And that's IF it doesn't start assured destruction, in which case, North Korea and Iran wouldn't be able to keep up with the volley of nukes and missile defense systems of most of the larger countries.

The issue isn't so much, "we don't want North Korea and Iran to have nukes," but rather, "we don't want North Korea and Iran to be able to give away nukes to enemies that would actually use them."

North Korea has been doing everything in their measly power to provoke South Korea and the United States for years. Openly trying to develop nuclear technology and openly developing long-range missiles are just two examples of that. I've long said that we should plop an Aegis cruiser off the North Korean coast and shoot down every missile they send for tests. Nothing small like that will start too much conflict, but if North Korea continues asking for an ass whuppin', I'm sure they'll get it. Hell, even China is prettymuch abandoning them.

[Heartless Angel]

I'm sure many people will disagree with me here, but I strongly support Nuclear arsenals. Not because they can end a war quickly, but because their very existence deters war. Nobody wants to fire on a country with nukes. Even if they can't stop your nukes, they're going to fire theirs back. Best case scenario, everybody is obliterated. Not many people want that. I believe in peace through superior firepower. When everyone knows they can't possibly beat you, nobody is really going to want to fight you. As Sasquatch said, only ones I'd really be worried might actually USE a nuke is a terrorist group.

I'll admit I haven't looked much into the current issue with N Koreas and our drills, so I may be dead wrong here. But to me it looks like just another case of us having a manly chest beating contest to assert dominance without actually fighting.