jump to navigation

North Korea carries out Nuclear Test (Nobody is That Stupid Pt. II) October 9, 2006

Posted by earthlingconcerned in north korea, Nuclear Weapons.

I wasn’t planning on writing a follow-up to my last surprisingly popular post (The World Can Be Turned Off with the Flick of a Switch (But Nobody is that Stupid)) but considering the recent news coming out of North Korea, I felt it somewhat relevant to keep the discussion going. If you haven’t heard yet, North Korea has gone through with their first nuclear weapons test. The Korean Central News Agency reported the following:

The field of scientific research in the DPRK successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on October 9, 2006, at a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great, prosperous, powerful socialist nation. It has been confirmed that there was no such danger as radioactive emission in the course of the nuclear test as it was carried out under scientific consideration and careful calculation. The nuclear test was conducted with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent. It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the KPA and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability. It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it.

It appears that the fears of much of world have finally been realized. Is the threat of nuclear Armageddon closer today than it was yesterday? kimjung.PNGStanding by what I wrote in my last post, I would say we’re just about as endangered today as we were yesterday. How can I say this? North Korea has been thought of as the bigger threat, when compared to Iraq/Iran, by most of the western world. But I remain firm in my stance nonetheless.

Not wanting to sound like I defend anything North Korea does, I’ll make it perfectly clear that I think the regime is being run in a fairly horrible way. There is nothing in there that suggests the country is being run for their population (like one would hope a ruling regime would do). Kim Jong-Il came into power by means of dynastic succession, a type of rule that doesn’t require keeping the population happy, as long as it’s controlled. It’s an extremely closed society, in an internationally isolated sense, as well as in the Karl Popper sense (re: The Open Society and Its Enemies). All of this this leads to big-headedness, delusions of grandeur, and in this case, a starving population. Let them eat cake (or grass). I see a potential for a new arms race in eastern Asia. I see some more sanctions, but nothing that would cripple the country. Cutting off the oil flow or the food aid would merely promote the destabilization of an already fragile country. Something will be done, but that something will probably end up hurting their economy ever so slightly, but they will still have nuclear weapons capabilities after the rest of the world begins to forget about what took place today. Think about what happened to India after their last tests in the late 90s (and if you can’t remember what happened, that would reaffirm my point in a way). But I’m barely an expert, browse the web for more detailed news, watch what’s happening live on the news, and ultimately wait for things to unfold and history will write itself. I still don’t believe that this news will endanger the world’s population in the long run.

I’ll refer back to my sketchy analogy about the room with the light bulb from my last post. Pandora’s box had been opened when Hiroshima was bombed in 1945. The information needed to produce the weapon is available, the materials required to put the information to use can be obtained with enough effort. North KoreaMore and more people in the room with the light will whisper or overhear the secret of flipping the switch. One element that remains unchanged with all of the North Korean news is that having the bomb is useless if ever used internationally today. Because the moment its used, the retaliation/response will most likely (no, I can’t predict the future) result in that country no longer having nuclear capabilities and simultaneously with that country not being around in any recognizable form. Then there’s the big argument that not everyone is a rational being and therefore ability to do some pretty horrible things regardless of consequence.

As mentioned before, and barring a polarized set of serious military alliances on a global level (like during the NATO/Warsaw Pact days), a nuclear attack against a north Korean neighbor would be horrible for that country and also North Korea, but barely anyone else. So irrationality is automatically thwarted in a way. There is the argument that modern terrorism is so scattered and decentralized that things would be drastically different if, let’s just use Al-Quaida as a popular example, got their hands on a nuke. In this hypothetical world of the future, this terrorist group bombed a major city somewhere in the world. It is true that there would be no specific country to retaliate against, but realistically, the middle east would just be bombed. Wrongfully so, maybe, but the stereotypes of the 9/11 world puts the entire region at risk if the initial attack were ever to happen. This horribly unacceptable clumping together of the entire region simply turns it into a possible target. This of course is all hypothetical, just as everything anyone may have to say about the topic. That’s the nature of the beast known as the future.

But these modern terrorist cells as the worst possible enemy is an idea based entirely on what certain governments force onto their populations. I really hate dabbling into that never ending debate but here I am. The war on terror, George Orwell, George Dubya, my cat, and a bowl of cheerios as the new world enemy. The word propaganda has been used to describe the actions by both sides of every conflict in recent memory. Freedom fighter or terrorist. Who decides? I’m slowly falling off my thought train but let’s just say that to this day there have only been two atomic bombs dropped against an enemy in a war. Nearly every day since that moment, the possibility of nuclear armageddon was something that could have happened. But nothing has happened. Maybe I’m just an optimist, but my original opinion remains unchanged. Humanity is stupid, just not that stupid.



1. Blaze - October 9, 2006

This test is very different from those conducted by India. While it is suspected that the actual detonation varied from 550 tons to as much as 15 kilotons (Hiroshima was 12.5-15 kilotons. Nagasaki was 22 kilotons) the psychological impact on the region, not to mention the effects it will have upon trade negotiations are obvious. It is not believed that the DPRK are able to pack this into a long-range missile but then following on from recent long-range missile tests conducted by the North during the past six months they will certainly have ‘extra cards’ to bluff with. The only problem now is that the ante has been upped.

Kim Jong-Il (not Jung) is delusional and also very smart. While you seem to think that this news will not endanger the world’s population in the log run I beg to differ. It is widely known in the region that the restrictions placed upon the North’s trade have not overly hindered it in trafficking through the Black Markets of the world. Just the other month or so a ship was caught attempting to smuggle small arms and narcotics into a Japanese port. Now that the test has been mad and they have results that suggest they have nuclear capability don’t you think it is reasonable to say that there will be a great number of ‘underground organisations’ bidding for a bomb? With nuclear missile capability possibly unavailable to Kim Jong-Il and the use of a bomber unpractical with U.S. bases ready and waiting on the South of the peninsula, I think the use of a city-bomb would be the next best choice.

I think you are being a little naive to think the world should forget what has happened today. but then again, that is the way of the media-driven world. Who can forget how the Iraq conflict dominated the channels making it seem as if there was nothing else happening on the face of the planet. Now, it is old news and people — the sheep of the world — forget.

I also think that one should consider the various aspects of Asian culture and society before presuming that destabilisation can be achieved by simply cutting off oil and food supplies. Propaganda can have an amazing effect on a people and these are a people that have lived under one form of oppression or another for close to a century. When food and oil is cut off the enemy is not Kim Jong-Il but it is the rest of the world. True enough, when nothing else matters but survival then people will fight to the death and Kim Jong-Il will have already scripted it out.

By all means, have a read of my own recent post on the topic:

DPRK: Nuclear Threat

2. Blaze - October 9, 2006

Just in case I didn’t make my point overly clear (and for those that choose not to read my own post), what I meant by the North Korean people being under oppression for close to a century is that before the dividing of the Korean peninsula as a result of the Korean War (still ongoing) the Korean people were ruled by the Japanese. This began from the beginning of the 20th century and only came to an end as a result of Japanese surrender at the close of WWII. For freedom to be gained only for political divisions (fueled by the territorial pissings of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union) to drag them into war, one can imagine the mind-set in place. The average person in North Korea has been royally f**ked over time and again! The key to a successful tyrannical dynasty is to point the finger elsewhere. George Orwell – 1984. What is worse, however, is that there are ‘half-truths’ to the blame…

3. juice - October 9, 2006

I enjoyed readin this article. Can you give us an idea of what would happen in terms of damage in the event a North Korean gentleman were to “make a mistake” and send a war head direction, say Seattle?

4. dan - October 9, 2006

Who keeps putting your stupid articles on Fark?

5. Rob - October 9, 2006

North Korea doesn’t have the ability to hit Seattle or any other U.S. City.

6. vudukungfu - October 9, 2006

Who’s the fat chick with yellow teeth? Are we supposed to be afraid of her?

7. JayMill - October 9, 2006

I have to disagree for one reason, when you look at the leaders of the countries during your examples (including India, the US and USSR during the cold war, Pakistan, and to a smaller extent Iran) were reasonable sane men. Kim Jung-Il is more then likely not sane, and as we have seen, he does not care about his people. In the event of an attack by the US (which he sees as unavoidable) his command to his people before they take shelter is to save all portraits and statues of him and his wife. I cannot believe that Kim Jung-Il would care about the consequences to his people in a war, nuclear or not, which means he would try and win by any cost, which includes using Nukes.

8. Geoff the Redsuit - October 9, 2006

You are correct, no rational human being would want to use a nuke in war, and would recognize the futility of using a nuke thanks to MAD.

So, we shouldn’t worry about NK.

But there are those people who want to bring about Armageddon, in the religious sense. The wackjobs and brainwashees that view themselves as the right hand of their god.

And there’s plenty of those in every country and religion on the planet.

9. Ben Tobias - October 9, 2006

What kind of an ignorant, misinformed person are you? You don’t even write well, and you certainly don’t seem to know a damn thing about the situation in North Korea. What qualifies you to vomit this worthless blabber onto the internet, where people might accidentally stumble on it and be so pissed off they feel compelled to leave mean comments like this at the end of your entires?

10. Eye Rate - October 9, 2006

As someone already said (somewhere else), I don’t fear North Korea’s test, I fear Bush’s reaction.

11. Eye Rate - October 9, 2006

Ben Tobias.

Are you any more qualified to judge the man’s OPINIONS?

Didn’t think so.

12. Alex - October 9, 2006

Should we forget what’s going on today in Korea? Um, yeah, thats the ticket, if we forget it then it didn’t happen. Isn’t that the standard response to anything that we don’t like? And then we kick ourselves for not learning from our past mistakes. Yes, I think that any ‘direct’ attempt by North Korea to use a nuclear weapon will ensure a very swift response, one that will most probably remove that location from the map. Does North Korea know that? Yes. Will they use that to leverage other countries to give them what they want. Absolutely. They don’t have to atually use the weapon to get what they want. Isn’t this what’s called a hostage situation?
But to say that North Korea won’t use it, now come on thats like believing that the US didn’t have a choice to use them in the first place. We all have choices. If North Korea felt that the winds were in their favor, then why not. Whats the worst, Mutually assured distruction (at least my enemy went down with me too). Whats the best, no retaliation because of (insert politcally correct response here). Haven’t we heard of suicide bombers before?
I do agree, though I don’t know who said it, but that the real power of having the nuke (beyond bargaining power) is the profits that can be made by selling it. Imagin attacking the corrupt western regime without them know it come from North Korea. Of course we don’t know of any organizations that would be willing to openly attack others in this manner.

13. earthlingconcerned - October 9, 2006

Just a quick note before I reply to anything in greater detail later on. I don’t suggest we forget what happened with the nuclear test. My comparison to India was simply to imply that people do forget, regardless of what should or should not happen.

And thanks to those who came to my defense. It’s just an opinion. Hopefully everyone else here will write some of their own.

14. mactire - October 9, 2006

Sla’inte, earthlingconcerned; I don’t see why your opinion is being attacked. Your post makes sense.

15. bubba smith - October 9, 2006

North Korea doesn’t have the ability to hit Seattle or any other U.S. City.”

horseshit – http://www.stormingmedia.us/13/1302/A130213.html

16. Jeeb Jeeb Jeeb - October 9, 2006

Rob – October 9, 2006
North Korea doesn’t have the ability to hit Seattle or any other U.S. City.

–sure they do, it’s called a shipping container.

17. gizmo politician - October 9, 2006

yeah fuck you. you don’t know shit, pseudo-analyst. what a poor example of backyard journalism you are.

18. N Korea: 1, US: 0, Global warming: Inevitable « tabula rasa - October 9, 2006

[…] On a day when Google produced only 3921 results for news articles about N Korea and bloggers near and far licked their fingers in delight when they got yet another news story to comment on, a few (like this one here) weren’t so concerned about N Korea’s nuclear status. And I believe, rightly so. […]

19. ninja - October 9, 2006

Rob – in all actuality, the latest word from an U.S. official is that N. Korea has a long range missile that could reach the west coast, L.A. was what was quoted. ( I really have no idea who it was, but I remember when it was on CNN, quoted by a senator or someone with intelligence reports. and we all know how accurate those are..)

But Blaze has the best point – I don’t think anyone actually is too worried about North Korea launching an offensive attack of anykind, the real fear is that its pretty clear that North Korea is desperate for money and would have no problem finding a black market buyer for a weapon and no moral objections to the buyer using the weapon for any attack outside of North Korea. This IS different that India testing nukes. This is a country that has blatant disregard for UN polocies, or really any other policy other than what has been created by Kim Jung-il. No one gets in, no one gets out. It will be interesting to see how we can police North Korea.

I honestly think this very well might go the same direction of the Iraq war unless North Korea gets their heads out of their butts. The only difference is we KNOW North Korea has WMDs and they actually have a military that is truly dedicated to their leader’s cause and they have weapons. I was pretty much against the Iraq war for pretty much every reason. But with North Korea in power I see them as a threat to the world and our country. North Korea really doesn’t have any reason to exist as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

Its funny, they have existed inside their little bubble for so long, self sustaining themselves (if you want to even call it that) by not taking from or contributing to the rest of the world. So what difference would it make if they were to dissapear? who would miss them?

yea.. I’m a cold hearted bastard..

20. Jurstin - October 9, 2006

haha fat chick. Just because they dont have the capabilities now doesnt mean that they wont have them soon, or if even not soon it would be too soon for me, I wish something could be done about Kim Jong Il, and I dont know if im sure or not but when N Korea did thier long range missle tests in July I think Russia and China didnt want to restrict them, so I really hope they will pull thier heads out of thier assess before its too late.

21. jamima69 - October 9, 2006



22. Kim Jong IV - October 9, 2006

I work for Kim Jong Ill

So I am really getting a kick out of these replies….

23. Mr. Chicago - October 9, 2006

I don’t give a shit about Seatle… go ahead, do us a favor and nuke it. I will not miss tree-hugging, starbucks-sipping, Seahawk-cheering snobs.


24. DeepThought - October 9, 2006

“It appears that the fears of much of world have finally been realized. Is the threat of nuclear Armageddon closer today than it was yesterday?”

DeepThought says: History shows that any nation developing a nuclear weapon, during peacetime, becomes benign as it no longer feels vulnerable.

I would not be concerned with N.Korea or even Iran developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Those who are responsible for the administration of a country, would not tend to be stupid. They stand to lose what they are trying to defend in the first place.

I will agree with you on this point.

In respect to terrorism, the decentralised nature means that there is no legitimate target to retaliate against. Unless, of course, those you wish to bring to justice are provided the protection of a nation. Such an example would be 9/11 and Afghanistan.

Even then, a nuclear strike is not an option, unless the country has the capability to repond with a nuclear option. Then there would be grounds for a strategic strike to eliminate the nuclear option, but further action would be conventional.

In the case of a terrorist group dispersing throughout numerous countries, without the permission and assistance of the host nation, a large scale manhunt is the only option. There would be no war.

The Geneve Convention: Main points

“The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked.

1. Attacks may be made solely against military objectives. People who do not or can no longer take part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and for their physical and mental integrity. Such people must in all circumstances be protected and treated with humanity, without any unfavorable distinction whatever.

2. It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting.

3. Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.

4. The wounded and sick must be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. Medical personnel and medical establishments, transports and equipment must be spared.

5. The red cross or red crescent on a white background is the distinctive sign indicating that such persons and objects must be respected.

6. Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.”

As you can see, the rules of engagement are quite clear. These rules cannot be violated, everyone is subject to them in over 190 countries worldwide.

Violating these rules with a nuclear option will result in a full scale nuclear strike.

25. assman - October 9, 2006

Wow, Phantom Shitter. That’s just the kind of witty and intelligent comments I expect out of Farkers.

26. Rocky McRockerson - October 9, 2006

to the members of Fark: you ought to be embarrassed. How thoroughly childish of you. What are you all? 12?

27. Rob - October 9, 2006

Bubba Smith,
You put that up as a joke right?

Jeeb jeeb,
Good point. But I was talking about a straight up military attack.

28. the doc is in - October 9, 2006

Wow… go hit up some more IR classes and get some better metaphors and analogies. You must be the guy who posts this crap on Fark just so you can make yourself feel special. You really dont have any clue about what your saying, this is life or death, get out of college, start a family, and pay some taxes and then see if you still agree with your horseshit article. In other words, shut up stupid.

29. chris - October 9, 2006

who cares if n korea has the nuke or if they will sell it to al-quaida,hezbolla etc.what is really important is disgusting instant messages sent to a 16 year old

30. kansaisamurai - October 9, 2006

I saw the news live, it was really frightening. There was already a nuclear missile testing in 1998, and then a recent one in this summer with 7 nuclear missiles including Taepodong-2, which fortunately had failed and dropped into the sea of Japan. The Japanese government is now on high-alert, with their new prime minister Sanzo Abe, they must seek for a solution.
What’s interesting is, the testing has been done when the Japanese prime minister has visited Korea and China, and then N. Korea has gone pooft.

31. Blaze - October 9, 2006

Some of the comments here are extremely naive if not extremely childish. With people like this in the world one is able to see the root of the problem. It is people like this that serve to prove the point for those that detest western civilisation. After all, look at what you write…

It doesn’t matter if the article is good or bad. Make a point to answer it, and if bad, correct it or provide a means to do so. The point is surely to promote discussion, not kindergarten comments.

32. Classical Panda - October 9, 2006

I’m sorry, not everyone who reads Fark is an illiterate moron, showing the extent of their education with poor grammar and fallacies in their arguments. I appreciated both the article and the well thought-out responses to it.

33. RMStringer - October 9, 2006

Kim Jong-Il is an unstable ruller who doesnt give a f**k about the rest of the world. he is only n it for himself. So he has nuclear powers, if he was stupid enough to use them on the US, we would go after him with the fullest extent of our abilities and make Iraq look like a traning exercise. North KJores would become a parking lot for cars and exports from other countires with the US as the attendants. He is truly a mad man and should be taken out at all costs. just like the 1st Gulf war, we should have done the right thing and been able to finish what we started. Korean war was not finished and look what we have to deal with now…

34. pickertoo2001 - October 9, 2006

Lets see u s a has over 5,000 nuclear bombs and it would take maybe 20 to alleviate this threat to society.I don’t see where the problem is. one submarine could stop this situation and sorry for the decisions your great leader made while you sat on your asses and let him rule you.

35. Toolmaker - October 9, 2006

Pardon me, Deep Thought, but the United States NEVER SIGNED the Geneva Convention. We have operated under it for the most part, but we are not a signatory.

Drop THAT little tidbit into your next geopolitical conversation…

36. pickertoo2001 - October 9, 2006

For blaze,There are people in the world who cannot and will not be rational, obviously you think all humanity is rational,by there works, if your not ignorant you will know the difference,pay attention dumbass

37. pickertoo2001 - October 9, 2006

Just for the record north korea has submarines that can launch there new toy from international waters that will reach the clubs in branson missouri.shall we wait till they do.

38. pickertoo2001 - October 9, 2006

Sorry for all the feedback but I’m an American who’s pissed over this and carter should be ashamed of how he started it.

39. DeepThought - October 9, 2006

“Pardon me, Deep Thought, but the United States NEVER SIGNED the Geneva Convention. We have operated under it for the most part, but we are not a signatory.

Drop THAT little tidbit into your next geopolitical conversation…”

DeepThought says: That is not accurate.

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
United States of America
Signature – 12.08.1949
Ratification / Accession 1 – 02.08.1955
Reservation / Declaration 2 – 02.08.1955

“The United States and countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, 192 in all, have agreed that freedom from torture, degradation, and cruel or inhuman treatment is one of the most basic of human rights, transcending national boundaries.”

Here is what Amnesty International has to say about the current administration’s actions…it’s not a pretty read:

Does that sound like the America you used to know?

The U.S. is also a signatory of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” .

Currently, the U.S administration is in violation of the following articles:

“Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

Now, I ask you, what has the current administration done to Amercia and the values it spearheaded?

40. ladyluck13 - October 9, 2006

damn russians and their real winners of the communist/socialist idology buddies, china, created this huge vacuum hole that we, the leaders of the free world, will have to deal with; when george w went after the 9/11 guys, it was great, 5 years later, the media keeps us second guessing the decisions made; we are once again at an cross road; do we save ours selves and the other so called 190 countries, or say screw them and nuke the pile of rubbish…i say, take it back to them george, and let them eat the nukes they made and more.like they have said in many previous wars, kill them all, let god(pick your choice) sortem’ out….oh and by the way, screw worrying about some stupid e-mail to a 16year old, ever hear of myspace?

41. ladyluck13 - October 9, 2006

if the damn media wouldn’t put a beaten puppy dog face on war and made us all (except terrorists) feel bad about wanting to keep our gas $1.00 and tv’s in HD, the only person who really cared in the hell hole known as north korea, would be the clone army, kim yung the 37th created in his likeness..no one would hear his pathetic “cries of look at me” while we play video games and gain even more weight. no, the media is as much to fault; give this guy, or any guy, a forum, and somebody will question any actions taken. the press was for our troops in world war two; we all wanted to win and it was in our best interest.when korea and vietnam came along, it was by far easier to second guess the administration(pick one, your choice) from the safety of a newspaper desk, rather than in the real line of fire. a $60k newsreporter doesn’t and shouldn’t be making international policy. in the interest of “fair” journalism, let our guys (and ladies) be hero’s and let sally struthers make us feel sorry for starving kids, not some camel jockey or inbred rice eating cigar butt ass.

42. Glowbie - October 9, 2006

I don’t worry about the guy with 10,000 nukes. They’re not stupid enough to use them. I worry about that batshiat crazy Dr. Evil looking guy that has his hands on just a few. My guess he that he’ll build at least 3 – keeping one for himself and selling one each to Al-Qaida & Hamas/Hezbollah under the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” doctrine. Goodbye random coastal US city; hello NK celebrations for a year. Of course he’ll deny the whole thing….

43. DeepThought - October 9, 2006

“My guess he that he’ll build at least 3 – keeping one for himself and selling one each to Al-Qaida & Hamas/Hezbollah under the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” doctrine.”

DeepThought says: North Korea has never had any association with these groups in the past. In addition, these groups are as much a threat to North Korean long term interests and stability, as the U.S. is at present.

I don’t think they are going to repeat the mistake the U.S. made and associate with these groups. Also, from North Korea’s perspective, the conventional warfare between Al-Qaida and the U.S. is keeping America occupied.

Then, I’m sure we all remember how well the last Korean war went. Not to mention the effect it had on the taxpayer:

“The U.S. military had been caught ill-prepared for the war. Accordingly, after the war, the American defense budget was boosted to $50 billion, the Army was doubled in size, as was the number of Air Groups, and they were deployed outside American territory in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia.”

Just what PNAC ordered.

44. seachnasaigh - October 9, 2006

I don’t believe Kim Jong Il is actually that stupid. Although his grip on reality as we practise it may be somewhat shaky at times, North Korea is not actually that monistic a society, despite what our own Western press-pablum would have us believe. To stay in power there, Kim has to have been quite crafty over the years, and so any action he takes with his nuclear weapons programme is likely to be rational (if unpleasant). Nor is Kim as absolute a ruler as our own propaganda machines portray him; though it is true that his family (and he) are a forceful oligarchy there, yet intelligence suggests that he is not entirely surrounded by stuffed moppets in uniform. Any actions NK takes with its nuclear capability are liable to be well  thought-out and certainly of benefit to the ruling regime, if not the country. We should be concerned, but not panicked.

DeepThought makes some excellent points about the Geneva Convention and other treaties to which the US has been a signatory. I don’t like much of what the US has been doing lately and I certainly think that George W. Bush is taking that country down some very dangerous and possibly disastrous roads.

That said, there have always been rules of engagement, or rules of war, more often than not laid down by the victors of the last conflict; or by  well-meaning idealists, gentlemen, or custom. History shows they have rarely, like the oft-quoted battle plan, survived contact with the next war. I  fear that in the face of stateless terrorism, so- called “human shields”, roadside bombs, ideological one-upmanship, religious fervor (of many flavours) and the inherent geopolitical instability of a single-superpower world, the GC may suffer the same fate as the now-quaint notion that it’s unsporting to purposefully target the other fellow’s officers. Rules of War (the GC included) are always naive, idealistic attempts (however noble) to civilise what is inherently the most barbarous of human expressions: war. While it would be the height of expression of the best of the human spirit to adhere to a noble set of rules whilst sustaining mounting civilian (and cultural) casualties from rogue terrorists, I think it unlikely that the West will ultimately continue to do so. I am afraid GWB is the bellwether for the rest of us: when things get worst, the hell with the rules — kill them all and let God sort them out.

45. earthlingconcerned - October 10, 2006

Just going to put some of my two cents in again so here it goes:

Comment 7: I’m not sure the previous rulers of nuclear weapons nations have always be sane men. USSR had some pretty nasty rulers in Stalin and Kruschev.

Comment 8: “But there are those people who want to bring about Armageddon, in the religious sense. The wackjobs and brainwashees that view themselves as the right hand of their god.”

This has been brought up a lot. I’m still fairly convinced religious leaders and political leaders have similar power if done correctly. Kamikaze pilots went down for their country, not their God. Conditioning.

9. “What qualifies you to vomit this worthless blabber onto the internet, where people might accidentally stumble on it and be so pissed off they feel compelled to leave mean comments like this at the end of your entires?”

I wasn’t planning on replying to this because there wasn’t much to reply to, but found the part about qualifying to write on the Internet rather funny. Not wanting to take away completely from everything I’ve written (I think some of it is pretty good, check out some earlier articles in the archives 🙂 but bloggers don’t have to qualify for anything to write. That’s part of the beauty of the Internet.

24. Deepthought, you’ve been writing a lot here in the last few days. Thanks. One of the points you made that really stuck wit me was about the Geneva convention. You’re right. Technically speaking a retaliation couldn’t come in the form of random bombing of the masses (ie. In the case of terrorists if there is no central government/military to attack). Touche.

Thanks for all those who has visited my site in the last few days. Add my feed by clicking “FULL” at the bottom of the right menu found way up the page (obligatory self promotion). I did get some Fark spam this time around, but that’s to be expected when dealing with an open forum in any format. It has little to do with the intelligence of Fark users (or?). Anyways, that’s all for now.

46. john - October 10, 2006

The US has nuclear subs (8000 H) and destroyers on the surface (800H) — the “H” stands for Hiroshima. One nuclear sub carries 8000 times the megatonnage of the Hiroshima bomb. I read an interview with Kim Jong Il in a Japanese newspaper, in which he stated that he was not crazy – that he knew that if he were to launch a nuclear missile his country would be a sandbox within an hour (paraphrasing here at best).

So the test is an attempt to eventually win more concessions, particularly from the US and Japan.

George W and his cronies pose a much greater threat to world peace. They have a big stick and they don’t know how to talk very well.

47. Karlo Mikhail Mongaya - October 10, 2006

I congratulate the people and government of the Democratic People’s Republic for “successfully and safely carrying out its first-ever nuclear test.”

The successful test is a “militant assertion of national sovereignty and the right of an independent country to develop its own powerful self-reliant defense capability amidst constant efforts by the US to impose its imperialist hegemony over the world, maintain its monopoly of nuclear weapons along with a few other powerful countries, and subvert the sovereign will of the DPRK.”

Yesterday, the DPRK government announced that it has successfully carried out an underground test of its nuclear weapons, developed after four decades of painstaking self-reliant efforts, “with 100% of sheer indigenous wisdom and technology… under secure conditions… at a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great, prosperous, powerful socialist nation.”

The announcement was met expectedly, however, with condemnation by the US government which called the test a “provocative act threatening international peace and stability.”

We should “regard the DPRK nuclear test as a significant positive development in the effort of freedom-loving peoples the world over to challenge the US imposition of Pax Americana over the world, break the US and other big imperialist powers’ monopoly over nuclear weapons, and compel the world’s peoples to kneel before its hegemonic power.”

“Now, in the face of the DPRK’s advance in scientific and technical knowhow with nuclear power, the US is significantly deterred from threatening and carrying out military strikes against the DPRK. The US is afraid that it can no longer try to bully the DPRK.”

“Contrary to imperialist propaganda, the strengthening of the nuclear capability of the DPRK does not pose a threat to other nations’ sovereignty and to genuine world peace.”

“In the past, the DPRK has shown respect for the independence of other countries in the same way that it wants the US to respect the sovereign will of the DPRK.”

“The development of nuclear capability in the hands of independent countries that persist in the fight against US hegemonism and aggression realistically deters the US from using its nuclear weapons and military might to attack these countries, and is thus a positive factor in our common striving for genuine peace in the world.”

48. Rees - October 10, 2006

How come America are allowed to have nuclear weapons but nobody else is? Because they’re the only country who’ve ever actually used one in anger?

Because Chewbacca lives on Endor?

49. anonymous - October 10, 2006

No-one has yet pointed out the upside to this test — that North Korea now has one less nuke than they did two days ago. Surely they should be encouraged to carry out more tests until they’re all gone.

50. DUHHHH - October 10, 2006

The USA should could (and if Bush and his daddy have their way, probably will) use some of our nukes and flatten N.Korea like a pancake, in an instant. Hell… We probably don’t even need nukes. Someone needs to do something though, before their pitifiul leader (HA) starts selling his baby nukes on E-Bay. C’mon Bushy Boy… Here’s your chance to bomb a country that deserves it! Jesus, what the hell was accomplished during the Korean war? Let’s ask Bush.

51. Keyser Soze - October 10, 2006

I heard the north koreans got the info on how to build the nuke through the chinese, who got it from the russians, who got it from the israelis, who got it from the US. Anyone remember Jonathon Pollard?

Totally unrelated, but this Kim Jong Il guy is really sick, and he has people go around to special girls high schools and pick out the best looking virgins for him to fuck. Filth.

52. exhannibal - October 10, 2006

People do really stupid things. Think of the most stupid thing you know anyone to have done. That’s been done. Now double that stupid thing and add 5. That might have been done too, you just didn’t know about it. So what ‘s next? And how far is left to go before you discover that somebody really is that stupid.

53. Randall - October 10, 2006

I’m not even sure what the point of the original post was; I’m afraid I couldn’t tell from “Earthling Concerned’s” meandering prose. But I take it that it boils down to… he or she doesn’t really see any huge danger in North Korea possessing nuclear weapons. E.C., I’d have to agree with the first comment someone made to your previous posting along these lines; “you are mildly intelligent. You think you are extremely intelligent.”

How old are you, I wonder. Are you old enough to actually remember the Cold War? Or are you just one of these half-informed kids who learned about it in Social Studies? If you’re my age (41) or older, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for being so completely forgetful that you could actually sit here and talk as if “people aren’t that stupid” (to commit wholesale suicide by nuclear war). People aren’t that stupid? People have been stupid enough to fight two blood-drenched, horribly destructive world wars in one roughly thirty year period, wars which brought the world to the brink of barbarism and destruction. People have been stupid enough to let the world ride out 50 years of being on the brink of utter destruction during the Cold War. People have felt it possible to risk the use of nuclear weapons multiple times since the end of WWII. People have done lots of stupid, crazy, and desperate things–or considered doing them–and these people have seemed to be relatively sane and rational. I don’t even argue much with their actions or considered actions; I lived through a good part of the Cold War (and not even the nastiest part of it) and I know there was precious little that could be done except what *was* done… I know that the world had little choice but to play the game. Hooray for us, it turned out fairly well. But just because a nuclear war didn’t happen doesn’t mean it *couldn’t* happen or that “people aren’t that stupid.” I’m sorry, but that blithe assumption just doesn’t follow from what we know about history.

I seem to be hearing, from what you’ve said, that you think a nuclear-armed North Korea poses very little real danger. To the US directly? No, probably not. But that isn’t the point. The world continues to grow more and more dangerous each time a new member joins the slowly-growing nuclear club. Your attitude seems to be, “oh, it’s all right–nobody, not even the North Koreans–are crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, so let’s just ignore the fact that they have them and carry on business as usual.” To which my response is an astounded and incredulous, “HUH? What? Did he or she really just SAY that?” (or did it just seem like you said it?) First of all, it is ALWAYS disturbing when a country puts forth the effort to obtain nuclear weapons. It’s doubly disturbing when it’s an insane, paranoid, and reactionary regime like North Korea. Second of all, it’s a grave error to proceed with the attitude that this state of affairs (should it be true that North Korea in fact possesses nukes–I’m skeptical even now) should spark within us (of all things) nothing more than a mild complacency. A nuclear armed NK destabilizes the entire East Asian region, and if you think that doesn’t affect the US, you need to go back and re-study this drastically. You see, we now face the tragic reality of our technological, nuclear-armed world. The danger from all-out nuclear war between two near-equal super-powers was only the first and most obvious danger. Now we live in the new world of dangers we never imagined. And yes, the way we’re dealing with it, under Bush’s leadership, is wrong-headed and potentially disastrous. I’ve heard the failure to contain NK’s nuclear ambitions called a “regional failure”—one shared by Japan, China, Russia AND the US. This is silliness. The failure is an *American* failure strictly and surely. It’s a failure of American leadership—Bush’s failure. I could go on forever criticizing this arrogant, dull-witted fool that we’re stuck with for a president. But the danger is there nevertheless, and would have been there even with some other occupant of the White House. When the Cold War ended our troubles *really* began, and as yet our foresight and leadership hasn’t been up to dealing with it. Your dismissal of the danger is akin to that element of the American public that has always stuck its head in the sand and said, “let it happen to others but not us–it doesn’t matter then” or the eternally optimistic American attitude of “everything will work out all right in the end.” People like you seem to think this kind of wooly optmism is a virtue; it’s in fact a deadly flaw in our national character that yes, up to now–so far–hasn’t done us much harm, if any (though it’s surely done some harm to the rest of the world) but eventually will, rest assured. World politics and diplomacy has become only more dangerous and tricky since the Berlin Wall came down, and thus far we haven’t been up to the challenge. In fact we’re far worse off now than we were ten years ago. But while Bush’s way of coping with the situation is clearly a mistake, the idea that the danger hasn’t increased and doesn’t increase simply because North Korea gets the bomb is also clearly a mistake. YOU may not see the danger today—but in time it’ll show its face. To doubt this is a fool’s error.

54. mattbear - October 10, 2006

First, I’d like to say, don’t listen to these posts with childish put-downs of your writing. For someone who doesn’t write professionally, you’re doing a fine job.

Second, I do have to disagree with your assessment. If you think no one is stupid enough to use nukes, I suggest you watch the documentary “Fog of War” – an interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He discusses just how close the U.S. has come to nuclear war, during the time he was actually in the government and part of those discussions. A nuke war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would have been nothing to scoff at. Everyone knew there was no “winner” in that scenario, but it almost happened several times.

If our leaders, presumably intelligent and sane men like JFK, could come close to nuclear war they knew would kill millions and cripple our nation, what do you think it would take for someone as crazy as Kim Jong-il to start it?
The answer, I think, should be “frighteningly little.”

And for North Korea’s nuclear weapon to affect the U.S., it doesn’t even have to approach our shores. Our involvement in World War I happened largely because of a tangled web of alliances. Nuclear war could come about the same way. North Korea sets off a nuke in some nearby country we are allied with, outrage spreads, we nuke North Korea to stop them from doing it again. China could get involved, or Russia, two more nuclear powers suddenly in the conflict – on whose side we won’t know unless it happens. The scenarios are endless, but their outcome is bleak. Let’s hope you are right, and let’s hope no nuclear weapon is ever used again.

55. Daijinryuu - October 10, 2006

How come the US gets to decide who can and cannot use nukes? And why must they always know about nuke use and nuke trade?

56. definitive misfortune - October 10, 2006

“Now, in the face of the DPRK’s advance in scientific and technical knowhow with nuclear power, the US is significantly deterred from threatening and carrying out military strikes against the DPRK. The US is afraid that it can no longer try to bully the DPRK.”

“Contrary to imperialist propaganda, the strengthening of the nuclear capability of the DPRK does not pose a threat to other nations’ sovereignty and to genuine world peace.”

“In the past, the DPRK has shown respect for the independence of other countries in the same way that it wants the US to respect the sovereign will of the DPRK.”

“The development of nuclear capability in the hands of independent countries that persist in the fight against US hegemonism and aggression realistically deters the US from using its nuclear weapons and military might to attack these countries, and is thus a positive factor in our common striving for genuine peace in the world.”

57. ulischmetzer - October 10, 2006

By Uli Schmetzer

According to the experts the Bush administration’s ‘war on terror’ has resulted in more global terror and more turmoil in the nations it was intended to rescue from terror. So the war’s latest byproduct, a nuclear arms race among ‘rogue nations,’ should surprise no one.
Once the American war machine had pointed the finger of ‘I will get you’ on the ‘Axis of Evil’ (Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria) every small state not included on Washington’s ‘friendly nation’ list must have started to search for a way to deter American bombers devastating their country.
The race for a nuclear deterrent was on.
North Korea won the race when it exploded its first nuclear device this month, causing furor among members of the world’s nuclear club, the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel and the newcomers India and Pakistan. As always the U.S. yelled ‘unacceptable’ loudest even though Washington, year after year, has refused to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
If nuclear analysts are right Washington will soon have to do more shouting. Iran, another of Washington’s bad-boy targets, is preparing its own nuclear membership test, an obvious answer to the finger-pointing rhetoric of the American President and his gun-ho entourage.
No one should be surprised if other ‘rogue’ nations or nations unwilling to buckle under to U.S. dominance are either experimenting or buying know-how to build their own bombs. All of them have witnessed the daily broadcasts for the last three years which graphically showed what happens to a country like Iraq or Afghanistan when the U.S. unleashes its democratic armed forces to bring freedom and human rights to these ‘dictatorships.’
Who wants it – at that price?
In fact the war on terror has yet to surface with a success story.
In Afghanistan the women are veiled again, the Taliban have returned to large tracts of the country; the streets are unsafe; civil war between the old war lords and Islamic fundamentalists has resumed and the general in charge of the U.N. forces warns unless tangible evidence of reconstruction appears within a month or two the population will call for the return of the Taliban.
In Iraq civil war has caused tens of thousands of deaths, the allied forces are hunkered down, virtually ineffective; chaos, suicide bombings and massacres are daily news and the reconstruction of a bombed out nation proceeds at snail’s pace.
To this list of formidable setbacks North Korea added its bomb, a small bomb no doubt but one that makes it clear the technology to make more and sell one or sell enriched plutonium does exist – and could be for sale.
(According to statistics during the Cold War 128,000 nuclear heads existed around the world, 70,000 of them owned by the United States, 55,000 by the Soviet Union. Today Russia and the U.S maintain an arsenal of a total of 12,000 operative nuclear heads with another 14,000 in reserve. France has 350 heads, China and Great Britain about 200 each, Israel 200 to 400 and India and Pakistan about 110 between them. All together these nations exploded 2024 nuclear tests, 528 of them in the atmosphere creating radioactivity which, it is estimated, over the years provoked more deaths then Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
Pyongyang has always considered ‘the bomb’ might have to become the country’s ultimate deterrent if ‘capitalist warmongering’ threatened to invade the hermit dictatorship. North Korea is a sad country. When I visited it in 1989 it made the Soviet Union look like a paradise. Even then, fifteen years ago, the North Koreans were busy building their nuclear plant with Soviet help and technicians. But the Soviets were reluctant to finish the plant, offering one excuse after another to draw out the completion. In the end it is probably thanks to Soviet fear of a global nuclear conflagration triggered by the xenophobic North Koreans that prevented Pyongyang from having the bomb years ago. At least that was how Soviet engineers, well into their cups, explained to me the amazing delay in the completion of the plant.
The bomb has given the impoverished North not only a new military clout and a powerful bargaining chip at the negotiating table but a means to replenish its empty coffers and obtain food, medicine and some of the smaller luxuries of modern life for a people who often have to stare at empty shelves and whose entertainment and information comes from one TV channel and one radio station.
Reported often on the pangs of starvation the North, if driven to it by envisaged and harsh U.N. sanctions, could well act in despair and kindle one of those incidents on which wars are hung. Only this time it might be a nuclear war.
Around the world the North Korean bomb has caused more then seismic waves.
Many nations are more then ever anxious these days to have their own bomb, arguing: Why should the bomb be the exclusive right of some nations in a global system where all nations are supposedly equal?
In fact there already exists a sizeable brotherhood of anti-American and anti-Semitic nations who could well band together and form The Other Nuclear Club whose members swap, buy or bargain nuclear technology from one another – or have already done so. One point is certain: The race to have the bomb has accelerated since 2003 thanks to the war on terror.
Unfortunately in this horse-trading one or the other ‘bomb’ liberated by proliferation could end up in the hands of suicidal fanatics.
But for the moment the greatest fear for all of us might be how the Bush administration intends to retaliate against a North Korean bomb created by its own misguided policies.

58. mcclaud - October 11, 2006

Well, in all reality, I like how most of the “get your ass off of FARK” replies are written like they come from fourth graders.

People going ballistic over a blog. Come on, folks – don’t get bent out of shape over someone else’s opinion. I, too, don’t fear North Korea having a nuke for the same reason that I can’t exactly do anything as an individual about it. Should they fire the nuke, who knows what will happen – it won’t be pretty for the target and North Korea, but it won’t exactly be the end of the world – that I’m sure of.

Terrorists using nukes is irritating, but again, what is a singular dude like me going to do to stop them? Probably can’t do anything, so having paranoia over who has the bomb is a waste of my time and my health.

59. mechtech - October 11, 2006

The world is getting more and more dangerous place day by day. We must stand to think, where we are going, what we are doing. everyone is in rush to live, to survive in this jungle (world) due to unseen threats. N.Korean nuclear test creates a new ray of concern in the region.

60. atulabraham - October 11, 2006

1. The US with its million dollar intelligence budget couldnt prevent 9 / 11. Why ? the reason is to be seen on this blog I guess, America specialises in grotesque, in hurly-burly; a nation of over-carbohydrated, 5, 50 / hr clutching babies that likes to play Cowboys and Indians a little too long after the game is well nigh done.

2. If America were the economic, diplomatic and military power it pretends to be why is it letting Iran get away with trying to build a bomb under the guise of a ” peaceful programme “.

3. Its not.

4. Iran needs the nuke not to blow up NY, it needs the nuke to keep its ecstacy chewing majority from throwing the radical, semi-radical Islamic leaders out of power. If Iran turns back the clock to pre-Islamic Revolution not only will India lose its position as cheap IT powerhouse but the bargaining power Iranian business will have will make it a force to reckon with thanks to cheap labour —

5. Will Iran ever count for anything more than itself ? Most-likely not, I dont believe the enemy is the Islamic Revolution or Al-Qaeda, the enemy is irrational our fear of them, considering that they like to kill each other as much as they like to kill us why is the US propping the Saudi regime up ? Why isnt the US investing in education and businesss in the ME, getting the young people off the streets and into work places ? Bcos if they did that Big Oil, Big defense Big Govt all over the world will see their cash avalanche dry up quite a bit, like it has in Europe.

Americnas need to learn to eat when they are hungry and not bcos the guy next door seems to be eating all the time.

Is N Korea a threat ? Yes it is, will he attack the US ? NO he will not bcos then there will be no N Korean population for him to prey on.
N Korea is trying to bluff and the rest of the world is bluffing back, N Korea isnt going to stop selling weapons or drugs and the leadership isnt about to change in a hurry and the pop. of NK may not even want it to.

All this talk about ” will they attack us” by Americans is just what Big Oil, Big Defense and Big Govt have brainwashed them into asking, the fear you project is preyed on by your leaders to cut health care and build bombs that make a minority very rich and the majority in debt to the minority and scared.

The American Constitution is a nice non-fiction read; considering Great Britain does not even have a written constitution Americans are today coming across as a nation fit for nothing useful (wasnt ur secretary of state buying shoes as New Orleans flooded ?).

America is not v different from the N Korean regime – Kim lets his people hunger, Americans let them die in NO from a hurrican that was classified as very dangerous for over 48 hours; why are Americans talking about sectarian violence in Iraq – scroll up and read a comment by someone from Chicago / or someplace who says he would rather Seatlle was nuked …

America needs to fix its back yard before deciding how many marines to air-drop into some new pretend enemy; and it needs to stop tryinto shove the idea of ” one nation under god ” down its own throat. There is only so much bile the human aleimentary system can hold down.

Every place on this earth has problems, we really dont need the US under the very transparent guise of playing good-cop-dear-doctor come round with Shell and Mc Donalds to Americanise the rest of us.

Im happy N Korea has bluffed or not, Im happy if Iran will get the bomb and I will be happy the day Americas war-mongering machine shuts up, since WW2 America has never been not at war somewhere or the other.

The free-world wants to be free, we dont need a leader, we need a partner.

61. fleas7 - October 11, 2006

North Korea, just another kid in the playground with a loaded gun.
I wonder where he got that idea from then?
Once a new craze however stupid comes to the playground it is going to be played with untill it becomes obsolete, and sadly it seems we all lost our marbles years ago.
The kids are full of…”GO ON I DARE YOU, I DARE YOU GO ON THEN.”
What will happen next I wonder? Skipping ropes or Nanobots.
Great site Earthling by the way.

62. richardscottashe - October 11, 2006

please do not be alarmed, whether you believe kim jong il or bush is the likely future cause of the apocalypse.

all necessary procedures have been posted at the above blog.

i repeat, do not be alarmed. if you follow the correct process, you will be in complete comfort as your face melts off.

63. Negotiating with North Korea « Blog 894 - October 11, 2006

[…] Hopefully world diplomats are already considering these sorts of deals. Personally I can not see any other way forward, other than no action being taken, with North Korea keeping its weapons, leading to tension and a possible arms race in the region. If disarmament does not happen, it is possible and perhaps likely that nothing bad will happen, but nevertheless, disarmament is the most desirable outcome. Explore posts in the same categories: Current Events, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons […]

64. yorkshirepuddings - October 11, 2006

I can see in 30 years time one of my grandkids coming to see me and asking “Grandad, what was North Korea?”

When, and it is a when and not an if, North Korea use a nuclear device on either South korea (who they hate with a passion) or another country the majority of the world would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

I’m sure it says somewhere in the bible that “The Yellow-skinned man will rule the World”

65. anilwrites - October 11, 2006

As a sovereign nation North Korea has its own right to conduct any kind of experiments as far it does not endanger the world nations or its populations. Developed countries may have far more superior nuclear weapons which they can strategically conceal from the outside world. Condemning other nations and restricting them from participating in the arms race is to establish the vested interest of superior ones.

66. Brent - October 11, 2006

I think that it is safe to say that if al-Qaeda attains and detonates a N.Korean-made nuke, that the bombs will be dropping on N.Korea itself, will they not? Why target a targetless entity, merely for the sake of (possible) retaliation? Why not pull the rug from under the feet of the source of the weapons proliferators themselves?

In other words, why allow a maniacal regime, such as Kim Jong Il’s to exist, if they are going to sell their WMD technology to someone who may actually use it, like say, al-Qaeda?

This is why, if I remember correctly, the President said that N.Korea is part of the Axis of Evil. The 2002 SOTU addressed this specifically.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

So you see that this is a real problem. The President has been criticized for this rhetoric, but as we all now see, he was actually not incorrect to say what he said.

Now something must be done about this, because the U.N. is worthless and impotent, and words without actions to support them, are absolutely meaningless.

67. earthlingconcerned - October 11, 2006

Brent, I find it interesting that used the State of the Union quote. In recent days, I’ve heard the quote used to show the other side of the story as well. That Bush provoked the North Korean regime by clumping them into the axis of evil. Since I’m so famous for fantastic analagies, here’s another one: If the biggest and most intimitating bully at your school came up to you one day and said, “I’m coming after you crazy Korea! I’m coming after you!”, and left everyone else (but the hyperactive Iraq/Iran cousins) alone, it makes sense to not like the bully.

With all this said, I don’t like defending North Korea, but to use that quote as a reason why Bush was right doesn’t make perfect sense to me. A lot of bad crap has gone on in the world since that day, much of it had nothing to do with the axis of evil.

It’s a chicken or the egg type situation I guess.

I also disagree that the UN is worthless. They just rely on diplomacy longer than some countries do. With this said… Waiting too long has proven costly as well. Flawed, not worthless.

Edit: I just realized fleas7 already used the kids in playground analagy above. Ah well.

68. unitedcats - October 11, 2006

Kim Jong-il has held on to power for what, ten years? If he was stupid or a lunatic, he would long about have been history. Bush has done nothing but make threats and pretend that the cold war never ended, pretty much his stock-in-trade, while this situation continues to deteriorate. Threats and pressure are what drove Kim to this extreme in the first place, more of the same is going to help?. Sadly the only people who are going to pay for Bush’s folly are the Korean’s, the sooner the USA pulls out of Korea and minds its own business, the sooner the Koreans and their neighbors can solve this on their own. It’s not like Kim is a threat to the US, that’s like Arnold Swcharzeneggar claiming that a 2 year old with a squirt gun is out to kill him. Give me a break.


69. phantompriest - October 11, 2006

I like your blog.

I mean that quite genuinely too.

I like reading your views and the many views of those inspired (or riled 😉 ) to comment.

This time however… one point pretty close to the start got me…

“It’s an extremely closed society, in an internationally isolated sense, as well as in the Karl Popper sense (re: The Open Society and Its Enemies). All of this this leads to big-headedness, delusions of grandeur, and in this case, a starving population.”


That’s one helluva assumption.
‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ – after this, therefore on account of this.

That said, I have no wish to criticise, as such.
I certainly don’t want to put you off blogging but might perhaps offer the suggestion that the path from points offered to conclusions presented is carefully considered… 😉

Again, best wishes! (really)

70. Brent - October 11, 2006

That’s right, blame it all on America. Do you actually know the difference between good and evil? Do you understand the difference between freedom and tyranny?

How is it America’s fault, or more specifically Bush’s fault for pointing out the truth? Are we supposed to act as if this does not exist, in order to not piss off the DICTATORS?

I find it extremely hard, especially as an AMERICAN, to understand where you are coming from. Also, just to clue you in, N.Korea has been seeking nukes far since before Bush. Oops there goes that argument.

How about admitting that evil dictators like Kim the dog eater, are seeing their last days?

Finally, can you actually name a SINGLE policy from the U.N. that has actually done the world any GOOD? It’s a joke, because they equate democracies and tyrannies, as one. If you do not understand this critical difference, I cannot give you the prestige, in terms of intelligence, to make this discussion with you matter one bit.

71. phantompriest - October 11, 2006

Interesting line of argument, Brent *chuckling*

Implied – the difference between good & evil, freedom & tyranny after ‘blame it all on America’.
Knowing the difference between both examples given doesn’t remove any ‘blame’ from America.

As to the truth – what truth specifically are you referring to?
An as yet unconfirmed nuclear explosion; a prediction of instability?

How are Country leaders like Kim II seeing their last days?

I believe two of the UNs policies resulted in the International Courts of Justice and the United Nations Children Fund. I would offer that both have done much good.

With regard to democracies vs. tyrannies – you’re white American, right?
I assume this because tyranny can mean “oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.” and I suspect there’s more than one American who feels George Bush Jnr fits that description admirably 😉

72. allendale2 - October 11, 2006

I don’t think North Korea’s stance is that much of a bluff. If they launched a nuclear attack, which isn’t impossible, though highly improbable, The U.S couldn’t think of a nuclear retaliatory attack with two allies like South Korea and China right next to North Korea.

Unable to retaliate with a nuclear attack, then the U.S would have to think of a conventional war, which would also be costly, both politicaly and economicaly, that would have to go through senate approval, which isn’t automatic either, because the democrats wouldn’t be that willing to follow Bush’s antics as before the war on Afghanistan.

Sure, North Korea doesn’t have the capabilities to attack the U.S, but that isn’t his main aim either. What Kim Jong II wants is some more wiggling space to be able to negotiate political and economic situations with his neighbor countries. And that would seem more likely in that kind of scenario.

73. digitalzen - October 11, 2006
74. superrajj - October 12, 2006

yo man! i think you should be a little more careful before you EVEN think of comparing N.K with India coz my man India is more sane and responsible than a country which was hell-bent on acquiring the Nukes since day one. The world knew it was coming, while turning a blind eye to the greatest threat of the year. All the while focusing on Iran. What do you think this turns up? This is what they call fairness? Nope. To me this ain’t fairness! Surround a country which has already declared it’s intentions of peaceful use of the nuke while let a country go scott-free while it has already made it clear that it’s making the nukes for military purposes. Can you see weapons inspectors heading to Pyongyang in a hurry or the U.S. offering some olive branch to the the N.K.? Of course not. As for the sanity, that’s one place where I do agree with you. It is very much true that N.K. is more insanely helmed by Kimmy boy than any other state out there with nukes. Forget or not, one thing’s for sure, the world will regret doing what it did. Look the other way while some guy already classified as insane does something unacceptable!

75. wayne - October 12, 2006

Still, where’s the science? Evidence, radiation, nuclear gasses…where is it. Was there a test, and if so, was it an unsuccessful one. At any rate, it’s a bit the child just throwing her glass onto the floor to get attention. Bush is handling this perfectly. Just ignore them until China steps up and does something about the NK economy. It is the economy, right? It will be painful, but like the middle east, they’ll be dragged into the 21st century on way or the other. Until they have something to live for we’ll all continue to pay for it.

76. nathanzhang - October 12, 2006

I liked reading your article. I felt the information presented was accurate and helpful. I would like permission to quote this blog on my podcast, as well as a direct link to any audio files connected to this blog article that I may use (given publishers’ permission) on my podcast.

I hope you will give me permission to use quotes and your audio files. Your participation is enjoyed.

Nathan Guannan Zhang.

77. karlo mikhail - October 14, 2006

The United States government’s proposal of tough sanctions on North Korea is a condemnable act.

“The sanctions being pushed by the US before the United Nations Security Council demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy, arrogance and double-standards of the US. The country with the world’s biggest nuclear stockpile has no moral ascendancy to demand that other countries be sanctioned for alleged possession of nuclear weapons.”.

“The nuclear testing in North Korea must be understood within the historical context of hostile US-North Korea relations which involved the deaths of 4 million Koreans in the 1950’s, crippling economic sanctions against the Korean people for more than 56 years, as well as continuing threats of attacks from the US.”

“The nuclear test conducted by North Korea, is the result of years of US threats and sanctions against a country that refuses to tow US economic and political impositions. Others may criticize North Korea for its internal policies, but we cannot ignore the fact that North Korea has strived to defend itself against US impositions and threats of attacks.”

“The nuclear test is perhaps even a matter of survival for the ever-threatened North Korea. This nuclear stand-off would not have happened were it not for US aggression in North East Asia. Therefore the US is in no position to push for sanctions that would only escalate tension in the region. For a peaceful and diplomatic solution to happen, the US must first back off.”

World leaders must exercise utmost restraint and circumspection and work for a diplomatic solution that does not include harsh sanctions on North Korea.

It is the US and not North Korea, which is the biggest nuclear threat in the world today. “The US has around 6500 active nuclear warheads, including intercontinental ballistic missiles as well 1,100 short-range tactical nuclear devices. The US is the only government in history which has launched two nuclear attacks.”

78. HealthyEater - October 20, 2006

The world is getting more and more dangerous place day by day. 😦

79. Brent - October 20, 2006

“The nuclear test is perhaps even a matter of survival for the ever-threatened North Korea.

Duh. The Communist dictatorship is becoming scared at the thought of democracy.

I happen to find it sad that you seem to support the communists whose collectivism has killed and starved far more than any U.S. led policy. As an expert of history, you ought to know this.

80. gay bi sexual videos - January 4, 2007

gay bi sexual videos

gay bi sexual videos

81. Tony S. - January 4, 2007

I think that we should just blow the shit out of them.
We shouldnt even give them the chance.

82. Tony S. - January 4, 2007

I take that back thats me being a destructive person.I think that we should get to gether with the UN an put this in somebody elses hands we have alought on our plate now.

83. casinosfreebonusesv - August 11, 2007

deposit free bonus casino
see to signature…

84. freeeeringtones - August 17, 2007

popular free ringtones



85. Illegal Immigration - July 26, 2008

Man looks in the abyss, there’s nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss.HalHolbrookHal Holbrook, Wallstreet

86. Barack Obama - July 27, 2008

Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition. By that sin fell the angels.WilliamShakespeareWilliam Shakespeare, Henry VIII, III:2

87. The Passing of the Torch: Selection of the UN Secretary-General - earthling.concerned - October 16, 2008

[…] hours after the first nuclear arms test in North Korea; the United Nations nominated their next secretary general in Ban Ki-moon of South Korea. After […]

88. muweesi charles - December 9, 2008

i also salute the sayings of willam spears that one day an african can rule the prominance of the world as its proved correctly with barack obama however the world is proving changing and destructive day in day out.

89. lubowa diriisa and kazibwe frank - December 9, 2008

i also salute the sayings of willam spears that one day an african can rule the prominance of the world as its proved correctly with barack obama however the world is proving changing and destructive day in day out.

90. muweesi charles ssaku sss 2005 - December 9, 2008

i also salute the sayings of willam spears that one day an african can rule the prominance of the world as its proved correctly with barack obama however the world is proving changing and destructive day in day out. obama oyee

91. masembe daid - December 9, 2008

yes am masembe makerere university

92. ck0npv - June 11, 2009

dsfsdfs67877 test test

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: