Nuclear North Korea (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the whole thing over this is so stupid. I mean the uS has a massive stockpile of them, yet no one else is alllowed any? what makes it ok for them to have them and not the rest of us?
The real question IMO is not, whether they have them, but whether they are going to USE them. One does not always lead to the other.

LadyBec, the US as a superpower is fairly stable, they're democratic, and i really doubt they'd use nukes on us or anyone else.

North Korea isn't politically stable, is likely to sell weapons to make a quick buck, could use them against us.

I must say... I disagree with the americans using nukes in world war 2.
Hundreds of thousands, men, women & children... communities - DEAD..just to end the war faster and save a few soldiers lives?

If the americans had this sort of additude at the beginning of the war, they would of simply walked into german settlements, killed 600,000 men,women & children and probably disheartened the germans and ended the war that way.. Seriously the whole concept never made sense.

 

[Casmira]

i would not be surprised if world war 3 started, i guarantee you the 198x kids will be the ones going to war if it did outbreak soon

 

[joujou_84]

This whole attitude that the US is the war mongering nation the media portrays it to be is absurd. If anything, we as those who treasure the democracy should be more than grateful of the ways in which the US has acted as 'peacekeeper' as such. WWI and WWII were both won by the west due to the US's rejection of traditional isolationist policy. Without these pivotal roles playe by the US I can guarantee you tat we as Australians would not treasure the country we do today...

The moment the US dismantles any form of weapon system, it provides the oppostion with a free shot at the US then at the world... use a bit of commonsense and gratitude people. Its this politically correct notion that the US is some 'hun' that really annoys many. How about we enter the autocratic worlds of the Nth Koreans and Middle East where inviolable rights and freedoms are non-existant and and recgonition of an individuals needs and wants are at the behest of one leader... The reason we are able to accept individuality, free choice and freedom of expression is because of the US's efforts in the past....Wake up, Saddamn, Kim Il Jong etc are not world saviours and I can guarantee you they are definately not producing weapons without cause for use...

wasnt america the country that used its weapons during ww2....i hardly think they are very trustworthy with their weapons and if anyone should be dismantling their weapons it should be the US as they have proved that they are willing to use them...

 

[ZabZu]

I must say... I disagree with the americans using nukes in world war 2. Hundreds of thousands, men, women & children... communities - DEAD..just to end the war faster and save a few soldiers lives?

Without the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thousands of American soldiers would have been killed and the amount of people killed would have likely been far more than the casualties from the nuclear attacks. Plus the devastation of the blasts caused the Japanese to surrender. I do not support the construction or use of nuclear bombs but in this context i feel it is justified.

Between WW2 and today there has been military rivalries between countries as they all try and obtain nukes just because their enemy has them. It started off with the US (plus some western powers) and the USSR, now its India vs Pakistan, Israel vs the Arab/Muslim world (mainly Iraq in the 1980s and Iran today) and the US vs North Korea. Countries will stop trying to make nuclear weapons when every country gives up their nuclear weapons.

On the topic of North Korea, an invasion of the country would be stupid because North Korea has a standing army of over 1 million men. The world needs to put economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea so they dont make any more nukes. If NK creates a large quantity of nuclear weapons, they will keep a certain amount in their possession and sell the surplus amount to the highest bidder (terrorists).

 

[nuclear chick]

IMO, the Americans have had plenty of opportunities to use the weapons they have eg) september 11, and they havent yet.
In addition, the atomic weapons used in ww2 are nowhere near as powerful as the nuclear missiles the US has today. Today's nukes would result in the deaths of the entire world population (and that of the country which launched them) and there would be no victory in war. Thats where the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) stalemate comes from. America and Russia know what today's nukes can do, they know the extent of their unconventional weapon capabilities and they may not want other countries to develop/experiment/deploy them when those states may not fully understand what the nukes can do. The countries who want to have them include Iran and North Korea. There's little chance either country's leader would listen to the US and/or Russia telling them how dangerous nukes are, because they have long been hostile towards the US/western world, may view it as propoganda and not take any notice.

 

[spell check]

IMO, the Americans have had plenty of opportunities to use the weapons they have eg) september 11, and they havent yet.

who would they have nuked for that

terroristland?

 

[Arvin Sloane]

Who doesn't have some nukes? I know I have at least *counts* four.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Without the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thousands of American soldiers would have been killed and the amount of people killed would have likely been far more than the casualties from the nuclear attacks. Plus the devastation of the blasts caused the Japanese to surrender.

lol that's simply wrong, the estimate that was a ground invasion of japan could cost 100,000 american lives... not the million figure that some like to quote. Anyway as I said, America could of gone into germany and indiscriminately killed 600,000 men,women & children with conventional weapons.. i'm sure that would of had the same affect on germany as the hiroshima bomb had on japan and probably would of saved the lives of 100,000's of allied troops.

 

[berghousemaa]

Why does it even enter into people's mind about fairness in relation to possessing nukes.
The rhetoric thta says America has them so everyone else is allowed is absurd and dangerous. I can't think of a situation where America would use their nukes unless engaged in a war with some us yet unassigned future superpower. Nth Korea is far more likely to use them due to its fairly radical govt and unstable region.

P.S I wouldn't read too much into Nth Korea's claims. Merely the last gasp of a dying nation.

 

[ZabZu]

lol that's simply wrong, the estimate that was a ground invasion of japan could cost 100,000 american lives... not the million figure that some like to quote. Anyway as I said, America could of gone into germany and indiscriminately killed 600,000 men,women & children with conventional weapons.. i'm sure that would of had the same affect on germany as the hiroshima bomb had on japan and probably would of saved the lives of 100,000's of allied troops.

Yeh but there would also be high casualties on the Japanese side.

Its difficult to comment on the nuclear strikes on Japan because we dont know would have happened if it didn't occur.

 

[Arvin Sloane]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/11/1108061832648.html

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Of course... but we're talking about the indiscriminate killing of a community of people, men, women & children.. not just soldiers. It would be like while australia was on the side of the allies... japan dropped a nuclear bomb on sydney and melbourne...

While i do value the life of soldiers i do believe that soldiers go to war to try and prevent civilian casualties..

 

[truespirit_jj]

I agree with North Korea's ambitions...I mean if they didn't possess the weapons capability as they do now with strong possiblity of nuclear arnmanet, then NK would have ended up like Iraq right now...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Oh yes, lets let north korea have nuclear weapons, i mean gee america has them and america is like so evil.
George W Bush doesn't feed his people, spends all the money on himself, and is insane.

 

[welshi]

i don't normally pay any attention to anything Dubya says, but he said something on the news last night that really worried me. "It is true that North Korea having newcular weapons would have a negative effect on world relations." does that make anyone else feel a little uneasy?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

ROFL yea, GWB is such a stupid guy! listen to the way he talks, what an idiot! hahaha

Like that stephen hawking guy, wtf is he on about? smartest man in the world? he talks like a fuckn robot! hahaha....[/sarcsm]

 

[SashatheMan]

yeh , hopefully they can have talks and settle down again. all the peopel who are for NK haivng nuclear weapons, dont u think that becuase NK hates America and Australia is a strong ally of the US we are also in threat of NK using the weapons on us.

 

[dimzi]

Anyway as I said, America could of gone into germany and indiscriminately killed 600,000 men,women & children with conventional weapons.. i'm sure that would of had the same affect on germany as the hiroshima bomb had on japan and probably would of saved the lives of 100,000's of allied troops.

It would have probably had the same effect on Germany, the problem is that it wasnt developed at the time lol

 

[Not-That-Bright]

no no I mean if the allies had just run around german towns killing the citizens lol

 

[Stan..]

I am building a bomb shelter.