Crosswords0 min ago
North Korea
According to the 'News at Ten', both America and Japan, have warned N.Korea not to test their Nuclear weapons.
If they do, what can, or will, these countries do?.
If they do, what can, or will, these countries do?.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lonnie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Hi W-M, True, your thesis could be correct, in which case, would Iran be next in the firing line?.
I think its more likely that they could be using the threat, to try to get aid back, but, they have said in the past, that if they think America is going to attack them, they will launch First Strike.
But if, just for arguements sake, America did nothing, what could Japan do.
I think its more likely that they could be using the threat, to try to get aid back, but, they have said in the past, that if they think America is going to attack them, they will launch First Strike.
But if, just for arguements sake, America did nothing, what could Japan do.
-- answer removed --
The DPRK is engaging in the entirely legitimate action of national self-defence, in protecting itself against imperialist aggression. Why is the USA condemning a country for testing and developing its own weapons of defence? Because the USA wants to preserve its own monopoly position of being able to threaten, bully and intimidate other countries. Why is the USA sabre-rattling and threatening to attack Iran, which has a democratically elected president, but not Korea? Because Korea has the means to defend itself, whereas Iran does not (yet). Which country - USA or DPRK - has refused to rule out the first use of nuclear weapons? The USA. Which country has threatened to use nuclear weapons as a way of "ending" conventional wars? The USA. Which country has said that it will only ever use nuclear weapons in self defence, if it is itself attacked? The DPRK.
Thus the answer is that the USA can refrain from attacking the DPRK, or otherwise suffer the consequences.
Thus the answer is that the USA can refrain from attacking the DPRK, or otherwise suffer the consequences.
I think the problem here is that every nation has a right to defend itself. However the worry is that once these nations have the technology will they just use it for defensive means.
Alot of fiction books written as far back as 40 odd years ago (e.g. Neville Shutes On the Beach) was about the end of the world after a nuclear holecaust that was started out in the middle east. It is bad enough wondering what the States will do sometimes without having to worry about other countries. And remember we have already had one war in Korea with the Chinese muscleing in. Would the Koreans or Chinese have used nuclear weapons then if they had them.
Question What will China do when it begins to run out of resources. Sit back and let the Western World progress leaving China behind. I think not. They will find an excuse to invade somewhere, and they have nuclear capabilities.
Only good thing is that I probabaly wont be around to see it.
Alot of fiction books written as far back as 40 odd years ago (e.g. Neville Shutes On the Beach) was about the end of the world after a nuclear holecaust that was started out in the middle east. It is bad enough wondering what the States will do sometimes without having to worry about other countries. And remember we have already had one war in Korea with the Chinese muscleing in. Would the Koreans or Chinese have used nuclear weapons then if they had them.
Question What will China do when it begins to run out of resources. Sit back and let the Western World progress leaving China behind. I think not. They will find an excuse to invade somewhere, and they have nuclear capabilities.
Only good thing is that I probabaly wont be around to see it.
I think a lot of people over estimate the current American capacity to invade places.
From a military capacity Afganistan and Iraq are putting strain on their resources both military (they are already relying on reservists) and financial. I doubt they could take on another country without either introducing a draft of having significant foreign troops.
I don't think the latter would be forthcoming and the former would be political suicide for the Republican Party. Not unless there was an event of the magnitude of 9/11 to justify it.
Moreover I think Iran knows this and this is one reason they're playing brinkmanship. If the Americans do get to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan you watch their attitude change.
World politics really isn't much evoved from the school playground sometimes
From a military capacity Afganistan and Iraq are putting strain on their resources both military (they are already relying on reservists) and financial. I doubt they could take on another country without either introducing a draft of having significant foreign troops.
I don't think the latter would be forthcoming and the former would be political suicide for the Republican Party. Not unless there was an event of the magnitude of 9/11 to justify it.
Moreover I think Iran knows this and this is one reason they're playing brinkmanship. If the Americans do get to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan you watch their attitude change.
World politics really isn't much evoved from the school playground sometimes
The North Koreans are suspected of preparing to launch a long-range missile over the next few days that could possibly reach Hawaii or Alaska - but I don't think it's a nuclear missile. The question of Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities is a separate one. I don't think the USA is likely to attack Korea - they're already overstretched in one tinderbox region, I doubts they could cope with triggering war in the far east as well.
Jake i think makes a good point, the only way the US could consider an invasion of Iran would be through the draft, which again i think jake rightly states is not politically viable at present as american opinion is negative towards the iraq position and without another 911 style incident the draft is unthinkable.
in relation to N Korea being intimidated by action in Iran, i think this would only encourage them not discourage to be honest, for the same reasons the iranians feel able to more confidently stand up to the US for the reasons above, the kim jong would be in a far stronger position if america was fighting wars on many fronts because he can bluff to a far higher degree without actually threatening american soil, for the same reasons Iran is now but even more so....to have any bargaining power you need to have a position of strength, it would only be a less stable world if america trys to impose it's will be force alone at every problem, as mr churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war...
besides if the US decides to invade Iran the NK's will merely have to get in line to launch attacks on the US and it's allies, i can't believe i'm about to use a chuck norris analogy in the middle of a political debate, but minty i see what your saying but i would extend the scenario you painted, if chuck was your landlord and he wasn't busy, sure you may get your butt kicked, but if hes already fighting three other blokes, you are more able to walk up behind him and kick his backside without him seeing you
in relation to N Korea being intimidated by action in Iran, i think this would only encourage them not discourage to be honest, for the same reasons the iranians feel able to more confidently stand up to the US for the reasons above, the kim jong would be in a far stronger position if america was fighting wars on many fronts because he can bluff to a far higher degree without actually threatening american soil, for the same reasons Iran is now but even more so....to have any bargaining power you need to have a position of strength, it would only be a less stable world if america trys to impose it's will be force alone at every problem, as mr churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war...
besides if the US decides to invade Iran the NK's will merely have to get in line to launch attacks on the US and it's allies, i can't believe i'm about to use a chuck norris analogy in the middle of a political debate, but minty i see what your saying but i would extend the scenario you painted, if chuck was your landlord and he wasn't busy, sure you may get your butt kicked, but if hes already fighting three other blokes, you are more able to walk up behind him and kick his backside without him seeing you
-- answer removed --
Really Wardy where do you get your information?
I have this from the bulletin of Atomic Scientists
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ ofn=nd02norris
Year U.S. Russia U.K. France China Total
2002 10,600 8,600 200 350 400 20,150
I know it's a few years out of date but it's at extreme odds with your statement that the Chinese have more than America and Russia put together!
I have this from the bulletin of Atomic Scientists
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ ofn=nd02norris
Year U.S. Russia U.K. France China Total
2002 10,600 8,600 200 350 400 20,150
I know it's a few years out of date but it's at extreme odds with your statement that the Chinese have more than America and Russia put together!
I agree completely with bernando. Everyone is watching out for themselves frm here on because they don't trust the USA anymore. They also don't feel the USA has any right to dictate to them what they can or cannot do, when USA itself has been bullying other countries and invaded one too, on a whim it seems.
As others pointed out, USA's too involved in other countries (Afghanistan,Iraq) to threaten convincingly or prepare for yet another attack. It's been threatening Iran for weeks now, I haven't seen any action though. Some people seem keen on seeing Iran bombed out first, (and never mind the NKoreans) but its not going to happen. With China (another communist regime which may support NK) lurking very close behind, its USA who should be getting a bit worried now.
As others pointed out, USA's too involved in other countries (Afghanistan,Iraq) to threaten convincingly or prepare for yet another attack. It's been threatening Iran for weeks now, I haven't seen any action though. Some people seem keen on seeing Iran bombed out first, (and never mind the NKoreans) but its not going to happen. With China (another communist regime which may support NK) lurking very close behind, its USA who should be getting a bit worried now.
By the way WM I like your Chuck Norrise analogy.
Question for everyone, when does a defensive weapon become an offensive weapon. I know people will say that during the cold war, threats of nuclear strikes probably stopped World War 3 from happening. But is an ICBM defensive. If these countries wanted patriot missiles and other purely defensive weapons then they should have them, but I do not believe that having ICBMs in the hands of these other countries is a good thing.
It would not take much for these countries to make the first strike, not necessarily against US or Europe but maybe Iran against Israel, or North Korea against South Korea, Japan or maybe China if China got to pally with the west.
People were worried about nuclear action bewteen India and Pakistan not too long ago.
I do not think that any other countries should take this course of action. We are gradually trying to limit the amount of weapons in the West and Russia only to see the situation getting out of hand in other parts of the world.
Question for everyone, when does a defensive weapon become an offensive weapon. I know people will say that during the cold war, threats of nuclear strikes probably stopped World War 3 from happening. But is an ICBM defensive. If these countries wanted patriot missiles and other purely defensive weapons then they should have them, but I do not believe that having ICBMs in the hands of these other countries is a good thing.
It would not take much for these countries to make the first strike, not necessarily against US or Europe but maybe Iran against Israel, or North Korea against South Korea, Japan or maybe China if China got to pally with the west.
People were worried about nuclear action bewteen India and Pakistan not too long ago.
I do not think that any other countries should take this course of action. We are gradually trying to limit the amount of weapons in the West and Russia only to see the situation getting out of hand in other parts of the world.
Turns out, that Japan has said that if a missile lands in its territory, it will consider it an attack.
In 1998, N Korea tested its Taepodong-1, which flew over Japan, the present missile, the Taepodong-2, has the capacity to carry Nuclear, apart from Japan and America, Australia and China have expressed concerns, because if they do successfully test it, there is a good possibility that agreements would be reneged on, and the region become destabilised.
In 1998, N Korea tested its Taepodong-1, which flew over Japan, the present missile, the Taepodong-2, has the capacity to carry Nuclear, apart from Japan and America, Australia and China have expressed concerns, because if they do successfully test it, there is a good possibility that agreements would be reneged on, and the region become destabilised.
-- answer removed --
again fearmongering and misinformation, as the iraqies had yellow cake, aluminum tubes that could only be used for centrifuges and mega tons of every type of chemical weapon the u.s. has ever produced, all lies as we all now know. and as donald rumsfeld, former president of g.d.searle & co. and later chairman of the board for gilead sciences inc. both huge pharmaceutical companies that were able to clear warehouses of old anthrax vaccine, for you can only imagine, a huge profit because of a certain media hysteria about anthrax and the mail. it is n.k. and iran's right to use nuclear power, as it is their right to test weapons, as it is also their right to defend themselves. in the case of iran it would appear they don't even have a weapon to test. iran has a perfectly legitimate government and as a culture and civilization have a few more years under their belt than most countries. and they have been subjected to u.s. manipulation in the past and know what they are dealing with. i would assume the show of force with their navy in the pacific at the moment is more directed at iran than korea as bush has flown to europe today. i agree with bernardo and as for why they are rattleing their sabres at iran and not korea at the moment is korea has no oil but needs it, iran has oil. so with fearmongering or "manufacturing consent " we are being mislead and lied to once again. this article explains it very nicely. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context =viewArticle&code=CLA20060210&articleId=1937
1 to 19 of 19
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |