1  2  Next

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do? ... ID=1843168

   

Hey man, those dudes is WACK! [font=Comic Sans MS] [/font]

   

The Americans are playing a dangerous game here. Kim Jong-il is not exactly a rational actor and nor do his policy initiatives follow a linear (read: conventional) path. He should be closely watched and significant diplomatic pressure should be established to eliminate his nuclear capabilities. Hussein was internally dangerous, but Jong-il is an international unstable “whack job” that should be a geopolitical priority. Besides, he HAS WMDs whereas Iraq…hmm…we all know about that little disingenuous screw up.

   

He is a whack job, Mustang, but he's shown no signs of being suicidal. He has maybe 6 or 8 nukes. He might have 2 that can reach north America. He knows damned well that at the first sign he will use them his little kingdom will become a smoking hole in the ground.

More than that, I think he likely understands that as long as no major oil fields are found in North Korea that Dubya and his gang of thugs really don't care.

   

I don't think the threat is really to America, yet. The problem is more that it is easier to get a nuke to America than it is to build a thermonuclear weapon. And i think there is, or at least was, oil in the Philipines area, which is somewhat friendly towards the US (but i could be wrong, so please correct me and don't call me an idiot, as has been know to happen). As long as nobody is ever stupid and crazy is ever in possesition of nukes (Bush is not that crazy) the world will be safe (sort of). Personally, i do not like the idea of any more nations being in possetion of such weapons and the number now (i think the US and USSR combined, had enough nukes a few years back to kill everyone 12 times) should be drastically. But Canada should keep selling it's breeder, i mean CANDU, reactors to nations around the world.

   

before anyone says anything bad about the CANDU, i know that it is one of, if not the best nuclear reactor design in the world, the just produce weapons grade Uranium and we sell such reactors to nations like Korea (i do not know if it is North or South, it's been a while since i did the research on the topic)

   

Not really. building ICBMs is exceeding difficult and, when launched, everybody knows where they came from. The technology for so-called suitcase bombs is tricky and requires constant maintenance. It is doubtful that any of the technology missing from the USSR is still in working condition.



There is. There is also an oil field off the coast of Vietnam.

   

I think the right steps towards this situation are to maybe start here at home (The U.S). I think it is America who should watch where and what their nukes are currently doing.

Yet, I would like all WMDs out of Korea but look at what the U.S has done with killing innocent civilians. Well, they have killed many. A plane crashes into the WTC and 3 thousand die, we label that as terrorism and evil. It is, but like I said the Americans should watch where their bombs are. 9 thousand innocent civilians died in Iraq by American forces. We say it’s a tragedy and apologise, then moving on quite quickly (I do not speak for all people when is say that but I do speak of the media). But what is odd is that it took me a long time from when the war was started to realize that 9 thousand civilians died and I sure as heck did not pick that up from CNN.

As for North Korea we should take caution but as far as I know we shouldn't worry, yet.

   

Yeah! You're right. We Germans think that, too.

   

How about signs of being homicidal?

"...but like I said the Americans should watch where their bombs are..."

They are the ones best able to aim them. They are making an effort to put them where they belong. Everyone else just drops them blindly. Saddam blindly fired Scuds all over the region for years and no one bleats.

   

Hi Guys,
The biggest problem with with Bushes foriegn policy comes from the way the world is. Democracies are rare and it is hard to impose democracy. It can be done like it was in Japan and Germany but they had nations not clinker built by colonial powers with deep divisions like iraq. There are many tin pot dictators out there and by invading IRaq and threatenning Iran the Americans have sent a message to those scum that if you have a nuclear weapon then Uncle Sam will not start the steel rain but give you wheat and oil. This encourages nuclear proliferation IMO.
Cheers
Fred

   

Yes they are probably the most likely country to be able to aim them. But for such a strong high tech country don’t you think they should lower the deaths of innocent civilians a little? I do. Saddam had nothing in the way of high class weapons, the only thing he really did have control of was scuds and a few old tanks. He did not have any advanced scopes and advanced aiming devises that are better used in wars like the Americans do.

I would rather have the U.S containing the WMDs then most other countries overall but regardless of that, America should take better percussion when using a bomb.

Regards
Stellar.

   

Fighting a completely clean war is impossible. Given the fact that most people live in densley packed urban centres even precision munitions like LGB are going to cause collateral damage. The question comes in is the war worth this inevitable cost. In this case I think not. But then agin look at economic pressure. It causes severe problems within the targetted country as chances are the elite will continue to eat well and try to buy weapons.
Cheers
Fred

   

Yes it is almost impossible to not kill innocent civilians in a war, I hope you did not get the impression from my earlier posts that I thought it was.
Regards
Stellar

   

As far as collateral damage goes, there will always be some but compared to earlier forms of warfare, things are almost humane today. Carpet bombing was horrific, and siege warfare was even worse. I know that that is slightly off topic, but i don't care.

As far as my earlier post about getting nukes to the US, allow me to explain myself. Once you have built a nuclear device, it is easy to get that weapon to the US than it was to build it. Suitcases and Missiles are not the only way to get a nuke to where you want it either. One method that i have heard of was a shipping container, or on a small pleasure boat. And the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon is getting the materials, i can explain if you ask me.

   

1  2  Next