PDA

View Full Version : North Korean Nuke Test



Pages : [1] 2

Qdos
25-05-2009, 13:26
Well, they've apparently tested several more short range missiles, and have detonated a nuke underground, something with a yield of around twenty megatons or so... but the worry is they'll soon have missile technology to make a long range delivery vehicle, and nobody is quite sure who will be in power in Pyongyang this time next year... :suspect:

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 16:12
I would say they are just getting ready for the inevitable. To me personally a global nuclear war is just a matter of time.

marmite66
25-05-2009, 16:48
First the Koreans then the Iranians- Jesus H christ what's wrong with these people. Like spoilt kids stamping their feet until they get what they want.

Why can't we offer to bild them their nuke stations etc ? but even that fails.

I say bomb them both with conventional weapons or invade en mass if talks fail. Santions don't seem to hit them where it hurts.

Wy can't people just get along and enjoy life !!!

:boxing: :10241:

marmite66
25-05-2009, 16:49
I would say they are just getting ready for the inevitable. To me personally a global nuclear war is just a matter of time.

I hope you are wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!

Qdos
25-05-2009, 17:45
What's really interesting is how and where they got their fissive materials in the first place... and it appears not to have been from Russia... :devilish:

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Country profiles | Timeline: North Korea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1132268.stm)


1994 - Death of Kim Il-sung. Kim Jong-il suceeds him as leader, but doesn't take presidential title. North Korea agrees to freeze nuclear programme in return for $5bn worth of free fuel and two nuclear reactors.

1995 - US formally agrees to help provide two modern nuclear reactors designed to produce less weapons-grade plutonium.

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 18:31
First the Koreans then the Iranians- Jesus H christ what's wrong with these people. Like spoilt kids stamping their feet until they get what they want.

Why can't we offer to bild them their nuke stations etc ? but even that fails.

I say bomb them both with conventional weapons or invade en mass if talks fail. Santions don't seem to hit them where it hurts.

Wy can't people just get along and enjoy life !!!

Typical arrogant Western attitude of superiority. If the US has nukes, why another SOVEREIGN state cannot develop one? Especially after they feel very threatened by the US who demonstrated utter contempt towards the international law in Iraq and in Afghanistan?


I hope you are wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope so myself, but the humans seem to be drawn to self-extermination. It is in the blood. One always feels more superior than another. You are a card-carrying example, if anything.

Qdos
25-05-2009, 18:48
I doubt North Korea has the capacity today to start a global nuclear war, however it is clear that the dictatorship there could well be at risk of targetting by a number of countries in the international community.

The problem is nobody wants the refugees, and there could be millions who end up heading for China, Russia and South Korea in the event of collapse of their own countrys administration.

What needs doing with NK, regardless, is what should have been done with Saddam Hussein back in 1991. It could be accomplished with a few hundred cruise missiles carrying high explosives, targetted on strategic government targets in NK, taking out the key figures in the present regime, and as much of the million strong armed forces as possible.

Reunification with South Korea could then be possible to broker, providing no other immediate neighbouring states (like China) tried to seize the territory for themselves.

marmite66
25-05-2009, 18:49
What's really interesting is how and where they got their fissive materials in the first place... and it appears not to have been from Russia... :devilish:

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Country profiles | Timeline: North Korea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1132268.stm)

Is the Pope Catholic?

marmite66
25-05-2009, 18:50
I doubt North Korea has the capacity today to start a global nuclear war, however it is clear that the dictatorship there could well be at risk of targetting by a number of countries in the international community.

The problem is nobody wants the refugees, and there could be millions who end up heading for China, Russia and South Korea in the event of collapse of their own countrys administration.

What needs doing with NK, regardless, is what should have been done with Saddam Hussein back in 1991. It could be accomplished with a few hundred cruise missiles carrying high explosives, targetted on strategic government targets in NK, taking out the key figures in the present regime, and as much of the million strong armed forces as possible.

Reunification with South Korea could then be possible to broker, providing no other immediate neighbouring states (like China) tried to seize the territory for themselves.

Wise words spoken with thought. I agree.

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 18:51
What needs doing with NK, regardless, is what should have been done with Saddam Hussein back in 1991. It could be accomplished with a few hundred cruise missiles carrying high explosives, targetted on strategic government targets in NK, taking out the key figures in the present regime, and as much of the million strong armed forces as possible.

So, here you are, asking for thousands of more innocent lives to be taken. Is that all the Western democracy can do? Kill? Carbo, Kvarti?


is what should have been done with Saddam Hussein back in 1991.

5 thousand American soldiers are turning in their graves right now, I am sure. And the count is not final, before the troops leave in disgrace like in Vietnam. History teaches nothing.

marmite66
25-05-2009, 18:58
Typical arrogant Western attitude of superiority. If the US has nukes, why another SOVEREIGN state cannot develop one? Especially after they feel very threatened by the US who demonstrated utter contempt towards the international law in Iraq and in Afghanistan?



I hope so myself, but the humans seem to be drawn to self-extermination. It is in the blood. One always feels more superior than another. You are a card-carrying example, if anything.

The West as you call it, is not arrogant you can't put millions of people into the basket of "arrogance". Don't blame a few peoples stupid actions on others and label them the "West", that is arrogant of you. Some countries are simply too dangerous for the rest of us. Iran and N Korea being classic exmples. Would you give a loaded gun to a child and ask him to play with it? would you ask a blind man to walk near land mines? would you give a mental patient a knife, perhaps you would? I rest my case.

:10241:

Qdos
25-05-2009, 19:03
So, here you are, asking for thousands of more innocent lives to be taken. Is that all the Western democracy can do? Kill? Carbo, Kvarti?

It's an evil regime, so let me see... YES... they deserve a comeuppance of sorts certainly! What would Russia do? Chances are Russia would well be involved in any international response anyway... ;)


5 thousand American soldiers are turning in their graves right now, I am sure. And the count is not final, before the troops leave in disgrace like in Vietnam. History teaches nothing.

What does nationality matter to the dead? Does every nation have their own heaven or hell do you think RL? :ok:

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 19:05
The West as you call it, is not arrogant you can't put millions of people into the basket of "arrogance". Don't blame a few peoples stupid actions on others and label them the "West", that is arrogant of you. Some countries are simply too dangerous for the rest of us. Iran and N Korea being classic exmples. Would you give a loaded gun to a child and ask him to play with it? would you ask a blind man to walk near land mines? would you give a mental patient a knife, perhaps you would? I rest my case.

You do not seem to have a case, only blubbering arrogance. Kvarti is from the West, too, but I am sure he will be on my side in this issue. On the whole, though, people like Kvarti and me are a minority, people like you and Qdos are a majority. Some countries are dangerous for us? That's baby talk. Once I was dragged into the street by two people, one pulled out a knife from his pocket and told me I was going to die. I just offered them my hand and introduced myself. We became friends. A person like you would end up in a gutter with his guts all around his neck and genitals stuck in the mouth. Try to be wise:). NK and Iran are pushed to the brink by people like you, and they want a knife to defend themselves from the likes of you, that's all. Why don't you attack China? Is China less threatening? Or you have the guts to attack only those who cannot defend themselves?

Qdos
25-05-2009, 19:11
NK and Iran are pushed to the brink by people like you, and they want a knife to defend themselves from the likes of you, that's all.

* Cough... clears throat...*



A chronology of key events:

1945 - After World War II, Japanese occupation of Korea ends with Soviet troops occupying the north, and US troops the south.

1946 - North Korea's Communist Party (Korean Workers' Party - KWP) inaugurated. Soviet-backed leadership installed, including Red Army-trained Kim Il-sung.


BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Country profiles | Timeline: North Korea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1132268.stm)

Ultimately one could argue this problem is of Russia's making, in precisely the same way as East Germany was made communist after World War II... :devil:

marmite66
25-05-2009, 19:14
You do not seem to have a case, only blubbering arrogance. Kvarti is from the West, too, but I am sure he will be on my side in this issue. On the whole, though, people like Kvarti and me are a minority, people like you and Qdos is a majority. Some countries are dangerous for us? That's baby talk. Once I was dragged into the street by two people, one took a knife from his pocket and told me I was going to die. I just offered them my hand and introduced myself. We became friends. A person like you would end up in a gutter with his guts all around his neck and genitals stuck in the mouth. Try to be wise:). NK and Iran are pushed to the brink by people like you, and they want a knife to defend themselves from the likes of you, that's all.

Dear RL,

"People like you and Qdos is a majority" Plural "are a majority" apart from an English lesson (now I am being a bit arrogant), your action when threatend was nobal and wise and I too would offer my hand if I judged them to be of sound mind i.e normal or I would run like hell. Hmmm....Why were you in such a place to find yourself in that situation I ask myself!?! Iran and N Korea have been offered the hand in a "metaphorical" sense on many occasions, each time the hand of friendship and cooperation was bitten.

I would not want genitals in mouth dead or alive you have been watching too many violent films.

Maybe now we should all offer them the finger :bird: and sort them out for good?

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 19:18
they deserve a comeuppance of sorts certainly!

Look at their faces, for f'ck sake! They are as human as you are!

YouTube- North Korean High School Girls!!

YouTube- 北朝鮮美女軍団 1 North Korea

marmite66
25-05-2009, 19:21
Look at their faces, for f'ck sake! They are as human as you are!

YouTube - North Korean High School Girls!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKDMPCcY6Pk)

YouTube - 北朝鮮美女軍団 1 North Korea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNZ7k11o32g&feature=related)

I agree but they dont know anything outside their own countries they have been brainwashed into an ideology and a religion. I feel compassion and pity for them all. Very sad lets hope a solution can be found sooner rather than later.

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 19:23
"People like you and Qdos is a majority" Plural "are a majority" apart from an English lesson (now I am being a bit arrogant),

I corrected it even before you noticed this mistake, pal. If you think you can give me a few English lessons here your arrogance is even bigger than I initially thought:).


metophorical" sense on many occasions

Where are you from, Montana? Or a village in Spain?:). Seems like you need a few English lessons yourself, our new rustic friend:).

marmite66
25-05-2009, 19:27
I corrected it even before you noticed this mistake, pal. If you think you can give me a few English lessons here your arrogance is even bigger than I initially thought:).


Originally Posted by Russian Lad View Post

You do not seem to have a case, only blubbering arrogance. Kvarti is from the West, too, but I am sure he will be on my side in this issue. On the whole, though, people like Kvarti and me are a minority, people like you and Qdos is a majority. Some countries are dangerous for us? That's baby talk. Once I was dragged into the street by two people, one took a knife from his pocket and told me I was going to die. I just offered them my hand and introduced myself. We became friends. A person like you would end up in a gutter with his guts all around his neck and genitals stuck in the mouth. Try to be wise. NK and Iran are pushed to the brink by people like you, and they want a knife to defend themselves from the likes of you, that's all.


Ooh calm down lad don't sulk and cry. You make good point albeit a little off the wall for "f*sake" are you an expat or a Russian guy letting off steam on this forum? :neiner:

Qdos
25-05-2009, 19:28
Look at their faces, for f'ck sake! They are as human as you are!

What about this face? :nono:

http://i44.tinypic.com/scxun5.jpg

The trouble is, the people aren't allowed to speak out for themselves with this w-anchor at the helm, so take out the army and the administration in one fell swoop... minimising civilian casualties... and broker a reunification with South Korea, it'll save lives in the long term... :10189:

**Admin - please fix the hotlinking cock-up on this sub-forum **

marmite66
25-05-2009, 19:30
I corrected it even before you noticed this mistake, pal. If you think you can give me a few English lessons here your arrogance is even bigger than I initially thought:).



Where are you from, Montana? Or a village in Spain?:). Seems like you need a few English lessons yourself, our new rustic friend:).

Metaphorical you are right just testing you 2-2 spelling is spelling grammar is grammar 3-2 your serve. Spain is a great country !!

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 19:31
for "f*sake" are you an expat or a Russian guy letting off steam on this forum?

I am a Russian, and my nick here explicitly suggests it, if one can read. So what?

marmite66
25-05-2009, 19:34
I am a Russian, and my nick here explicitly suggests it, if one can read. So what?

Whats a nick???????? ....Oh you mean nickname and why Lad? are you 12 or 15 years old? Nothing wrong with being Russian, Russians and the kindest and warmest people I have ever met and you have the best Vodka and women in the world.

:asskiss:

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 19:39
Whats a nick???????? ....Oh you mean nickname and why Lad are you 12 or 15 years old? Nothing wrong with being Russian, Russians and the kindest and warmest people I have ever met and you have the best Vodka and women in the world.

You can shove your superiority complex and patronizing attitude up your shaved/trimmed/unshaved Spanish arse, for all I care.

Qdos
25-05-2009, 19:44
You can shove your superiority complex and patronizing attitude up your shaved/trimmed/unshaved Spanish arse, for all I care.

You seen something I haven't RL? :cussing:

Come to think of it that's kinda putting me off my dinner anyway...

But WTF has it got to do with NK's nukes? :10220:

marmite66
25-05-2009, 19:45
You can shove your superiority complex and patronizing attitude up your shaved/trimmed/unshaved Spanish arse, for all I care.

My ass is unshaved and very hairy and waiting for you my lad, I'll even give you a free English lesson and a lesson Political Strategy and Sociology maybe then you will patronize me? I hope so:1306:

Game Over.

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 19:51
Come to think of it that's kinda putting me off my dinner anyway...

I have just seen that this guy (or is it a girl?) is as dumb as hell, and illiterate, to boot. But surely nothing should put you off your dinner, not even if thousands of NK citizens die. Enjoy your drumstick:).

Qdos
25-05-2009, 20:11
My ass is unshaved and very hairy and waiting for you my lad...

Best offer RL's had today... but is this announcement associated with the new absence of the mention of haemorrhoids in your forum signature? Be careful, they may require longer to heal that you think... :mooooh:

Anyone capable of posting on topic? :whisper:

marmite66
25-05-2009, 20:30
Best offer RL's had today... but is this announcement associated with the new absence of the mention of haemorrhoids in your forum signature? Be careful, they may require longer to heal that you think... :mooooh:

Anyone capable of posting on topic? :whisper:

Cream was the best solution followed by a warm bath of Vodka. I have run a fresh one for RL and even combed my ass for him.

:bowdown:

Qdos
25-05-2009, 20:37
Oh please... :mooooh:

We're talking about THIS guy, not someone's ar$e... :rolleyes:

Russian Lad
25-05-2009, 20:51
YouTube- Bruce Cockburn Live . Call It Democracy



Evidently, North Koreans do not want THAT to happen to their home country:


Padded with power here they come
International loan sharks backed by the guns
Of market hungry military profiteers
Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared
With the blood of the poor

Who rob life of its quality
Who render rage a necessity
By turning countries into labour camps
Modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament --
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations'
Idolatry of ideology

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying ****
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy

See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

marmite66
25-05-2009, 21:53
I have just seen that this guy (or is it a girl?) is as dumb as hell, and illiterate, to boot. But surely nothing should put you off your dinner, not even if thousands of NK citizens die. Enjoy your drumstick:).

Don' t call me itsiterate or patroneezing. :trampoline:

Qdos
25-05-2009, 21:54
Be wary RL, the NK idiots have perhaps the capacity to reach Moscow with a missile... but lack the ability to reach Western Europe or the US of A... so I'd say [-]Putins[/-], err, Medvedevs response will be of some heightened significance... :nut:

Kvartiraokhotnik
25-05-2009, 22:11
Dear RL,

"People like you and Qdos is a majority" Plural "are a majority" apart from an English lesson (now I am being a bit arrogant)

Thanks teach!

How much do you charge for 1 academic hour?? I need help with commas. I still, for the life of me, cant work out, how on earth, to use the f*ckers!

Any more tips on how to speak your own native tongue??? Tell me, why does every c*nt and his dog in Essex say ''he don't know nothing'' and yet sound a million billion trillion times more fluent than when one of my spoilt brats forgets to conjugate the he and she form, leaving off the ''s''????

Please help my grammar and avoid any political issues, if you have no wise words to offer.

:confused1:

Swordfish90293
25-05-2009, 22:16
Qdos put it in perspective. Neither North Korea or anyone else including the U.S. would attack Russia for fear of an all out retaliation. I suggest RL move to North Korea and tie himself to the nearest nuclear reactor he finds. He'll undoubtedly be singing the same tune as here when the U.S. stratigically eliminates the key nuclear sites and infrstructure sending the buggers back to the stone age and forcing reconciliation with the South.

RL's arguments are from a bygone time. NK isn't dealing in an intelligent way. They're reasoning and actions are archaic. Their people are paying for their leaderships ignorance. It's their leaders who are arrogant.

Be humane. Don't bother RL anymore, he's obviously been hurt.

Qdos
25-05-2009, 22:23
I'm not having a 'go' at RL... we're just bantering... we may not always agree, however we've never exchanged sentiments relating to combing one-anothers ar$e hairs... :gay:

Regards NK I wouldn't be so sure... rumour has it that Kim is ill and his generals are struggling for power given there is no obvious successor to the sick git... therefore anything can happen...

Iraq never had nukes. People called the repercussions an over-reaction. What will they say if the response to the present threat is an under-reaction? ;)

Kvartiraokhotnik
25-05-2009, 22:26
Qdos put it in perspective. Neither North Korea or anyone else including the U.S. would attack Russia for fear of an all out retaliation. I suggest RL move to North Korea and tie himself to the nearest nuclear reactor he finds. He'll undoubtedly be singing the same tune as here when the U.S. stratigically eliminates the key nuclear sites and infrstructure sending the buggers back to the stone age and forcing reconciliation with the South.

RL's arguments are from a bygone time. NK isn't dealing in an intelligent way. They're reasoning and actions are archaic. Their people are paying for their leaderships ignorance. It's their leaders who are arrogant.

Be humane. Don't bother RL anymore, he's obviously been hurt.

Why oh why is it always the ''humanitarians'' who want to bomb other countries ''into the stone age''???? In the name of humanity, we have to commit genocide...if only to save the cowards who want to do no fighting whatsoever....

I'll be fighting with RL - even if the guy is mistaken about socialism, he clearly has a lot more character and moral fibre than these wallies who hide behind their military. They are like that annoying little shit in the playground who hurls insults at others and then hides behind his big brother. Utter wimps!

Qdos
25-05-2009, 23:20
I'm blotto, and therefore am open to even DDT's point of view... :rolleyes::drink:

Swordfish90293
26-05-2009, 00:13
Like putting words into other persons mouths? Sounds like a Soviet propaganda machine hangover. Argues everything other than the point. Obviously didn't learn anything from the crash of Communism. Still supporting your pinko brothers in NK...As far as hurling insults, and putting words in peoples mouths, what else can you do?


Why oh why is it always the ''humanitarians'' who want to bomb other countries ''into the stone age''???? In the name of humanity, we have to commit genocide...if only to save the cowards who want to do no fighting whatsoever....

I'll be fighting with RL - even if the guy is mistaken about socialism, he clearly has a lot more character and moral fibre than these wallies who hide behind their military. They are like that annoying little shit in the playground who hurls insults at others and then hides behind his big brother. Utter wimps!

Kvartiraokhotnik
26-05-2009, 08:09
Like putting words into other persons mouths? Sounds like a Soviet propaganda machine hangover. Argues everything other than the point. Obviously didn't learn anything from the crash of Communism. Still supporting your pinko brothers in NK...As far as hurling insults, and putting words in peoples mouths, what else can you do?

eh????

words in peoples mouths???

Let me quote:

''....sending the buggers back to the stone age'' How lovely!!! So the West will have achieved the same genocide against the commies in NK, that they've managed against the impoverished locals of Afghanistan and Iraq.''

Insults??? Let me quote, once more, but with one slight change....

''Be humane. Don't bother Swordfish anymore, he's obviously been hurt''

PS.... Pinko brothers??? Go to any of the threads where me and RL are debating and i think you'll understand that for me communism and socialism are the lowest forms of politics...on a par with fascism and monarchy. Nevertheless, just cos i dont like it, it doesnt mean i'd like to wipe out anyone living in a country with that political system. Basically I'm not a sadistic bast@rd who likes the idea of millions of innocent lives perishing. Now, what i'd like to know is....Are you a sadist, or is there a political argument you can give me to justify the use of force against North Korea?

Swordfish90293
26-05-2009, 09:40
Simply put, even an average debater will argue the point, which you fail to do.

Again, my point was to stratigically eliminate the threat which you turned into wiping out millions of people and punctuate with insults, discrediting your arguement further.

As far as the West being genocidal, this is certainly true. And personally, I don't think I've ever been accused of being a pacifist. However, before you start throwing stones, look to your own Soviet history for the definition of genocide.

Losing your cool and calling me a sadist bastard, aside from the compliment, speaks tons for your inability to argue effectively.

This brand of double talk is very familiar to anyone who followed Cold War dialog. When one can't sustain an argument they often resort to anger, personal insults or answer an entirely different question with indignation.



eh????

words in peoples mouths???

Let me quote:

''....sending the buggers back to the stone age'' How lovely!!! So the West will have achieved the same genocide against the commies in NK, that they've managed against the impoverished locals of Afghanistan and Iraq.''

Insults??? Let me quote, once more, but with one slight change....

''Be humane. Don't bother Swordfish anymore, he's obviously been hurt''

PS.... Pinko brothers??? Go to any of the threads where me and RL are debating and i think you'll understand that for me communism and socialism are the lowest forms of politics...on a par with fascism and monarchy. Nevertheless, just cos i dont like it, it doesnt mean i'd like to wipe out anyone living in a country with that political system. Basically I'm not a sadistic bast@rd who likes the idea of millions of innocent lives perishing. Now, what i'd like to know is....Are you a sadist, or is there a political argument you can give me to justify the use of force against North Korea?

Carbo
26-05-2009, 11:01
What needs doing with NK, regardless, is what should have been done with Saddam Hussein back in 1991. It could be accomplished with a few hundred cruise missiles carrying high explosives, targetted on strategic government targets in NK, taking out the key figures in the present regime, and as much of the million strong armed forces as possible.

Reunification with South Korea could then be possible to broker, providing no other immediate neighbouring states (like China) tried to seize the territory for themselves.
I Just to get back onto the original point of the thread, chaps, I’d like to say that I fundamentally disagree with Qdos’s above analysis.

I believe it would be virtually impossible to cripple to North Korean state with a few hundred high explosive cruise missiles.

To be sure, they would do damage, but that's about it, and then we'd have to deal with the response – a response that has 20 million South Koreans within artillery range in the Seoul metro area, and all of Japan within the range of its missiles.

Think about what we would need to do to guarantee some kind of safety and then think whether you’d be able to do this using conventional high explosives: The first priority would be to knock out the command and control structure, which means Kim and his nearest advisors, as well as key military personnel. It also means communications systems – which I guess are fairly rudimentary, but robust – and command centres – bunkers, HQs, that kind of thing. For this you’d need good intelligence. You’d need to know where Kim was, and with conventional explosives you’d have to score a virtual bullseye to hit the b@stard. I’m just not sure we can even get close to knowing where he is. He uses decoys, impersonators, probably moves around lots, sits in bunkers, theories abound that he’s actually dead – we just don’t know. But even if you could find the little poisonous dwarf, he’s bound to be in some kind of hardened area that can survive anything other than a direct hit from a nuke – not something a Tomahawk loaded with a high explosives ain't going to crack – and if he’s not, other key personnel within the command structure inevitably will be in a country like DRPK, which is permanently on a war footing.

So right away, I think you’re drawing a blank. Of course, other primary targets would be Army barracks, submarine pens, air fields, and nuclear energy and weapon facilities. Here again, I suspect that conventional weapons just aren’t going to give you the bang needed, unless you go in for thousands and thousands of manned air sorties – which is going to leave time and room to move stuff, and respond.

The only option, if you want to take the missile route, is nuclear, which I don’t think would be difficult. I think the US could easily park one if its Ohio subs in the region, although I’m led to believe that boomers usually like deep water, I’m sure they’ll be positioned to be able to strike Beijing and the far eastern coast of Russia, anyway. Not that positioning matters, the Trident II has intercontinental range, and any of the Pacific Fleet’s Ohios could launch from just about anywhere. Of course, that may cause alarm in Beijing and Moscow when they see SLBMs streaking in their general direction, but hey-ho. Certainly Trident II is a first strike capable weapon, with an accuracy, I’m led to believe, of CEP 100metres. There you’re talking about huge overpressures from a (potential) 450kt warhead with a high probability of landing bang on the target They’ll be able to assign two per target to get near guaranteed destruction.

Equally, DPRK is within easy striking distance of the B2 Spirits kept at Guam. Those baby’s can ghost in and drop highly accurate Nukes on target – about 15 single warhead weapons each which can be dialed up into the megaton range, I seem to remember

Of course, nukes are always going to be messy. Despite the US warheads being unusually ‘clean’, there’s still going to be fallout risk – mainly to populated areas in SK and Japan. There’ll also be huge amounts of inevitable collateral damage.

But if you’re going to do the job, it’s nukes, because no conventional weapons that can do it.

I’d also like to take Russia Lad to task for his views.

The DPRK is a nearly a failed state and is certainly a rogue state. It is highly unstable, and within the last 20 years has committed all kinds of atrocities, including attempting to assassinate the entire South Korean cabinet while in Burma, numerous acts of international terrorism, kidnappings and other nefarious deeds. And that’s quite apart from the way it treats its people. If you care so much for the people of North Korea, you should be lobbying to get these madmen out, because while they’re there, they’re keeping their people in a perpetual state of ignorance, extreme oppression and forever hovering on the brink of famine.

These alone are enough reasons not to compare responsible states like Britain, France, the US and Russia with North Korea. Saying if one can have nukes, the other should have as well is rather like saying that if Joe Six-Pack can have a gun for home security, then the clinically insane crack-dealer down the street can have one, too.

So I think that is reason enough. But there’s another reason. One of the DPRK’s biggest incomes is weapons sales to other rogue states. As soon as DPRK has enough nukes for itself, it’ll start selling to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Chechen extremists, and all kinds of other loonies and crazies you’ve never heard of. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Iran, Syria and NK are already cooperating on nuclear weaponry.

Is that what you want, Russian lad? Even if you think the crazy crack dealer has as much right to a gun as the law abiding citizen, do you really want to give him the ability to manufacture and sell it to every criminal in the neighbourhood?

marmite66
26-05-2009, 11:06
Thanks teach!

How much do you charge for 1 academic hour?? I need help with commas. I still, for the life of me, cant work out, how on earth, to use the f*ckers!

Any more tips on how to speak your own native tongue??? Tell me, why does every c*nt and his dog in Essex say ''he don't know nothing'' and yet sound a million billion trillion times more fluent than when one of my spoilt brats forgets to conjugate the he and she form, leaving off the ''s''????

Please help my grammar and avoid any political issues, if you have no wise words to offer.

:confused1:

I don't change less than 60 bucks an hour! English BTW is not my native tongue. Polical issues are the main diet if life even more so nowadays so bring it on and lets swap politics and put the world to rights.

:11513:

marmite66
26-05-2009, 11:15
Whats the answer for NK? We have all tried to cooperate with them and with Iran and for what?!? Fist or feather? tip-toe or stamp?

I think we agree both are highly dangerous and cannot be left to themselves any longer. Or are we just giving them a tough time as the likes of RL would have us think?

Carbo
26-05-2009, 11:27
Whats the answer for NK? We have all tried to cooperate with them and with Iran and for what?!? Fist or feather? tip-toe or stamp?

I think we agree both are highly dangerous and cannot be left to themsleves any longer. Or are we just giving them a tough time as the likes of RL would have us think?
As I see it, China is key to this.

They have the leverage to get something done. Will they use it?

Judge
26-05-2009, 11:47
As I see it, China is key to this.

They have the leverage to get something done. Will they use it?

China could take on NK ,like invade the country,this way it will stop the likes of Japan and America messing around in China's so called backyard.It's just a thought.

Strider
26-05-2009, 12:02
I also think that something should be done not to allow NK to get missiles with nukes, capable reaching other countries, but at the same time I don't want Russia to take any part in this, I think we have enough problems of our own, so taking part in a possible nuclear bombing doesn't sound like a good idea to me

speaking about preventive strikes... if it's not a nuclear strike, NK might use nukes on SK for example, and they will have every right to do this, because it will be a response, not the initial attack, and only nuclear strike can prevent NK from using their nukes

so if someone wants a war, it might probably be nuclear

or... everyone can just wait for Kim to die and their country to collapse, and hope that they won't nuke anyone


so this is why I don't want Russia to take part in this :)

Kvartiraokhotnik
26-05-2009, 12:06
Whats the answer for NK? We have all tried to cooperate with them and with Iran and for what?!? Fist or feather? tip-toe or stamp?

I think we agree both are highly dangerous and cannot be left to themsleves any longer. Or are we just giving them a tough time as the likes of RL would have us think?

I think we both agree......hmmm....

Do you want to know what I think? I think the most dangerous countries in the world are the US and UK. Wanna know why?? Let me just give you two reasons.

A) Milliions dead in Afghanistan and Iraq.
B) Arming countries like North Korea with light water nuclear reactors.

Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North Korea - swissinfo (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=1648385)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm

Ever seen Bill Hicks talk about Iraqi weapons during the gulf war? He makes the point much better, and much funnier, than I ever could.

YouTube- Bill Hicks - Iraq Weapons Conversion

res
26-05-2009, 12:13
the most dangerous countries in the world are the US and UK.

- Iraq Weapons Conversion[/url]



Joke of The Year..................hahahahahhahahhhhaaaaaa

Swordfish90293
26-05-2009, 12:14
The reply that's expected by NK is a missle launch loaded with $$$. The nuclear tests are a demented request for money. The U.S. should, as Carbo suggested, wait until Kim dies and throw money at them in the meantime. Paper is cheap. And the spending by NK may serve to help the economic crisis...

Kvartiraokhotnik
26-05-2009, 12:18
Joke of The Year..................hahahahahhahahhhhaaaaaa

?

Qdos
26-05-2009, 13:21
But if you’re going to do the job, it’s nukes, because no conventional weapons that can do it.

Whilst nukes could certainly be effective it's achieving just what NK wants. It is a dictatorship remember, and Kim is ill, but is flexing his frail muscles to very probably stave off a military coup. Of course, what he really wants is money, and lots of it. Kim will take the attitude that if he is attacked with nukes that he'd prefer to go out with a bang and go down in history as the man who [perhaps] started armageddon.

He would certainly wriggle with mirth if he thought the Japs were getting fallout because of him, even if it wasn't his nukes which were causing it directly.

If the Japanese are consulted do you see them agreeing to nuclear options when they will also cop the fallout on all four of their main islands? Just take a look at the map and you'll quickly realise it's quasi-impossible to avoid.

Perhaps, just perhaps, a high level nuke detonation to knock out Kims comms with an electro-magnetic pulse of huge magnitude would open the airspace up for carpet bombings of his miltary and personal facilities. However such a pulse would also knock out communications, banks, transportation, radar etc in North East China, most of Japan, South Korea, and Eastern Russia.

If there's an attack I'm sorry, but Russia and China are going to have to be involved every bit as much as the US of A are at the end of the day. This is something I'm very sure is essential, because as Carbo also says, Russia and China are otherwise (quite understandably) going to become very skittish if American Nukes start flying!

The other point with nukes, apart from fallout, is the legacy they leave in the atmosphere with regards to more UV penetration. The effects of that would be felt around the world by everyone.

Lest anyone forget, nukes are a deterrent. Kim's using them to rattle his sabre at the west and Japan. However he hasn't got the delivery vehicle for American soil and if he did pop one off he'd likely choose Tokyo and Seoul.

How far away is Vladivostock? A huge Russian navy base and trade centre, because if Kim thought there was a coalition of nations out to get him which included Russia (and he has enough nuclear warheads) he could also perhaps target Vladivostok, Nakdhodka and Ussuriysk.

Maybe Moscow would welcome institution of the US missile shield after all...

It could also be a prime case for biological warfare... a coalition of nations using those weapons 'none of them have' to bring down NK military centres and then hitting Kims known 'dachas' with bunker busting conventional missiles - and even if he survived, the odds are that he would be cocooned permanently below the debris, and nobody would feel like digging him out.

marmite66
26-05-2009, 14:28
As I see it, China is key to this.

They have the leverage to get something done. Will they use it?

China supply their fuel etc but won't get invloved as they don't want all NK's people going to their country if the S**t hits the fan.

China and SK are the key to ending it, I agree. Talking and sanctions solve nothing, look at Iran and NK. The mad can't be reasoned with.

Another option is to somehow turn his people agianst him! but how? by a mass propaganda mail drops by plane over NK? The Russians won't get invloved and I'm sure our bearded guy in Iran is laughing his pants off at us all.

:ak:

Qdos
26-05-2009, 15:10
I'm gonna be rewiring my ethernet the rest of today LOL, but wish I could stay on this debate, but since I've bored mahoosive holes through all the concrete and brick, and have glass fibre rash up to my armpits... it's time to bite the bullet, snip the wires... and thread stuff through all the new holes and conduits... :mooooh:

Hope there's a world left to come back to once I'm all done... :D

Scrat335
26-05-2009, 20:28
Well the chickens are out of the coop now.

First off it was not 20 MEGATONS. It was in the range of 15 to 20 KILOTONS. A 20 megaton bomb detonated at 850 feet (the estimated depth) would have left a hole a half mile wide and pollutes the whole region with dirty fallout. This thing was a fart in the wind compared to even smallest megaton range weapons the big boys have.

It does look like that now the leadership of NK will be sitting happy for some time thanks to the panic mongering of the west and it seems, the world at large. That moron of a SK president seems to have derailed all of the progress made recently towards a big change in the region. The fearmongers have done their part in toto.

This is going to go on for decades to come, the people of NK will suffer in their isolated world for decades to come as the powers that be in the west want it.


Another option is to somehow turn his people agianst him! but how?

Let the ones who want out get out. Stop sending them back over the border and the nations of the world can set up a fund. 10,000 a head for every NK citizen brought out of the country (alive and in good health) and resettled in America and Great Britain, Europe. They will find ways of getting in touch with their families by any means.

Contaminate the society by dropping little radios, hell drop reconditioned laptops with long life batteries on them. Park a sattelite over them that will give free access to everyone there. Ideas will form, some people will become restless, what is daddy Kim going to do? Kill every farmer he has in the country? We've got stealth bombers parked, you could get a thousand of the damn things on one and drop them all over the country. People will find them, learn how to use them, see something different. People are innately curious, it's in our nature. 90% of them may be policed up and destroyed or whatever but 10% of them will be picked up by people and accessed. With time things will change.

We have the means. Has this ever been tried? Not to my knowledge and the reason is, the world does not want this situation to change. The world needs a boogie man, the powers that be don't want this to end.

Pathetic.

Kvartiraokhotnik
26-05-2009, 20:42
We have the means. Has this ever been tried? Not to my knowledge and the reason is, the world does not want this situation to change. The world needs a boogie man, the powers that be don't want this to end.

Pathetic.

Its people like Scratt that make this forum a million times better than it was 3 years ago. I'm so glad things changed.

:bowdown:

Russian Lad
26-05-2009, 22:54
Contaminate the society by dropping little radios, hell drop reconditioned laptops with long life batteries on them. Park a sattelite over them that will give free access to everyone there. Ideas will form, some people will become restless, what is daddy Kim going to do? Kill every farmer he has in the country? We've got stealth bombers parked, you could get a thousand of the damn things on one and drop them all over the country. People will find them, learn how to use them, see something different.

On the whole I agree, though this passage above is really naive, no offence, Scrat. And besides, it never occurred to you that they may be totally satisfied with the way things stand at their home land? When I lived in USSR many people were bearing a grudge against some issues, but on the whole it was an ok living for most people.

Kvartiraokhotnik
26-05-2009, 23:41
On the whole I agree, though this passage above is really naive, no offence, Scrat. And besides, it never occurred to you that they may be totally satisfied with the way things stand at their home land? When I lived in USSR many people were bearing a grudge against some issues, but on the whole it was an ok living for most people.

I know it was way before your time RL, and cant be compared to the situation in N.Korea, but what do you think about the Russians opinion of their political system during Stalins purges? How did they feel about it? Were they aware of it?? I was chatting the other day to a girl who was desrcibing the novel ''Children of the Arbat'', and to me it was really difficult to understand why there was very little rebellion or resistance. (again excuse my historical ignorance if there was, and provide me with the info and links...info is always good) How could the Russians let this happen to their own people? You see, I understand how populations turn a blind eye to their governments when the attrocities are happening in other places....just take a look at the UK and US, and many of their populace have been so brainwashed that they dont really understand that their taxes are being used to wipe millions of innocents in far away places off the face of the Earth. They think the soldiers are killing evil terrorists. I know during Hitlers time the Nazis showed films of the jews in Labour camps to the Germans, and the conditions looked pretty good, so their consciences could sleep a little more gently...

Was it just the case that the Russians were also duped (by a conspiracy again, no less) by their own government into thinking it wasnt happening??? Or were they too afraid to fight back??? Or were they afraid for their families sake?? What exactly, in your opinion?

Please understand that these are genuine questions from an honest soul who believes thoroughly in the following words:

''Despite all appearances, no one is really evil. They are led astray by ignorance''

Tesla quoting Buddha, I believe....

Swordfish90293
27-05-2009, 00:48
He would certainly wriggle with mirth if he thought the Japs were getting fallout because of him, even if it wasn't his nukes which were causing it directly.

Japs? Did you say JAPS? I haven't heard that term since before my old man passed away, and on every Memorial Day and December 7th before that!

Thanks for the memories...

Qdos
27-05-2009, 00:51
Japs? Did you say JAPS? I haven't heard that term since before my old man passed away, and on every Memorial Day and December 7th before that!

Well then, nips... if you prefer it... :eh:

marmite66
27-05-2009, 09:00
Well the chickens are out of the coop now.

First off it was not 20 MEGATONS. It was in the range of 15 to 20 KILOTONS. A 20 megaton bomb detonated at 850 feet (the estimated depth) would have left a hole a half mile wide and pollutes the whole region with dirty fallout. This thing was a fart in the wind compared to even smallest megaton range weapons the big boys have.

It does look like that now the leadership of NK will be sitting happy for some time thanks to the panic mongering of the west and it seems, the world at large. That moron of a SK president seems to have derailed all of the progress made recently towards a big change in the region. The fearmongers have done their part in toto.

This is going to go on for decades to come, the people of NK will suffer in their isolated world for decades to come as the powers that be in the west want it.



Let the ones who want out get out. Stop sending them back over the border and the nations of the world can set up a fund. 10,000 a head for every NK citizen brought out of the country (alive and in good health) and resettled in America and Great Britain, Europe. They will find ways of getting in touch with their families by any means.

Contaminate the society by dropping little radios, hell drop reconditioned laptops with long life batteries on them. Park a sattelite over them that will give free access to everyone there. Ideas will form, some people will become restless, what is daddy Kim going to do? Kill every farmer he has in the country? We've got stealth bombers parked, you could get a thousand of the damn things on one and drop them all over the country. People will find them, learn how to use them, see something different. People are innately curious, it's in our nature. 90% of them may be policed up and destroyed or whatever but 10% of them will be picked up by people and accessed. With time things will change.

We have the means. Has this ever been tried? Not to my knowledge and the reason is, the world does not want this situation to change. The world needs a boogie man, the powers that be don't want this to end.

Pathetic.

How about sending a DC 10 packed to the cockpit with billions of paper propaganda leaflets (flyers) telling people in Koreans about life outside NK. The plane would be flew over the capital on a moonless black night and the cargo doors openend. It would be like leaves falling from a tree over an arid land. I the morning the slanty eyes would go outside to wash the rice and find paper flyers all over their washing lines telling them the truth albeit an edited version, of life outside NK!!

Just a thought.... although their radar (made circa 1950) would prob pick it up, would it be possible to put many speakers near the boarder in SK and blast the truth to NK 24/7??

I think the biggest prob is the people simply don't know what life is like outside of NK, they get their news fed to them and all this action now by their "dearest leader" is to show them he will protect them from the Americans.... etc so he continues to be loved (or loved by force) , i.e love me or be shot in the back of the head kinda way.

I have to also have say that these nutjobs world wide have been pissed off by the Ameriacans for so many years that they are now ready for action. Look at Iran, Libia, NK ....etc etc. Those guys just can't help putting their nose where is should not be? Don't Fcuk with a bomb if you don't know which is the red wire and which is the green wire, leave well alone. I think they would admit it themselves!? but hey too little too late now.

:ak:

AstroNoodle
27-05-2009, 09:15
To be sure, they would do damage, but that's about it, and then we'd have to deal with the response a response that has 20 million South Koreans within artillery range in the Seoul metro area, and all of Japan within the range of its missiles.

Qdos, Carbo is right. His entire post is correct. There is no easy way to start a war with NK. Zero.

Attacking NK means automatically placing millions of South Koreans under instant conventional bombardment. Imagine the top third of South Korea in ruin in the first week or two of the war, if not sooner. This is not Hezbollah firing a few rockets at Israel -- a conventional bombardment from NK, which could have been triggered at any moment for many years now, would be just like pressing a nuke button. It is that bad.

There is a reason that GWB went for so-called "Axis of Evil" member, Iraq.
NK is a real strong-man.

As for the stuff you wrote about nuking their entire military etc. -- no way. Maybe that could happen in a video game, but not real life in NK.

Carbo
27-05-2009, 11:20
Qdos, Carbo is right. His entire post is correct. There is no easy way to start a war with NK. Zero.

Attacking NK means automatically placing millions of South Koreans under instant conventional bombardment. Imagine the top third of South Korea in ruin in the first week or two of the war, if not sooner. This is not Hezbollah firing a few rockets at Israel -- a conventional bombardment from NK, which could have been triggered at any moment for many years now, would be just like pressing a nuke button. It is that bad.

There is a reason that GWB went for so-called "Axis of Evil" member, Iraq.
NK is a real strong-man.

As for the stuff you wrote about nuking their entire military etc. -- no way. Maybe that could happen in a video game, but not real life in NK.
Oh, I'm fairly sure the US could knock out most of the NK military with nukes if it wanted.

But, then, the phrase "nuke them back to the stone age" doesn't really count much, since Kim has taken them most of the way there himself.

However, any conventional escalation would lead to a brutal war with NK, you are correct to argue.

If it was conventional, I'm fairly confident the US and SK could win that, but not without a heavy cost. Well, that would be if the US military wasn't already, from what I've read, stretched to breaking point in Afghanistan and Iraq -- fighting at least one worthless war.

Of course, here we have a dictator who is REALLY developing WMDs and Bush, the yellow-bellied, draft-dodging, proven, on record coward, didn't want any part of that fight.

Carbo
27-05-2009, 12:35
If the Japanese are consulted do you see them agreeing to nuclear options when they will also cop the fallout on all four of their main islands? Just take a look at the map and you'll quickly realise it's quasi-impossible to avoid.

Perhaps, just perhaps, a high level nuke detonation to knock out Kims comms with an electro-magnetic pulse of huge magnitude would open the airspace up for carpet bombings of his miltary and personal facilities. However such a pulse would also knock out communications, banks, transportation, radar etc in North East China, most of Japan, South Korea, and Eastern Russia.

I don’t think that would be effective, to be honest. Look, a high altitude detonation of a large nuclear weapon would cause huge electromagnetic interference, but it would probably zap everything in South East Asia. There’s no way to restrict the impact of that kind of thing to just DPRK – no way. The Americans haven’t done as much research on that as the Soviets did, from what I know, and, from what we can tell, there would be massive problems throughout the region. Further, while unhardened, civilian electronics (and anything that uses electricity, such as cars, for example) would be knocked out, Kim’s military infrastructure is most likely hardened against it.

So all that would achieve is massive damage on a huge geographical scale, and little damage done to Kim.

As for fallout, you’d have to look at the prevailing winds and the yield-fissile material ratio likely to be used. You’d also have to take into account that most of the detonations would be ground bursts – which cause far worse fallout. All these kind of calculations are beyond my paygrade, to be honest, but you’re right to suggest it might be politically unacceptable.


If there's an attack I'm sorry, but Russia and China are going to have to be involved every bit as much as the US of A are at the end of the day. This is something I'm very sure is essential, because as Carbo also says, Russia and China are otherwise (quite understandably) going to become very skittish if American Nukes start flying!

The other point with nukes, apart from fallout, is the legacy they leave in the atmosphere with regards to more UV penetration. The effects of that would be felt around the world by everyone.

I seriously doubt there would be any problems with long term o-zone in the atmosphere. That’s nuclear winter territory, and I don’t think you’d be talking about enough strategic-sized weapons used in a strategic way (ie, airburst to maximize blast radius) to merit that.


Lest anyone forget, nukes are a deterrent. Kim's using them to rattle his sabre at the west and Japan. However he hasn't got the delivery vehicle for American soil and if he did pop one off he'd likely choose Tokyo and Seoul.
Of course he has the delivery means. Missiles are the most difficult to achieve delivery vehicles, but by no means the only one. Have you seen The Sum of All Fears? Who’s to say that he can’t just stick one on a freighter and sail it right into San Diego harbour and have it sit there? DPRK special forces are surely among the best in the world – I’m not sure there are many with the audacity or the skill to assassinate the entire cabinet of a foreign nation on foreign soil – so it’s not exactly beyond the imagination that they could do something similar.

marmite66
27-05-2009, 13:02
Oh dear our little dictat has lost it!! I beg China etc to come down hard on them and for America etc to stay out of the fight. The gloves and now off!!!

:boxing:


Telegraph May 2009:

Pyongyang said that South Korea's decision to start intercepting ships that are suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction was tantamount to "a declaration of war against us".

The statement follows a number of missile tests and an underground nuclear test by the North in the last two days.

The statement, through North Korea's state newswire, warned Seoul that North Korea "will no longer be bound by the armistice accord" and that the "Korean peninsula will go back to a state of war".

Pyongyang had previously warned Seoul that joining the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) would have fearful consequences.

No formal peace treaty has ever been signed between the two countries, but an armistice in 1953 and a Mutual Defence treaty between the US and South Korea effectively ended the Korean war.

In October 2007, Kim Jong-il and Roh Moo-hyun, the former president of South Korea who committed suicide last weekend, signed a pact declaring "permanent peace" between the two sides.

The North Korean statement added that its troops will take "corresponding military action", without giving any details. "Those who have provoked us will face unimaginable merciless punishment". A possible first target may be five South Korean islands near the border between the two countries in the Yellow Sea, after Pyongyang refused to "guarantee the legal status" of the territories.

The PSI is largely symbolic, and does not permit South Korean forces to search ships or ground planes outside of its sovereign territory. President Lee Myung-bak had dithered over whether to join the project for over a month, but took the plunge on Tuesday after North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb in an undergound bunker on its north eastern coast.

Residents in North Korea's capital were reported by the state media to have held a mass rally on Wednesday at the Pyongyang Indoor Stadium to celebrate the country's second nuclear test, perhaps confirming that the purpose of the bomb test was to shore up domestic support for Kim Jong-il's leadership.

Choe Thae-Bok, a senior official of North Korea's Communist party, said military threats and economic sanctions had prompted the North to conduct the second test. "It was a grand undertaking to protect the supreme interests of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," he said, accusing the US of planning a "preemptive nuclear attack and sanctions and pressure" on North Korea.

Meanwhile, North Korea has launched a further missile, bringing the total number of short-range missiles fired in the past three days to six.

A South Korean official told Yonhap, the news agency, that a night-time missile launch had been carried out on Tuesday and that there are signs of imminent further launches along the rogue state's West coast. The North has warned that it may continue to launch missiles until Saturday.

"The North appears to have launched a ground-to-ship missile into the East Sea shortly after 9pm Tuesday," said the unnamed Defence official. Pyongyang had already launched two missiles from its east coast earlier on Tuesday, after firing three on Monday.

It is unclear whether the missiles are test-launches, or whether North Korea is seeking to dissuade South Korean and US spy planes from hovering over its military installations in order to verify its claim of a nuclear test.

According to the Chosun Ilbo newspaper, spy planes have detected steam coming from the nuclear reprocessing facility at North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plant, suggesting that North Korea has once again begun to extract plutonium for its weapons programme.

The North has already warned that it intended to being turning its spent nuclear fuel rods into plutonium in protest at the international criticism of its rocket test on April 5. Yongbyon is thought to be capable of processing 200 to 250 tons of spent fuel each year and harvesting around 100kg of plutonium. In the past, the US has warned that reprocessing fuel is an action that could lead to a military strike on the country.

Pyongyang triggered global condemnation on Monday after detonating a nuclear bomb in a bunker six-miles underground, in the country's north east. Experts are now scaling down their estimates of the size of the nuclear device, and a precise analysis will take days or weeks. However a senior White House official said yesterday the explosion was "several kilotons", a major advance on the North's test in 2006.

The United Nations Security Council met on Tuesday to begin work on a response to North Korea's actions, and Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN said a new resolution "will indeed take some time". Mrs Rice said the US wanted "a strong resolution with teeth. Those teeth could take various different forms. They are economic levers, they are other levers that we might pursue."

The Security Council is expected to produce its plan in the next fortnight, although it is likely to face opposition from China on any major sanctions, especially since only China has any major economic ties with the pariah state.

The Chinese government said that it was "resolutely opposed" to the nuclear test, but weakened the tone of its statement from the strong words it issued in response to North Korea's first nuclear test in October 2006. It also called for a "calm response" to the crisis and expressed hope that the issue would be resolved through dialogue. China is North Korea's biggest source of food and fuel, but receives access to North Korean minerals in return.

With tensions on the Korean peninsula high, South Korea said it would join a US-led initiative to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction, a move that Pyongyang has previously warned it would consider "an act of war".

Telegraph May 2009

Nice hats !!! Adds at least 6 inches to ones height to look more frightening. Nice touch dear leader put an old rain coat on over your PJ's!

Kvartiraokhotnik
27-05-2009, 13:35
Of course, here we have a dictator who is REALLY developing WMDs and Bush, the yellow-bellied, draft-dodging, proven, on record coward, didn't want any part of that fight.


Thats probably because he sold them the WMD's.

Doesnt anyone else think this is an important factor in deciding what to do about this? After all, it seems a tad hypocritical to sell weapons to a country and then criticise that country for having these weapons, and threaten them with war.

Perhaps I'm alone in finding the behaviour of our governments in all this a little reprehensible.

Carbo
27-05-2009, 13:36
Thats probably because he sold them the WMD's.

Doesnt anyone else think this is an important factor in deciding what to do about this? After all, it seems a tad hypocritical to sell weapons to a country and then criticise that country for having these weapons, and threaten them with war.

Perhaps I'm alone in finding the behaviour of our governments in all this a little reprehensible.
You're talking about Iraq?

I don't think they sold weapons to Korea.

Qdos
27-05-2009, 13:43
Yet, as you rightly say Carbo, the next logical step could be shipping a device into terrorist hands or stealthily planting a bomb at a target in the physical sense...

Clearly Kim needs to be stopped from further nuclear development. He can't be trusted with nuclear power, so even those facilities need removal from his grasp.

The question is at what cost?

Do you really believe the only answer is a nuclear attack on his regime?

Some interesting statistics I heard on the news yesterday... 23 million people make up the population of the country, and 1 million of them are employed by the military - which means a staggering 4-5% of the citizens.

Very probably another 2-3% are employed in some capacity of civil servant, and whether lowly, propaganda, or ministerial, doesn't matter, the point is that around 6% to 8% of the entire country are key regime supporters who know no other way of life - or any other political approaches.

What about the remaining majority? Are they all peasants or farmers? Many must be teachers, technicians, white collar workers of various types - how many have family in South Korea? What will they all feel about being nuked to promote a regime change? What will they feel if Kims response is to unleash all his military ordonnance on South Korea?

I'm confident that North Korea can pop off their various missiles at pretty quick notice and that even a cruise delivered few nukes, as you've kind of suggested, won't take out the whole of his army or strategic command in full enough and fast enough measure to prevent South Korea (and perhaps Japan...) coming under heavy attack.

I know they have submarines too, and I wonder what they're armed with.

Therefore will there be fewer casualties with a nuclear approach, or a more conventional military stance? Ok, that's rhetorical, nobody really knows for sure - but the after effects of the nukes are dreadful and using them could see millions of irradiated refugees pushing through into SK, China and Russia, and who will take care of them?

Ground level nukes will still create a few craters of a couple miles wide total devastation a piece. Low level missile delivered nukes have never been used upon a populated or built up area in the history of warfare, the only guidance as to what harm is going to result are based on desert tests and computer generated models.

Plus we had Obama recently saying America 'feels responsible' for nuclear non-proliferation efforts because the USA was the nation which first used the A-Bomb in war... so I'm not sure he'd be willing to use his arsenal on Kim in any event - unless it was in retaliation for a nuclear attack.

I still believe missile delivered biological weapons could disable his military as effectively as nukes, with less long term harm, no lasting fallout, and fewer civilian deaths; and that the US could augment South Korean anti-missile capabilities to try and minimize casualties there too.

To do nothing is inviting the inevitable...

Green Tea
27-05-2009, 13:43
Good for North Korea.

We all know the only reason the USA wants into North Korea, is to build slave wage factories, paying 3 cents a day to its workers, and undercut the Chinese manufacturing economy, and keep prices low for Wal-Mart customers.

:jester:

Swordfish90293
27-05-2009, 16:14
"While we should never give up our principles, we must also realize that we cannot maintain our principles unless we survive.

If peace is equated simply with the absence of war, it can become abject pacifism that turns the world over to the most ruthless."

- Henry Kissinger

Carbo
27-05-2009, 16:25
[B]"Those who have provoked us will face unimaginable merciless punishment".
You have to appreciate the DPRK PR chaps' grip on the English language.

I love their press releases -- full of the kind of archane language that a wild-eyed pirate might have said to Errol Flynn in a 1940s Hollywood swashbuckler.

Didn't they claim America's condemnation of their recent ICBM launch was "brigandish"?

I bet President Obama secretly loved being called a brigand.

Carbo
27-05-2009, 16:38
Yet, as you rightly say Carbo, the next logical step could be shipping a device into terrorist hands or stealthily planting a bomb at a target in the physical sense...

Clearly Kim needs to be stopped from further nuclear development. He can't be trusted with nuclear power, so even those facilities need removal from his grasp.

The question is at what cost?

Do you really believe the only answer is a nuclear attack on his regime?

Some interesting statistics I heard on the news yesterday... 23 million people make up the population of the country, and 1 million of them are employed by the military - which means a staggering 4-5% of the citizens.

Very probably another 2-3% are employed in some capacity of civil servant, and whether lowly, propaganda, or ministerial, doesn't matter, the point is that around 6% to 8% of the entire country are key regime supporters who know no other way of life - or any other political approaches.

What about the remaining majority? Are they all peasants or farmers? Many must be teachers, technicians, white collar workers of various types - how many have family in South Korea? What will they all feel about being nuked to promote a regime change? What will they feel if Kims response is to unleash all his military ordonnance on South Korea?

I'm confident that North Korea can pop off their various missiles at pretty quick notice and that even a cruise delivered few nukes, as you've kind of suggested, won't take out the whole of his army or strategic command in full enough and fast enough measure to prevent South Korea (and perhaps Japan...) coming under heavy attack.

I know they have submarines too, and I wonder what they're armed with.

Therefore will there be fewer casualties with a nuclear approach, or a more conventional military stance? Ok, that's rhetorical, nobody really knows for sure - but the after effects of the nukes are dreadful and using them could see millions of irradiated refugees pushing through into SK, China and Russia, and who will take care of them?

Ground level nukes will still create a few craters of a couple miles wide total devastation a piece. Low level missile delivered nukes have never been used upon a populated or built up area in the history of warfare, the only guidance as to what harm is going to result are based on desert tests and computer generated models.

Plus we had Obama recently saying America 'feels responsible' for nuclear non-proliferation efforts because the USA was the nation which first used the A-Bomb in war... so I'm not sure he'd be willing to use his arsenal on Kim in any event - unless it was in retaliation for a nuclear attack.

I still believe missile delivered biological weapons could disable his military as effectively as nukes, with less long term harm, no lasting fallout, and fewer civilian deaths; and that the US could augment South Korean anti-missile capabilities to try and minimize casualties there too.

To do nothing is inviting the inevitable...
I have no doubt that a fully-staffed, ready to go US Military plus SK would smash them. Not saying it would be easy, and I'm not sure there are any General MacArthurs in the US Army brass to come up with genius moves like the amphibious invasion at Inchon, but I'd be confident.

They have a big, dangerous army, to be sure, but in a conventional, armoured battle, there is noone, and I mean noone, who is going to cause the Americans to pause right now. Their military is EXCELLENT for that type of war.

But the army is not at full strength: it is stretched to breaking point, it has a few hundred thousand troops mired in two horrible, messy, asymmetrical wars (in which it is not adept, and it was never designed to fight), recruitment levels are at post-Vietnam lows, I'm led to believe, and generally, it's struggling.

As for cruise missile versus ballistic missile versus gravity bomb delivery methods, I think the yield, rather than the delivery methods are key. Unless you're talking about buncker busters. American nukes tend to have smaller yields, because their delivery systems are more accurate than anyone elses, so they don't need to be massive to take out the target. But, anyway, 400kt on a densly populated area is going to do plenty of damage, believe me.

MickeyTong
27-05-2009, 16:55
But DPRK has this man as their Glorious Dear Leader!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dC2aDHtEqk&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2STc6mvIzY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvAUiN4jr6g&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLlrqdVVb5Y&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTnQA12IPMo&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDBCGNGAypY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjTu_KsS_T8&feature=channel

Strider
27-05-2009, 17:35
OMG !

it's like watching soviet agitation... though it seems that they have taken few steps even further :)

is4fun
27-05-2009, 18:21
Russian Lad, Kvarrtirakhotnik and Scrat335; I am ready and willing to hear each one's rebuttal to the posted propaganda clips by M. Tong as they will reflect on credibility for future "common sense" assessment... :) Please keep in mind your previous posts...

Scrat335
27-05-2009, 19:01
On the whole I agree, though this passage above is really naive, no offence, Scrat. And besides, it never occurred to you that they may be totally satisfied with the way things stand at their home land? When I lived in USSR many people were bearing a grudge against some issues, but on the whole it was an ok living for most people.

No offense taken RL and yes I may be naive and ignorant of what the people of NK really think of the situation. What you have to said above is the best so far as you have been in the situation. Does my media really tell me the whole story or anything even close to the truth? I know it doesn't. I don't think the NK media does either. I don't think the ruling class of NK has an interest in cooperating with the rest of the world just as Japan SK America have no interest solving the situation.

I noticed Mickey put up a bunch of videos, I already know what they will tell me and it has little substance. I will look at them but I don't expect a lot.

Kvartiraokhotnik
27-05-2009, 19:15
Russian Lad, Kvarrtirakhotnik and Scrat335; I am ready and willing to hear each one's rebuttal to the posted propaganda clips by M. Tong as they will reflect on credibility for future "common sense" assessment... :) Please keep in mind your previous posts...

Call me Kvarti...it'll make the spelling easier.

When I get an answer to my question of why we are allowed to sell WMDs to countries and then declare war on account of them having them, i'll answer other peoples queries. Until then, its thread closed for me, as a debate always has 2 sides. Its unfair to expect one side to ask and the other only to answer. One side asks, the other answers, and THEN the opposite.

is4fun
27-05-2009, 21:12
Call me Kvarti...it'll make the spelling easier.

When I get an answer to my question of why we are allowed to sell WMDs to countries and then declare war on account of them having them, i'll answer other peoples queries. Until then, its thread closed for me, as a debate always has 2 sides. Its unfair to expect one side to ask and the other only to answer. One side asks, the other answers, and THEN the opposite.

Thanks for the easy spelling Kvarti... :)

We are allowed to sell nuclear technology to countries that use it responsibly i.e. Canada, Romania, Japan etc., however, when the countries turn and use it to make bombs and threaten other countries that they will use this technology to protect an imbecile who thinks he has all the answers to the world’s problems or just to save his skin, I think many do have a problem with that. Why do Britain and France have nuclear technology? Did they invent this technology? Are they responsible countries? Judging from some of your posts you think not. It is clear how the Soviets aquired the technology but how did Britain, France and Israel get it? By stealing it? LOL I never heard of Australia using their nuclear technology to make nuclear weaponry. Another news story of late: BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | N Korea threatens military action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8069457.stm)

Qdos
27-05-2009, 21:39
Why do Britain and France have nuclear technology? Did they invent this technology? Are they responsible countries? Judging from some of your posts you think not. It is clear how the Soviets aquired the technology but how did Britain, France and Israel get it? By stealing it? LOL

Are you being pedantic here? :mooooh:

Arguably the least responsible country is the one who has used nukes... :devil:

Oppenheimer was what nationality, someone remind me please...

Kvartiraokhotnik
27-05-2009, 21:48
Thanks for the easy spelling Kvarti... :)

We are allowed to sell nuclear technology to countries that use it responsibly i.e. Canada, Romania, Japan etc., however, when the countries turn and use it to make bombs and threaten other countries that they will use this technology to protect an imbecile who thinks he has all the answers to the worlds problems or just to save his skin, I think many do have a problem with that. Why do Britain and France have nuclear technology? Did they invent this technology? Are they responsible countries? Judging from some of your posts you think not. It is clear how the Soviets aquired the technology but how did Britain, France and Israel get it? By stealing it? LOL I never heard of Australia using their nuclear technology to make nuclear weaponry. Another news story of late: BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | N Korea threatens military action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8069457.stm)

WHY DID RUMSFELD SELL THEM (North Korea) LIGHT WATER NUCLEAR REACTORS?

(see earlier link if you still dont believe me)

They didnt steal it. they bought it, and developed the rest themselves.

Hardly responsible selling a communist dictator Nukes is it? And somewhat idiotic complaining when he threatens to use them afterwards. Like giving your worst enemy a gun, and then moaning when he points it at you.

Thank the lord for QDOS et al.........


Please answer the question in capital letters is4fun, otherwise this isnt a debate. Debates need questions and answers on both sides, as far as im aware.

is4fun
27-05-2009, 22:11
WHY DID RUMSFELD SELL THEM (North Korea) LIGHT WATER NUCLEAR REACTORS?

(see earlier link if you still dont believe me)

They didnt steal it. they bought it, and developed the rest themselves.

Hardly responsible selling a communist dictator Nukes is it? And somewhat idiotic complaining when he threatens to use them afterwards. Like giving your worst enemy a gun, and then moaning when he points it at you.

Thank the lord for QDOS et al.........


Please answer the question in capital letters is4fun, otherwise this isnt a debate. Debates need questions and answers on both sides, as far as im aware.


I never stated that they stole it. Yes, the Brits and Canucks did buy the technology as did everyone else who has nuclear technology with the exception of the Russians, India and Pakistan. So, who can one trust when supplying this technology? One day they seem a fine lot of gents and the next day they turn against you and want to nuke you. What can you do? Subject them to a lie detector test to determine if indeed they are trustworthy?

is4fun
27-05-2009, 22:24
Are you being pedantic here? :mooooh:

Arguably the least responsible country is the one who has used nukes... :devil:

Oppenheimer was what nationality, someone remind me please...

I happen to disagree with you on this one Qdos. Youre implying that during a full blown war and the rudimentary knowledge of a new technology, the US was irresponsible for thwarting an aggressor by setting off two nuclear explosions on military and civilians. I consider that matter to be unfortunate, however, if you had been seated in the same position of power at that time and had to make the very decision as was made I am sure you would have had whole heartedly made it.

Kvartiraokhotnik
27-05-2009, 22:30
I never stated that they stole it. Yes, the Brits and Canucks did buy the technology as did everyone else who has nuclear technology with the exception of the Russians, India and Pakistan. So, who can one trust when supplying this technology? One day they seem a fine lot of gents and the next day they turn against you and want to nuke you. What can you do? Subject them to a lie detector test to determine if indeed they are trustworthy?

How about not trusting communist dictators with nukes in the first place??? No lie detector test necessary then, eh?? Would you have sold North Korea nukes??? Is it a wise policy to sell weapons to your enemies? Would the yanks have sold them to Hitler if he was good for the money???

Perhaps Rumsfeld just thought that Kim seemed like a reasonable chap eh?....in which case...RUMSFELD is an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE!!!!

Surely you agree with me here, no???

Perhaps you think its a great idea to give a gun to your worst enemy.

is4fun
27-05-2009, 22:33
Kvarti,

WHY DID RUMSFELD SELL THEM (North Korea) LIGHT WATER NUCLEAR REACTORS?


"The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west."

After this it was decided that Bush did not trust NK because NK would not positively engage with the West as now.

Guardian

The two faces of Rumsfeld | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea)

is4fun
27-05-2009, 22:37
How about not trusting communist dictators with nukes in the first place??? No lie detector test necessary then, eh?? Would you have sold North Korea nukes??? Is it a wise policy to sell weapons to your enemies? Would the yanks have sold them to Hitler if he was good for the money???

Perhaps Rumsfeld just thought that Kim seemed like a reasonable chap eh?....in which case...RUMSFELD is an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE!!!!

Surely you agree with me here, no???

Perhaps you think its a great idea to give a gun to your worst enemy.

I am able to agree that Rumsfeld was off in his understanding of the world but it was a gesture of good will by the Clinton administration. Unfortunately that good will turned sour and has continued to haunt the rest of the world.

Kvartiraokhotnik
27-05-2009, 22:48
Kvarti,

WHY DID RUMSFELD SELL THEM (North Korea) LIGHT WATER NUCLEAR REACTORS?


"The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west."

After this it was decided that Bush did not trust NK because NK would not positively engage with the West as now.

Guardian

The two faces of Rumsfeld | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea)

:eh:

So you are arguing it was a bad call basically? Oh well....nevermind eh!

Reminds me of what the Commies said after Stalin had died, about his purges....

He made a mistake.

And whata mistaka to maka, eh? Well, we're only human i suppose. Its only natural to sell weapons to various dictators and boogiemen around the world, only to regret it later....

Tell you what, I'll make a list of good for nothing never-do-wells, and you send it to the Barack Obama as a little reminder to make sure he doesnt accidentally start trading with any of these guys again:

Osama Bin Laden (got weapons from CIA and MI5 when fighting the soviets)
Saddam Hussein (no probs here...he's already dead....but just in case, eh?)
Kim Jong il (No more nukes for this naughty boy!)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (he promises its only for domestic energy, but my mate reckons this may be just a subterfuge...so better whack him on the list eh?)

Hope this helps, is4fun. I'm always willing to do my bit to save the world from global conflict. Now get the email sent ASAP!

Swordfish90293
27-05-2009, 22:54
The U.s. isn't going to put boots on the ground in NK. The Chinese would have a cow. But a strike ala Irak, now that would keep the war materials machine, Haliburton and the stock market happy...


I have no doubt that a fully-staffed, ready to go US Military plus SK would smash them. Not saying it would be easy, and I'm not sure there are any General MacArthurs in the US Army brass to come up with genius moves like the amphibious invasion at Inchon, but I'd be confident.

They have a big, dangerous army, to be sure, but in a conventional, armoured battle, there is noone, and I mean noone, who is going to cause the Americans to pause right now. Their military is EXCELLENT for that type of war.

But the army is not at full strength: it is stretched to breaking point, it has a few hundred thousand troops mired in two horrible, messy, asymmetrical wars (in which it is not adept, and it was never designed to fight), recruitment levels are at post-Vietnam lows, I'm led to believe, and generally, it's struggling.

As for cruise missile versus ballistic missile versus gravity bomb delivery methods, I think the yield, rather than the delivery methods are key. Unless you're talking about buncker busters. American nukes tend to have smaller yields, because their delivery systems are more accurate than anyone elses, so they don't need to be massive to take out the target. But, anyway, 400kt on a densly populated area is going to do plenty of damage, believe me.

Qdos
27-05-2009, 22:54
I happen to disagree with you on this one Qdos. Youre implying that during a full blown war....

Geezus is4fun... wasn't it over-obvious I was joking... :mooooh:

is4fun
27-05-2009, 23:09
:eh:

So you are arguing it was a bad call basically? Oh well....nevermind eh!

Reminds me of what the Commies said after Stalin had died, about his purges....

He made a mistake.

And whata mistaka to maka, eh? Well, we're only human i suppose. Its only natural to sell weapons to various dictators and boogiemen around the world, only to regret it later....

Tell you what, I'll make a list of good for nothing never-do-wells, and you send it to the Barack Obama as a little reminder to make sure he doesnt accidentally start trading with any of these guys again:

Osama Bin Laden (got weapons from CIA and MI5 when fighting the soviets)
Saddam Hussein (no probs here...he's already dead....but just in case, eh?)
Kim Jong il (No more nukes for this naughty boy!)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (he promises its only for domestic energy, but my mate reckons this may be just a subterfuge...so better whack him on the list eh?)

Hope this helps, is4fun. I'm always willing to do my bit to save the world from global conflict. Now get the email sent ASAP!

Had Stalin himself admitted that it was "his" mistake would have indeed placed Kim on a level unto his own, however because that was not the case I would consider them to be one and the same.

As for the rest of the rhetoric; please refer to my previous post on trust and administration. One day a friend and the next...? a foe. Who can one trust? People make enemies every day even with those who were considered friends earlier. :)

is4fun
27-05-2009, 23:14
Geezus is4fun... wasn't it over-obvious I was joking... :mooooh:

Perhaps I was just tired... But, reread your post and found a hint of humour and thus agree it was all in jest. Sorry.

Kvartiraokhotnik
27-05-2009, 23:19
As for the rest of the rhetoric; please refer to my previous post on trust and administration. One day a friend and the next...? a foe. Who can one trust? People make enemies every day even with those who were considered friends earlier. :)

Indeed!

Look at the Bush's. Friends one day with the Bin Ladens...enemies the next. Friends one day with Saddam Hussein, enemies the next. I believe their grandad, Prescott Bush, was a good friend of the Nazis in his time......

How difficult it is these days to know who you can trust!

My old man always said never trust a man who doesnt drink. I doubt any of the above drink, so perhaps my dad was right all along. perhaps he should be in charge?

is4fun
27-05-2009, 23:32
The U.s. isn't going to put boots on the ground in NK. The Chinese would have a cow. But a strike ala Irak, now that would keep the war materials machine, Haliburton and the stock market happy...

A US strike against NK will never happen without China's approval because so many Chinese had died supporting NK during the Korean War. China is the key to this problem and how this problem will be solved will depend on their diplomacy. I am sure at this time the Chinese are already covertly making arrangements once Kim has left to meet his maker.

is4fun
27-05-2009, 23:40
Indeed!

Look at the Bush's. Friends one day with the Bin Ladens...enemies the next. Friends one day with Saddam Hussein, enemies the next. I believe their grandad, Prescott Bush, was a good friend of the Nazis in his time......

How difficult it is these days to know who you can trust!

My old man always said never trust a man who doesnt drink. I doubt any of the above drink, so perhaps my dad was right all along. perhaps he should be in charge?

GW was actually convicted of a DWI in Florida when he was in his 20s. Still an ass but his term has ended (8 years Max. in the US) Kim will be in power untill death and still remain a DemiGod if his current regime retains power. DemiGod? In this day and age. LOL

Qdos
27-05-2009, 23:48
Perhaps I was just tired... But, reread your post and found a hint of humour and thus agree it was all in jest. Sorry.

No need for any apologies, this place is sometimes challenging by nature... ;)

Strider
27-05-2009, 23:52
it's interesting to see how american republicans and democrats are almost considered as two different countries :)

democrat: Bush sold NK nukes, you're all responsible for it!
republican: no, it was Clinton who did it, so you're the ones who are responsible for this

but in the end, both Bush and Clinton are Americans, and it doesn't matter who's idea was it, because it was American's idea

otherwise countries can go to war during one presidential term, and then when the next president takes his place he would just say something like "no, he's from another party, so we're kinda not responsible for all this mess we've done"

Green Tea
27-05-2009, 23:57
Immature isn't it!? Sometimes I think a 15 year blockade and boycott of the USA is what the world needs. Everyone just close your doors to them, expel diplomats, refuse tourists and expats, kick out all U.S. soldiers, and ignore their trashy pop culture.

Qdos
28-05-2009, 05:53
Apparently it's actually now dawned on Moscow that their major cities in the east are within range of Kimmy Boys missiles... and the official stance is that the Kremlin are playing things cool, but at the same time Medvedev is quite firmly underlining the authority of the United Nations in the matter...

Simultaneously, reading between the lines, Moscow is quietly preparing for a possible nuclear conflict on/surrounding the Korean peninsular, and offering moral support for Seoul as anti NK propaganda...

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/377494.htm

Meanwhile the Yanks are supporting the Japs... isn't it somehow odd how friendships and alliances shift radically over less than a single generation... :)

fenrir
28-05-2009, 09:19
Immature isn't it!? Sometimes I think a 15 year blockade and boycott of the USA is what the world needs. Everyone just close your doors to them, expel diplomats, refuse tourists and expats, kick out all U.S. soldiers, and ignore their trashy pop culture.

Keep sucking on that vodka bottle and watching Harry Potter movies since you are so into deluded fantasies.

DDT
28-05-2009, 09:22
Meanwhile the Yanks are supporting the Japs... isn't it somehow odd how friendships and alliances shift radically over less than a single generation... :)

Yeah!..........isn't it amazing what a little old atomic bomb or two did?

BTW, Japan was on our side in WWI too!

marmite66
28-05-2009, 10:13
Action is now required. The South and others must invade before the North attempts to send an old plane up in the air with a crude nuke on-board. They don't really have the capbability to launch a sophisticated rocket. If little "dictat" is bluffing then call his bluff, if he reallty is puffing up his feathers to look strong to his poor people then strike him down and do it NOW!

The longer its left the worse it will be- sanctions simply don't work, they have survived so long cut off from the rest of the world that it would not be a problem for them. We hear the Russians are taking action incase of a nuke fallout. Action against Kim would send a message to our bearded friend in Iran! Lets hope The Americans stay out of it as it is they that have pissed off all these people.

Don't poke a stick into a nest of bees!.... well thats exactly what they have done over the years and we are now all facing the music.

Having said that, maybe they will back off??? we can only hope so!

:mooooh: :eh:

Carbo
28-05-2009, 10:52
Kvarti, the reason the two light reactors were sold is that North Korea had a nuclear program anyway, and had declared that they were going to take the spend fuel rods from their existing two reactors and reprocess them into weapons grade plutonium.

The deal -- negotiated by Jimmy Carter, I seem to remember -- was that the US would provide the country with two light fuel nuclear reactors and a whole bunch of fuel oil.

I suppose the Clinton Administration figured that rather than having hundreds of thousands of people killed as the DPRK Army lobbed VX and Sarin chemical weapon artilliery (among other things) on Seoul in face of a war, it was better to play ball, to give them the reactors and oil (which is something they actually genuinely need for electricity generation), in exchange for the ability to monitor the plants through inspectors.

Eventually, they cheated, of course, which was to be expected, but was this option better than the alternative, i.e. DPRK going ahead and reprocessing its existing fuel rods, going nuclear, and then the US going to war? I think the answer to that is clearly "yes".

Carbo
28-05-2009, 11:22
Some of you may remember that I said that the first test of a couple of years back was a fizzle, and not a successful detonation.

Turns out that this was pretty weak, too. Probably around 1KT. Obviously, that's about a hundred times larger than a US MOAB fuel-air bomb, the most powerful conventional weapon in the west's inventory (or the world if you believe some of the questioning reports about the deployability of the Russian FOAB), but it's still a very small nuke.

ArmsControlWonk: More DPRK stuff (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2314/more-dprk-stuff)

Qdos
28-05-2009, 12:48
Turns out that this was pretty weak, too. Probably around 1KT. Obviously, that's about a hundred times larger than a US MOAB fuel-air bomb...

Would you want to be in Seoul or Tokyo if one was dropped then Carbo? ;)

I don't wish to knock your opinion, but you do make it sound like Hiroshoma and Nagasaki were a teaparty man. What on earth have the mathematical yields and comparisons actually got to do with the devastation and horrific legacy of even a tiny nuke or a dirty bomb?

Both South Korea and Japan are small in geographical terms, with a higher than US/Russian population density. A 'weaker' nuke would still affect them to a devastating degree.

I don't personally believe anyone is qualified to state which nukes are Ok and which ones are not until they've witnessed the horror of what even a tiny one can do to a civilisation...

Apart from that guy in Japan who was unlucky enough to have witnessed both Atomic Bombs falling! :9456:

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Man survived both atomic bombings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7963581.stm)

Carbo
28-05-2009, 13:06
Would you want to be in Seoul or Tokyo if one was dropped then Carbo? ;)

I don't wish to knock your opinion, but you do make it sound like Hiroshoma and Nagasaki were a teaparty man. What on earth have the mathematical yields and comparisons actually got to do with the devastation and horrific legacy of even a tiny nuke or a dirty bomb?

Both South Korea and Japan are small in geographical terms, with a higher than US/Russian population density. A 'weaker' nuke would still affect them to a devastating degree.

I don't personally believe anyone is qualified to state which nukes are Ok and which ones are not until they've witnessed the horror of what even a tiny one can do to a civilisation...

Apart from that guy in Japan who was unlucky enough to have witnessed both Atomic Bombs falling! :9456:

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Man survived both atomic bombings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7963581.stm)
Ahhh... don't get me wrong. I'm absolutely for attempts to further the nuclear disamament process. They're truly horrific weapons.

I'm just saying that DPRK might not be as close to a working, normal sized weapon as one might think.

they're still looking at about a 14th of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons.

Qdos
28-05-2009, 13:40
I'm just saying that DPRK might not be as close to a working, normal sized weapon as one might think.

Let's hope so :)

Kvartiraokhotnik
28-05-2009, 17:01
Kvarti, the reason the two light reactors were sold is that North Korea had a nuclear program anyway, and had declared that they were going to take the spend fuel rods from their existing two reactors and reprocess them into weapons grade plutonium.

The deal -- negotiated by Jimmy Carter, I seem to remember -- was that the US would provide the country with two light fuel nuclear reactors and a whole bunch of fuel oil.

I suppose the Clinton Administration figured that rather than having hundreds of thousands of people killed as the DPRK Army lobbed VX and Sarin chemical weapon artilliery (among other things) on Seoul in face of a war, it was better to play ball, to give them the reactors and oil (which is something they actually genuinely need for electricity generation), in exchange for the ability to monitor the plants through inspectors.

Eventually, they cheated, of course, which was to be expected, but was this option better than the alternative, i.e. DPRK going ahead and reprocessing its existing fuel rods, going nuclear, and then the US going to war? I think the answer to that is clearly "yes".

And in hindsight what a wise move it was eh Carbo?

When the nukes start flying, you may well want to rethink the wisdom of selling nukes to sadistic dictators.

Surfsup37
28-05-2009, 19:44
Kvarti,

If you are going to make an argument based on certain facts, then I suggest that you actually research those facts.

Fact 1 - North Korea was supplied with Heavy water Nuclear reactors by the Soviet Union back in the 1960's.

Nuclear Weapons Program - North Korea (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html)


In the mid-1960s, it established a large-scale atomic energy research complex in Yongbyon and trained specialists from students who had studied in the Soviet Union. Under the cooperation agreement concluded between the USSR and the DPRK, a nuclear research center was constructed near the small town of Yongbyon. In 1965 a Soviet IRT-2M research reactor was assembled for this center. From 1965 through 1973 fuel (fuel elements) enriched to 10 percent was supplied to the DPRK for this reactor.


In the same period the DPRK began to build a 5 MWe research reactor, what is called the "second reactor." In 1977 the DPRK concluded an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], allowing the latter to inspect a research reactor which was built with the assistance of the USSR.

It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon, respectively, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests. In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had been known for eight years from official IAEA reports. In 1985, under international pressure, Pyongyang acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, the DPRK refused to sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an obligation it had as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Declaration, which came into force on 19 February 1992, states that the two sides "shallnot test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deployor use nuclear weapons," and that they "shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities."

Under the framework agreement, the North would freeze and eventually dismantle its existing suspect nuclear program, including the 50 MW and 200 MW graphite-moderated reactors under construction, as well as its existing 5 MW reactor and nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. In return, Pyongyang would be provided with alternative energy, initially in the form of heavy oil, and eventually two proliferation-resistant light water reactors (LWR)


Fact 2 - The North Korea wa caught testing and developing nuclear techonlogy in the 1980's using those facilities provided by the Soviet Union.

Fact 3 - The light water reactors were provided to the the North Korean government in exchange for their stopping their existing nuclear weapons program.

Fact 4 - The light water reactors were never completed, and were not involved in the production of nuclear weapons. The old nuclear plants provided by the Soviet Union are the ones that they used to develop nuclear weapons.

N. Korea wants light-water reactors - North Korea- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19849354/)

The North had been promised two light-water reactors for power under a 1994 disarmament deal with the U.S. But that agreement fell apart in 2002 when Washington accused Pyongyang of embarking on a secret uranium enrichment program, sparking the latest standoff.


However, I take your point. The US should never negotiate with regimes like North Korea's since they will not honor any agreement they sign. In fact, as of 2007 North Korea was still demanding that the West supply light water reactors.



I can anticipate your next point. If only the West did supply North Korean with light water reactors than North Korean would not be threating us now. Ah but I guess it is a wash for you. For the last couple of days you were saying it was the US's fault for supplying reactos to North Korea.

Now you can claim that it was the US's fault for not supplying reactors to North Korea. Either way you win!

:SwoonLoveSmiley:

Kvartiraokhotnik
28-05-2009, 21:09
Fact 5

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html?siteSect=161&sid=1648385
BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | US grants N Korea nuclear funds (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm)
For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece)

Read, digest, communicate, illuminate and resonate.....

"These reactors are like all reactors, They have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we're trying to prevent it acquiring," Henry Sokolski told the Far Eastern Economic Review.


Hmmmmmm......

Still, I'm sure you know better surfsup!

Surfsup37
29-05-2009, 13:24
Kvarti,

The light water reactors were never buildt. That is why North Korea was trying to get the West to build them in 2007.


How do you create nuclear material from a reactor that was never buildt?

Again from 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19849354/

N. Korea wants light-water reactors
Envoy says it would be reward for dismantling atomic program

updated 1:05 a.m. ET July 21, 2007

BEIJING - North Korea’s nuclear envoy demanded Saturday that his country be given power-generating reactors as a reward for eventually dismantling its own atomic programs.

The demand presents a future hurdle at talks aimed at ridding Pyongyang of its ability to make nuclear bombs.

“In order to ultimately dismantle (the nuclear programs), light-water reactors should be given” to the North, Kim Kye Gwan told reporters before leaving Beijing, referring to a type of nuclear reactor that cannot be easily used to make bombs.

Qdos
29-05-2009, 13:38
Inevitably the spineless UN will apply sanctions, as probably will China, and there may be a shipping blocade with Chinese and US warships inspecting cargoes which will force the regime into further nationwide poverty and may spark a coup, a war with the south, or ultimately even a civil war...

Could be frightening if some generals loyal to Kim suddenly feel like going down with the sinking ship, and have their fingers on the nuke triggers, anyone can imagine the sort of bedlam which could ensue!

Equally, there might be elements of the military which could breakaway and hold onto nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip or deterrent against loyal forces usurping them...

One thing is sure. Sooner or later mad dog Kim will either use nukes, or his regime will unleash them in a coup or renegade military campaign - at which point the superpowers will squash North Korea like an insect :focus:

Russian Lad
29-05-2009, 14:19
Inevitably the spineless UN will apply sanctions, as probably will China, and there may be a shipping blocade with Chinese and US warships inspecting cargoes which will force the regime into further nationwide poverty and may spark a coup, a war with the south, or ultimately even a civil war...

China? I doubt it. They will feel as comfortable with NK having nukes as the US feels about France having nukes.

Qdos
29-05-2009, 14:43
China? I doubt it. They will feel as comfortable with NK having nukes as the US feels about France having nukes.

China are already expressing concerns, they don't want either a nuclear conflict on their doorstep (incommon with Eastern Russia!) and nor do they want a tide a refugees as a result of any events on the Korean peninsular.

Just what has the French 'force de frappe' got to do with the United States or the situation in North Korea?

N. Korea helped Syria build nuke reactor: U.S. | Top Stories from 2008-04-24 | RT (http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2008-04-24/N_Korea_helped_Syria_build_nuke_reactor_US.html?gclid=CIK9iq-r4ZoCFQVaFQodAxzPAw)

I'd argue that North Korea helping Syria to build nuclear reactors is far more pertinent to the tale than to drag in the French... ;)

Russian Lad
29-05-2009, 15:11
China are already expressing concerns, they don't want either a nuclear conflict on their doorstep (incommon with Eastern Russia!) and nor do they want a tide a refugees as a result of any events on the Korean peninsular.


Well, I mentioned France just for the sake of comparison.
Of course they will express concerns, they might even chastise Kim in public. Just like Russia. But both countries do not mind NK having nukes. As a Russian, I certainly do not mind it. They will never use them unless forced real bad. USSSR had nukes but never used them, though we had dictratorship. The US is a democratic nation, supposedly, but the US used nukes in WW-II. A real simple argument, really. Conclusion: a democracy with nukes is more dangerous to the world than a dictatorship with nukes. It sounds controversial even to me, but it is based on historical facts. Let's not forget what the history teaches us.

Qdos
29-05-2009, 15:26
Conclusion: a democracy with nukes is more dangerous to the world than a dictatorship with nukes.

Yeah, right... you feeling OK today RL? :nut:

Russian Lad
29-05-2009, 17:50
Yeah, right... you feeling OK today RL?

I am fine, my friend. Just watched the Russian news on channel Russia, could bear it only for 5 minutes, all lies:). Democracy:). Switched to BBC - well, I enjoy the language, but the only program worth my while there is Hard Talk, other programs suck:). So, I am back here:).
You have nothing to counter my previous claim with, though, no facts. Nukes were never used by a dictatorship, they were used, rather cynically, by a democracy. Life is full of surpirses, we must learn from it. Agree?:)

Kvartiraokhotnik
29-05-2009, 19:45
Kvarti,

The light water reactors were never buildt. That is why North Korea was trying to get the West to build them in 2007.


How do you create nuclear material from a reactor that was never buildt?

Again from 2007

N. Korea wants light-water reactors - North Korea- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19849354/)

N. Korea wants light-water reactors
Envoy says it would be reward for dismantling atomic program

updated 1:05 a.m. ET July 21, 2007

BEIJING - North Koreas nuclear envoy demanded Saturday that his country be given power-generating reactors as a reward for eventually dismantling its own atomic programs.

The demand presents a future hurdle at talks aimed at ridding Pyongyang of its ability to make nuclear bombs.

In order to ultimately dismantle (the nuclear programs), light-water reactors should be given to the North, Kim Kye Gwan told reporters before leaving Beijing, referring to a type of nuclear reactor that cannot be easily used to make bombs.

The light water reactors werent finished. But they were built to a certain degree.

North Korea's main reactor, where practically all of its plutonium has been produced, is a 5MWe gas-graphite moderated Magnox type reactor. A full core consists of 8,000 fuel rods and can yield a maximum of 27-29 kg of plutonium if left in the reactor for optimal burnup.[citation needed] Often, North Korea has unloaded the reactor before reaching the maximum burnup level. There are three known cores which were unloaded in 1994 (under IAEA supervision in accordance with the Agreed Framework), 2005, and 2007.

sounds to me like we gave them 3 nuclear reactor cores. In retrospect, what a great idea that was!

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Locator_map_of_North_Korea.svg" class="image" title="Location of North Korea"><img alt="Location of North Korea" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Locator_map_of_North_Korea.svg/250px-Locator_map_of_North_Korea.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/31/Locator_map_of_North_Korea.svg/250px-Locator_map_of_North_Korea.svg.png

If you think such actions are wise whilst simultaneously trying to STOP their nuclear program, you are crazier than I thought.

NB the phrase ''a nuclear reactor that CANNOT EASILY be used to make a bomb''

In other words...CAN BE USED TO MAKE A BOMB. Just aint as simple as with a heavy water reactor. Tell me, is this sensible? Or criminally stupid?

fenrir
29-05-2009, 20:05
A real simple argument, really. Conclusion: a democracy with nukes is more dangerous to the world than a dictatorship with nukes. It sounds controversial even to me, but it is based on historical facts. Let's not forget what the history teaches us.

You simplified it too much. They were used by a democracy in the fourth year of a terrible war in which IT was attacked by a relentless enemy. That is not analogous to any situation in the world today.

Russian Lad
29-05-2009, 21:26
You simplified it too much. They were used by a democracy in the fourth year of a terrible war in which IT was attacked by a relentless enemy. That is not analogous to any situation in the world today.


Fenrir, the war was almost over, it was August 1945, there was absolutely no need for such a measure. However, do me a favor, try to justify it. I would like to see how far you will go.

fenrir
29-05-2009, 22:55
Fenrir, the war was almost over, it was August 1945, there was absolutely no need for such a measure. However, do me a favor, try to justify it. I would like to see how far you will go.

The war in Europe was almost over in January 1945 but the Red Army killed over 2 million civilians and raped (literally) its way through eastern Europe. What justification was there for that? Far less than for dropping the bombs on Japan. We were trying to minimize casualties to our own forces. The Soviets were out for revenge and a sick form of fun.

is4fun
29-05-2009, 23:37
Well, I mentioned France just for the sake of comparison.
Of course they will express concerns, they might even chastise Kim in public. Just like Russia. But both countries do not mind NK having nukes. As a Russian, I certainly do not mind it. They will never use them unless forced real bad. USSSR had nukes but never used them, though we had dictratorship. The US is a democratic nation, supposedly, but the US used nukes in WW-II. A real simple argument, really. Conclusion: a democracy with nukes is more dangerous to the world than a dictatorship with nukes. It sounds controversial even to me, but it is based on historical facts. Let's not forget what the history teaches us.

"a democracy with nukes is more dangerous to the world than a dictatorship with nukes"

Wow! A retraction or an explination please!!!!

Russian Lad
29-05-2009, 23:40
The war in Europe was almost over in January 1945 but the Red Army killed over 2 million civilians and raped (literally) its way through eastern Europe. What justification was there for that? Far less than for dropping the bombs on Japan.

Now there, let's not heap everything in a pile of dirty manure. We are talking about nukes and nukes in NK on this thread. Your accounts of rape are blown up, my granddad was in Berlin, he saw nothing of the sort, or very little of it. But even if we assume the Soviets were raping, pillaging and killing civilians galore (we lost 30 million - killed, raped and what not), it does not have any bearing on the US using nukes. Come up with something more solid than:

The Soviets killed and raped 2 million people when the war was almost over, hey, what's wrong with us Americans nuking some bast;rds?
Utter crap. And to everyone - note please that Fenrir views himself as a democratic person, is it clear now why NK wants a nuke of its own?

is4fun
29-05-2009, 23:56
Well, I mentioned France just for the sake of comparison.
Of course they will express concerns, they might even chastise Kim in public. Just like Russia. But both countries do not mind NK having nukes. As a Russian, I certainly do not mind it. They will never use them unless forced real bad. USSSR had nukes but never used them, though we had dictratorship. The US is a democratic nation, supposedly, but the US used nukes in WW-II. A real simple argument, really. Conclusion: a democracy with nukes is more dangerous to the world than a dictatorship with nukes. It sounds controversial even to me, but it is based on historical facts. Let's not forget what the history teaches us.

This quote is not going to go away.... What are your arguments please!

fenrir
30-05-2009, 01:00
Now there, let's not heap everything in a pile of dirty manure. We are talking about nukes and nukes in NK on this thread. Your accounts of rape are blown up, my granddad was in Berlin, he saw nothing of the sort, or very little of it. But even if we assume the Soviets were raping, pillaging and killing civilians galore (we lost 30 million - killed, raped and what not), it does not have any bearing on the US using nukes. Come up with something more solid than:

The Soviets killed and raped 2 million people when the war was almost over, hey, what's wrong with us Americans nuking some bast;rds?
Utter crap. And to everyone - note please that Fenrir views himself as a democratic person, is it clear now why NK wants a nuke of its own?

Then your grandfather was very lucky because the NKVD was going apeshit over it and even Stalin got worried after a while (not for humanitarian reasons). And my point is solid. When a nation is attacked first (yours and mine), then vengeance comes hard when the initiative passes over to the victim's side. We used them to shorten the war and save ourselves casualties, the Japs would have used them on us if they had the chance, you all would have dropped them on Germany if you had developed them first, etc. That's what happens in wars. You get a new weapon, you use it. Period.

ultimotattie
30-05-2009, 03:12
No-one will do anything to North Korea. The world only attacks the defenceless. North Korean ain't defenceless.

Scrat335
30-05-2009, 08:28
Theremay be some shots exchanged over the border but that is about it. Ultimo is correct, due to precedents set mostly by America it is well known that a strong country will not be attacked.

fenrir
30-05-2009, 09:56
Theremay be some shots exchanged over the border but that is about it. Ultimo is correct, due to precedents set mostly by America it is well known that a strong country will not be attacked.

Oh, really? Iraq had a big, powerful army and we all know about the history of foreign adventures in Afghanistan. They weren't push overs and Russians at the time agreed. I was living in Moscow at the time of both invasions and both times, just about every Russian I knew said the US was going to suffer Vietnam War-level casualties.

Kvartiraokhotnik
30-05-2009, 11:58
Oh, really? Iraq had a big, powerful army and we all know about the history of foreign adventures in Afghanistan. They weren't push overs and Russians at the time agreed. I was living in Moscow at the time of both invasions and both times, just about every Russian I knew said the US was going to suffer Vietnam War-level casualties.

Hmmm...

Both Iraq and Afghanistan had no nukes (in fact, both their militaries were NOTHING in comparison with N.Korea). N.Korea has nukes. This is matt and scrats point. You dont attack someone with nukes. Or else they nuke you. Why else does Iran want nukes?? Isnt it obvious?? They see that nuclear powers are unlikely to be attacked.

I really hope N.Korea isnt attacked, or else they may nuke S.Korea and cause untold suffering.

Kvartiraokhotnik
30-05-2009, 12:03
This quote is not going to go away.... What are your arguments please!

R.Lad gave his argument is4fun. He used historical examples. Only one country has used nukes. The USA. And they are, according to some extremely deluded people, a ''democracy''. On the other hand, Russia has had nukes for a long time under a dictatorship, and never used them against others.

Pretty simple if you read the words he writes. He does have an argument, and one that is difficult to disprove. Would you like to disprove these well-known historical facts?

Russian Lad
30-05-2009, 13:47
R.Lad gave his argument is4fun. He used historical examples. Only one country has used nukes. The USA. And they are, according to some extremely deluded people, a ''democracy''. On the other hand, Russia has had nukes for a long time under a dictatorship, and never used them against others.

Pretty simple if you read the words he writes. He does have an argument, and one that is difficult to disprove. Would you like to disprove these well-known historical facts?

Indeed, I have nothing specific to add at this stage. Play ball or admit defeat, my democratic friends.


just about every Russian I knew said the US was going to suffer Vietnam War-level casualties.

Fenrir, the US has already lost about 5 thousand of its elite troops in Iraq, and more numbers are added to the list every day. Are you happy it is not 50 thosand or more? Stay there for 5-7 more years and you will get the death toll you want. But to me it looks like those young people are dying for nothing, for some whacky ideas that never came true and for some criminal corporations that have not been able to secure their presence there due to the continuous guerilla resistance to the occupation. How many more FEMA plastic coffins do you want to be shipped from Iraq to the US to feel happy?

Just one little thing about NK army. Iraq was a walk in the park in comparison with what there is to meet and greet the prospective gory democracy onslaught:


North Korea is the most militarized country in the world today[3], having the fifth largest standing army in the world, at an estimated 1.1 million armed personnel, with about 20% of men ages 17–54 in the regular armed forces.[4] It also has the Worker-Peasant Red Guard, a reserve force comprising 3.5m+ (IISS), 3.8m (USMC) or 4.7m (State Department) militia. It operates an enormous network of military facilities scattered around the country, a large weapons production basis, and an extremely dense air defence system.




YouTube- North Korean Military Parade

fenrir
31-05-2009, 01:22
R.Lad gave his argument is4fun. He used historical examples. Only one country has used nukes. The USA. And they are, according to some extremely deluded people, a ''democracy''. On the other hand, Russia has had nukes for a long time under a dictatorship, and never used them against others.

Pretty simple if you read the words he writes. He does have an argument, and one that is difficult to disprove. Would you like to disprove these well-known historical facts?

I also countered with historical fact. The US used those weapons that were developed during a war it didn't start but definitely wanted to finish, and that there is no analogous situation to that today.

Scrat335
31-05-2009, 01:33
Add to that the destructive potential of the bomb was really in question. We had a good idea what it was capable of but not a real life example.

Sad that it was done and I wish we didn't do it but in the end I think it saved many lives.

Scrat335
31-05-2009, 01:39
The war in Europe was almost over in January 1945 but the Red Army killed over 2 million civilians and raped (literally) its way through eastern Europe. What justification was there for that? Far less than for dropping the bombs on Japan.

And how many of those eastern europeans backed up the Wehrmacht in its raping and killing spree across virtually all of European Russia?

I can't say I feel a lot of pity. Really, think about it. There weren't very many German males left by 1945. I bet there were a lot of German women more than glad to see a few Russkie soldati coming into town. :mml:

Russian Lad
31-05-2009, 14:39
Add to that the destructive potential of the bomb was really in question. We had a good idea what it was capable of but not a real life example.

Sad that it was done and I wish we didn't do it but in the end I think it saved many lives.

Don't you think it was rather cowardly to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of the Japanese citizens, indiscriminately, to save a few thousand lives of Americans?
USSR could also use nukes to save the lives of our soldiers when the country was collapsing, you just name the republic. We could use it in Afghanistan to save the lives of our soldiers. But we didn't, did we?
Now there are reports from Iraq that the global democracies used depleted uranium there. It is extremely dangerous for the world to let democracies possess weapons of mass destruction.
My conclusion still stands, not challenged even in the slightest, even reasserted. Watch that, my democratic friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_RqK_tpkBU

Qdos
31-05-2009, 15:07
Don't you think it was rather cowardly to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of the Japanese citizens, indiscriminately, to save a few thousand lives of Americans?

Excuse me, but wasn't it Japan whose army comitted huge numbers of atrocities in the war, many of them against female prisoners of war?

Didn't Japan attack Pearl Harbour whilst simultaneously conducting peace talks with the American Government?

Some 1,177 men were killed on the USS Arizona alone...

Personally I think the US showed restraint, it must have been tempting to actually have nuked Tokyo :ak:

Russian Lad
31-05-2009, 15:27
Excuse me, but wasn't it Japan whose army comitted huge numbers of atrocities in the war, many of them against female prisoners of war?

Didn't Japan attack Pearl Harbour whilst simultaneously conducting peace talks with the American Government?

They did. But the use of nukes is a severe atrocity that stands on par probably only with the nazi concentration camps. And now, in the modern times, nuclear waste (hundreds of tons of it!) is used by the democracies AGAIN in imperialistic wars. Hence my conclusion.

Qdos
31-05-2009, 15:46
They did. But the use of nukes is a severe atrocity that stands on par probably only with the nazi concentration camps.

And since Stalin killed more people than Hitler, sending many of them to concentration style camps, it means Russia has an even more atrocious record by your own definition... ;)


Nuclear waste (hundreds of tons of it!) is used by the democracies AGAIN in imperialistic wars. Hence my conclusion.

Russia uses armour piercing rounds and shells in their own munitions RL, the Americans and other nations are not alone... take a look at the facts on which countries used DU weaponry... :9451:

International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons - Users (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/21.html)

Russian Lad
31-05-2009, 16:34
And since Stalin killed more people than Hitler

Show me the data confirming that please.

Also show me the data proving that Russia actually USED (the key word - used, not possesses) over 400 tons of depleted uranium, I will go along even with rumors regarding that.

You are trying to win a losing battle, Qdos, because we never used nukes, and there were plenty of circumstances where they would have come in handy, just to minimize the losses.

Qdos
31-05-2009, 17:18
Show me the data confirming that please.

My pleasure, and Google will find you many many more references to this same subject matter...

WikiAnswers - Who murdered more people Hitler or Joseph Stalin (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_murdered_more_people_Hitler_or_Joseph_Stalin)


Also show me the data proving that Russia actually USED (the key word - used, not possesses) over 400 tons of depleted uranium, I will go along even with rumors regarding that.

When did I say anything about 400 tones of DU? But if you want proof that Russia manufactures DU munitions, well take a look here... Russia has been manufacturing armour piercing rounds, shells and missiles, during the last few decades...

125MM APFSDS ROUNDS (http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html)

There have been accusations about Russia using DU in Chechnya, but the whole point of using DU is because of its armour piercing capabilities - so unless the Chechans had a great deal of heavy armour then clearly there would not have been widespread use.


You think the Kremlin are going to be as honest about using DU as the those western nations you accuse? :cool:

Moscow couldn't even tell the world the truth about Chernobyl RL... they lied to other nations about there having been a nuclear accident even though we were all reading heightened wind-borne radiation...


You are trying to win a losing battle, Qdos, because we never used nukes, and there were plenty of circumstances where they would have come in handy, just to minimize the losses.

Battle? I thought this was a discussion. However please show me where I'm supposed to have said Russia has used nukes RL... or, for that matter, publish your links to any claims I've made about Russia possessing 400 tons of DU... :rolleyes:

It's pretty easy to find links to Russian production of DU armaments - are you trying to tell me Russia only sells them to third parties? I find that argument to be bordering on the ridiculous... ;)

Russian Lad
31-05-2009, 17:47
Hitler was stated to have killed an estimated 11 million.

That's from your "source".

Only the Soviet Union lost at least 30 million people in WW-II, so how you end up with a total of 11 million I wonder?

I am not disputing the production, I am asking about its use.
Russia is nowadays a democracy too, supposedly, so remember that as well while we are on the subject.


You think the Kremlin are going to be as honest about using DU as the those western nations you accuse?



If the killer admits to his crimes it does not make him an innocent person, right? I am not accusing, I am just stating the facts. No, Kremlin is not going to be honest, Kremlin represents a democracy, too. Or a third world version of it, at least.

Qdos
31-05-2009, 17:55
Hard to address all my points was it RL? :lovepot:

is4fun
31-05-2009, 17:59
Show me the data confirming that please.

Also show me the data proving that Russia actually USED (the key word - used, not possesses) over 400 tons of depleted uranium, I will go along even with rumors regarding that.

You are trying to win a losing battle, Qdos, because we never used nukes, and there were plenty of circumstances where they would have come in handy, just to minimize the losses.

Ok, ok, only 20 million. But mostly Russians! LOL I don't think Qdos is losing anything. But your hole keeps getting larger and waaaaay beyond credibility. When could have the Soviets used Nukes? In Afghanistan? I thought the Russians were in control of Kabul at that time... Outside of Kabul we have what? Farmers and scattered Mujaheddin with American supplied stingers. Imagine a bunch of peasant farmers utilizing American technology and actually running the Russians out of their country. Oh, they could have used them during the Cuban missile crises to protect Cuba, another major power and comrade to the Soviet peoples. In Chechnya maybe? Again, farmers fighting the Russians.


Using Nukes in WW2 was justified. A few thousand Americans were saved and tens of thousands of Japanese indiscriminately killed. A small price to pay to stop a war that had already taken many lives and with absolutely no end in sight. Let that be a lesson to any country which wishes to wage war against the democratic United States. I am confident if the dictator Stalin had earlier stolen nuclear technology when he fought Germany the outcome of the war would certainly have turned out different. And lucky for the Russians the Germans never developed the technology themselves.

Scrat335
31-05-2009, 18:02
The actions of Hitler resulted in far more deaths than anyone else be those deaths either intentional or unintentional. What's the point in debating it?

fenrir
31-05-2009, 21:54
I bet there were a lot of German women more than glad to see a few Russkie soldati coming into town. :mml:

As much as the Russian chicks were happy to take some German bone.

fenrir
31-05-2009, 22:02
The problem is penis envy. The Russians have always been upset the we developed and used the bomb first and they had to use spies to steal vital information because they couldn't develop it themselves. It is the same reason why many of them deny the manned lunar landings and claim that it was an international conspiracy that kept Dima Belan from winning the first time around.

fenrir
31-05-2009, 22:05
RL. How many people died during the Repressions, in the Gulags during Stalin's time and from the famines produced by his idiotic collectivization program? The number may surprise you.

fenrir
31-05-2009, 22:11
First, the bombs saved way more than a few thousand American lives. You see, unlike Stalin, our leaders actually tried to MINIMIZE losses to our own forces. Stalin took a DGAS (Don't Give A Shit) attitude to this.

Second, did the US use nuclear bombs in Korea, Vietnam or any other war outside of WW II (in which we were attacked first and WON the race to develop the first atomic bomb)? WW II was a unique situation, thus nullifying your argument.

Qdos
31-05-2009, 22:57
RL. How many people died during the Repressions, in the Gulags during Stalin's time and from the famines produced by his idiotic collectivization program? The number may surprise you.

There were 14.5 million souls who were starved to death under Stalin.

Around three times that number who died in the gulags, or were executed on Stalins direct orders.

He was the biggest mass murderer of the entire century. Hitler doesn't come anywhere close to Stalin in the death toll stakes.

How could somebody as insecure and paranoid ever have been in his position, the aftermath of his rule detrimentally affects Russia to this day.

Russian Lad
31-05-2009, 23:28
In Chechnya maybe? Again, farmers fighting the Russians.


Using Nukes in WW2 was justified. A few thousand Americans were saved and tens of thousands of Japanese indiscriminately killed.

Hundreds of thousands Japanese died. Get your facts straight, my somewhat illiterate democratic friend.


Second, did the US use nuclear bombs in Korea, Vietnam or any other war outside of WW II (in which we were attacked first and WON the race to develop the first atomic bomb)? WW II was a unique situation, thus nullifying your argument.


I am not sure I got your American joke about the size of your dick and its bearing on the matter discussed here. Not that I care, offer your salami to a girl, please, don't let it dangle in front of the audience here.
However, talking about the above, WW-II could have been won without those two disgraceful bombings. You did not use it in Vietnam - good boys. How about now and those 400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and in Afghanistan? Mind it, your own goddamn soldiers are heavily suffering from this, too, my democratic friend.

Qdos
31-05-2009, 23:36
Hundreds of thousands Japanese died. Get your facts straight, my somewhat illiterate democratic friend.

You'd do well to put your own brain in gear before opening your trap, all that crap you just spouted about how Stalin was an angel compared to Hitler, and about the Russian army not having depleted uranium armour piercing shells at their disposal... :cool:

When you went to school you must have had those history books which the Russian government authored carefully to avoid mention of Stalins genocide!

Russian Lad
31-05-2009, 23:52
Qdos, my inattentive democratic friend, kindly let me open my trap again to say the following: I have already mentioned that Russia is a democracy now, of a sort, hence there is no use to blame Kremlin for DU.
As to Stalin's atrocities, I am not saying he was a nice chap or anything. He was a dictator, and a ruthless one. But Hitler was much worse, and it seems that even the democracies of that time shared my opinion, siding up with Stalin, not with Hitler. You were trying to prove the opposite. Not that it has a lot of relevance on this particular thread, only a distraction.

We may agree that a nuke in a democracy is as dangerous as a nuke in a dictatorship (though no dictatorship has ever used the nuclear weapons on such a large scale as the democracies, hence I feel I have to be more afraid of a democracy possessing nukes than of a dictatorship having the same weapons). However, nobody gives the right to one country to dictate its will, political or otherwise, to another sovereign country. That's how the wars start in the first place.


When you went to school

You are so pertinent in degrading my education that I feel obliged to tell you that I studied both in Russia and in the US. And even in Russia, at the University, half of my teachers were Brits or Americans. It was after the Soviet Union collapse. I would insistently suggest you do not ridicule yourself claiming I was brainwashed by the Soviet propaganda:).

Personal advice (just a joke): Aren't there any hot girls or vodka for you in Moscow tonight?:) As your practicing distant psychiatrist, I noticed that you use the phrase "before opening your trap" only when you are extremely agitated:).

Strider
01-06-2009, 00:12
many people here compare this situation with a mentally-ill person or a criminal owning a gun and how government shouldn't allow them to have them...

then they scale this situation up and countries like NK and Iran become mentally-ill and a gangster... but it's not really clear to me, what country or countries stand for the government in the previous example?

Qdos
01-06-2009, 00:21
Qdos, my inattentive democratic friend, kindly let me open my trap again to say the following: I have already mentioned that Russia is a democracy now, of a sort, hence there is no use to blame Kremlin for DU.

Sorry, but who brought the matter up?


As to Stalin's atrocities, I am not saying he was a nice chap or anything. He was a dictator, and a ruthless one. But Hitler was much worse, and it seems that even the democracies of that time shared my opinion, siding up with Stalin, not with Hitler. You were trying to prove the opposite. Not that it has a lot of relevance on this particular thread, only a distraction.

Again, who brought it up?


We may agree that a nuke in a democracy is as dangerous as a nuke in a dictatorship (though no dictatorship has ever used the nuclear weapons on such a large scale as the democracies, hence I feel I have to be more afraid of a democracy possessing nukes than of a dictatorship having the same weapons). However, nobody gives the right to one country to dictate its will, political or otherwise, to another sovereign country. That's how the wars start in the first place.

Where did 'we' agree then?


You are so pertinent in degrading my education that I feel obliged to tell you that I studied both in Russia and in the US. And even in Russia, at the University, half of my teachers were Brits or Americans. It was after the Soviet Union collapse. I would insistently suggest you do not ridicule yourself claiming I was brainwashed by the Soviet propaganda:).

Do you know what 'pertinent' means? I thought not. Yes, I know you claim to have been educated partially in the US of A. You fall back on that claim once in every so often in threads where you make arguments with westerners and then want to endear yourself to them after first making a complete a$$ of yourself - as in your last few posts here!


Personal advice (just a joke): Aren't there any hot girls or vodka for you in Moscow tonight?:) As your practicing distant psychiatrist, I noticed that you use the phrase "before opening your trap" only when you are extremely agitated:).

Since I'm not in Moscow how is your personal advice 'pertinent'? If I needed a shrink I assure you that it would be someone with a far more balanced and rational view of world affairs than you're demonstrating... :focus:

This thread is about North Korea, not Stalin or Hitler...

Swordfish90293
01-06-2009, 00:53
Fenrir, the war was almost over, it was August 1945, there was absolutely no need for such a measure. However, do me a favor, try to justify it. I would like to see how far you will go.

The justification was that the U.S. measureed the number of men it stood to lose in a conventional invasion, many thousands, and opted to end the war as it did. It came under the heading of "better you than us".

Swordfish90293
01-06-2009, 00:55
many people here compare this situation with a mentally-ill person or a criminal owning a gun and how government shouldn't allow them to have them...

then they scale this situation up and countries like NK and Iran become mentally-ill and a gangster... but it's not really clear to me, what country or countries stand for the government in the previous example?

Nazi Germany...

Scrat335
01-06-2009, 01:42
Qdos, Fenrir et al. Lets do a little mathematical exercise here.

Let's start about the year 1910.

Lets add up the following.

The number of people who died in WWI.

The number of people who died in the revolution.

The number of people who died in the wars of consolidation in what is now the Ukraine and Belarus.

The number of people killed in the purges and gulags in the 1920s.

The number of people who were killed in the purges and Gulags of the 30s.

The number of people killed in WWII.

The number of people killed in the post war purges.


If you hunt down the numbers and add them all up you can reasonably come to the conclusion that Russian women are prolific childbearers. I'm not talking one or 2 kids here, I'm talking whole litters. Like rabbits.

If all the numbers were true, why did the Russians have so many soldiers to fight the germans with?

Please don't try to tell Russian women have 4 or 5 kids in a litter either.

Qdos
01-06-2009, 02:20
Qdos, Fenrir et al. Lets do a little mathematical exercise here. Let's start about the year 1910.

Why? Stalin was only at the helm from 1928 to 1953... how can you add in statistics for deaths which occured prior to his dictatorship? How can those losses which were due to the Bolshevik Revolution and to WWI have remotely anything to do with Stalin at all?

There are certainly differences in opinion as to how many millions he killed, but let's not muddle war casualty figures with the issue. His campaign of terror, by which I mean firing squads, starvation of his own people, dispatch to the gulag of those he either feared or despised, amounted to more than thirty million souls.

When people talk about Hitlers death toll they're referring to the people who were wiped out on the fuhrers whims, in other words mainly the Jews - they are not talking about all the people slain by the Nazis in WWII.

That's why it is justifiable and wholly correct to claim that Hitler did not slaughter anything like as many people as Joseph Stalin.

Let's leave world wars and all of Russias civil wars out of this equation... :cool:

fenrir
01-06-2009, 08:55
If you hunt down the numbers and add them all up you can reasonably come to the conclusion that Russian women are prolific childbearers. I'm not talking one or 2 kids here, I'm talking whole litters. Like rabbits.

If all the numbers were true, why did the Russians have so many soldiers to fight the germans with?

Please don't try to tell Russian women have 4 or 5 kids in a litter either.

You are using false logic here. Hard statistics are better. How do we know if Russian women had more children than any other country? For example, my high school girl friend's grandmother (a French Canadian) gave birth to 20 children. Birth control was not very advanced anywhere yet. Russia had a huge country and centuries to build up its population.

DDT
01-06-2009, 10:27
YouTube- Michael Savage - North Korea Nukes & Obama's Failure to Act

Scrat335
01-06-2009, 19:37
You are using false logic here. Hard statistics are better. How do we know if Russian women had more children than any other country? For example, my high school girl friend's grandmother (a French Canadian) gave birth to 20 children. Birth control was not very advanced anywhere yet. Russia had a huge country and centuries to build up its population.

Hard statistics are better? :bash: YOU CAN MAKE STATISTICS SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT!!!

You're grasping at straws.

is4fun
01-06-2009, 21:30
R.Lad gave his argument is4fun. He used historical examples. Only one country has used nukes. The USA. And they are, according to some extremely deluded people, a ''democracy''. On the other hand, Russia has had nukes for a long time under a dictatorship, and never used them against others.

Pretty simple if you read the words he writes. He does have an argument, and one that is difficult to disprove. Would you like to disprove these well-known historical facts?

There was no argument. Yes indeed, the US used nukes. Obviously you have not read through my posts on this thread and I do not wish to explore my personal feelings (and the majority of people’s…) with regards to their use. Please do not be deluded by RL’s reasoning as it is old, tired and without any foundation. Yes, many people had died, many had died since and assuredly many more will die well into the future. Until there is a sound democratic society that is transparent and who believe the law is above all else we shouldn’t have any problems should we? If one continues to believe because a dictator has not used an atomic weapon (whether person or state) is better than a democracy, well then it is a failed state. Only a matter of time… and with my blessing.

Russian Lad
01-06-2009, 23:21
where you make arguments with westerners and then want to endear yourself to them


What utter nonsense! Why would I want to "endear myself to them"? Aren't you mistaking me for a whore you picked up on the street the other day, by chance?:)


and the majority of people’s…

The majority of people on this planet believe it was a war crime, I assure you. Except for some of the Americans like you who believe in the democracy and free society fairytale stuck up their arse:).

Qdos
01-06-2009, 23:43
Obviously you have not read through my posts on this thread and I do not wish to explore my personal feelings (and the majority of peoples) with regards to their use....

People have a habit or selectively reading those parts they like to, and ignoring contrary sections of a thread... :whisper:

fenrir
02-06-2009, 09:30
The majority of people on this planet believe it was a war crime, I assure you. Except for some of the Americans like you who believe in the democracy and free society fairytale stuck up their arse:).

Just like the majority of people around the world, except Russian nationalists, consider that your lot did not so much 'liberate' eastern Europe as occupy it (and committed plenty of war crimes there too).

fenrir
02-06-2009, 09:31
Hard statistics are better? :bash: YOU CAN MAKE STATISTICS SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT!!!

You're grasping at straws.

What problem do you have with birth records?

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 12:29
Just like the majority of people around the world, except Russian nationalists, consider that your lot did not so much 'liberate' eastern Europe as occupy it (and committed plenty of war crimes there too).

I think we first liberated it and then occupied it. The Soviets did. I would have done the same, after losing 30 million people. Actually, I spent 5 years with my dad at a military base in Czechoslovakia when I was little. But again, we are talking here about nukes.

Carbo
02-06-2009, 13:00
And in hindsight what a wise move it was eh Carbo?
I'm sorry, you obviously didn't read the post to which you responded, which said:

"Eventually, they cheated, of course, which was to be expected, but was this option better than the alternative, i.e. DPRK going ahead and reprocessing its existing fuel rods, going nuclear, and then the US going to war? I think the answer to that is clearly "yes"."

So, I guess the answer to your question is (again) "yes".

Carbo
02-06-2009, 13:37
Well, I mentioned France just for the sake of comparison.
Of course they will express concerns, they might even chastise Kim in public. Just like Russia. But both countries do not mind NK having nukes. As a Russian, I certainly do not mind it. They will never use them unless forced real bad. USSSR had nukes but never used them, though we had dictratorship. The US is a democratic nation, supposedly, but the US used nukes in WW-II. A real simple argument, really. Conclusion: a democracy with nukes is more dangerous to the world than a dictatorship with nukes. It sounds controversial even to me, but it is based on historical facts. Let's not forget what the history teaches us.
This argument is so stupid it’s almost beyond my comprehension that an adult could actually consider this matter and arrive at the above conclusion.

As far as I can tell, it’s risible on two levels -- excluding, for a moment, the circumstances in which they were used.

The first is the size of the sampling for your statistics. It’s not like we’re talking about the number of bullets fired here, we’re talking about only two nuclear weapons ever being used for sixty odd years. That’s just too small a sample to draw the kind of conclusion for which you’re aiming. It’s rather like finding two people who say they’re going to vote Conservative in the next UK election and drawing “a real simple” conclusion that the Conservative Party will win by a landslide at the next election. Further, one might draw the conclusion that America is more dangerous with nukes than dictatorships, but one simply cannot extrapolate that to all democracies arbitrarily. It would be stupid to do so, because of the statistical sampling argument I made earlier in your paragraph, but if you wanted to pose such a glib argument, that would be your conclusion -- not some wild view on all democracies.

But second, and more important, in my view, is the whole idea of dictators and what they stand for. If one thinks about the sort of chap (it’s almost always chaps, for some reason) who is a dictator, freedom and peace and the right of individuals – or, indeed, respect for human life in general – is not something which immediately springs to mind. If this holds true for his own people, which it does, it should also hold true for his foreign policy, which I suspect it also does.

Kim is a wonderful example of this. He cares not that his people are on the brink of starvation. He thinks nothing of ordering the assassination of the entire government of another sovereign nation. He uses bellicose and extremely aggressive and incendiary language in his diplomatic dealings and messages. There is no free speech in North Korea. The country tortures routinely. It brainwashes it’s own people to believe that Kim and his father are deities in the vein of pre-Christian Roman Emperors. It imprisons without trial. It kidnaps foreign citizens at the behest of its leader. It is, in the words of Christopher Hitchens “the closest thing to Nineteen Eighty Four one can imagine.”

The idea that a country such as this is less likely, all things being equal, to use its weapons of mass destruction than a democracy is preposterous.

Further, where America controls its weapons with a series of checks and balances -- such as the two man rule, which means the president cannot launch the missiles himself, and nor can, say, the captain of a submarine -- North Korea has little in the way of checks and balances beyond the absolute word of their god-ruler Kim -- a man whose sanity I seriously doubt, and who has in the past, as mentioned above, committed all kinds of international crimes.

And, of course, lets not forget the war of aggression his father waged against a democratic and wholly peaceful neighbour, South Korea. They’ve done it once, and I think we can all agree that if they’d had nukes then, they would have used them.

Finally, North Korea deals with all kinds of terrorist organizations and renegade countries. Probably its main source of income as a country is through weapons and weapons technology sales. It has been cooperating with both Syria and Iran on nuclear programs and weapons sales. This is in direct contravention of not American or “Western” opinion, but of international law. And I think we can all agree, more countries with nukes is A Bad Thing.

But these points, mostly, apply to all dictators.

They do not, on the other hand, apply to most democracies.

I will say this: most of these points -- bar those relating to liberty and respect for human life -- applied to the Soviet Union, which I am sure the Americans preferred to deal with than the likes of Kim, because the USSR had those checks and balances, kept its Nukes under lock and key, had a superb and disciplined military, and while it was powerful and devious and cunning as a fox, also had a wholly rational fear of nuclear war -- the same fear we did.

I rest my case, you honour.

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 13:50
I will say this: most of these points -- bar those relating to liberty and respect for human life -- applied to the Soviet Union, which I am sure the Americans preferred to deal with than the likes of Kim, because the USSR had those checks and balances, kept its Nukes under lock and key, had a superb and disciplined military, and while it was powerful and devious and cunning as a fox, also had a wholly rational fear of nuclear war -- the same fear we did.

Wait a minute! Wasn't USSR a dictatorship?! You have just proven that under dictatorship the nukes can be at least as safe as under democracy. Congratulations!

Carbo, you have left out from your story over 400 tons of depleted uranium used by the democracies in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Yugoslavia.


The first is the size of the sampling for your statistics. It’s not like we’re talking about the number of bullets fired here, we’re talking about only two nuclear weapons ever being used for sixty odd years. That’s just too small a sample to draw the kind of conclusion for which you’re aiming. It’s rather like finding two people who say they’re going to vote Conservative in the next UK election and drawing “a real simple” conclusion that the Conservative Party will win by a landslide at the next election.

That's all the statistics we have to go by, hope you are not blaming my country for not using the nukes and hence for not making the statistics more complete:).
Again, you have ommitted 400 tons of depleted uranium. If you take 400 people at random and see that they all are going to vote Conservative you will safely assume that the Conservative party is going to have a landslide win in the elections:).


Further, one might draw the conclusion that America is more dangerous with nukes than dictatorships, but one simply cannot extrapolate that to all democracies arbitrarily.

Aren't the US a flagship of the democratic movement and a beacon of freedom in the world?

Carbo
02-06-2009, 14:00
Wait a minute! Wasn't USSR a dictatorship?! You have just proven that under dictatorship the nukes can be at least as safe as under democracy. Congratulation!

Carbo, you have left out from your story over 400 tons of depleted uranium used by the democracies in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Yugoslavia.
The USSR was not a dictatorship. While it had many of the hallmarks of dictatorship, was a single party socialist-communist state. There's a difference.

Besides, did you actually read my post?? If you did, I'm not sure you would make this argument even if we did accept the proposition that the USSR was a dictatorship.

Anyway, I think you're confusing depleted uranium with nuclear weapons. Despite being uranium, it is not something that could be used in a fission or fusion process -- either in bomb or reactor -- and is not classed as a weapon of mass destruction.

Therefore it has no bearing on the argument.

Depleated uranium is used by many countries -- including Russia -- as armour piercing rounds, because of it's density and the fact that it splinters rather than mushrooms on impact, improving its penetrative ability.

It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 14:03
The USSR was not a dictatorship. A dictatorshp is the control of one man, the Soviet Union, on the other hand, while it had many of the hallmarks of dictatorship, was a single party socialist-communist state. There's a difference.

Really? Don't you think one man cannot control the whole country, even in a dictatorship? That he still needs a system?

DU is not a WMD per se, however, it is a nuclear byproduct. An extremely dangerous one.


Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.[5] The chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is about a million times greater in vivo than its radiological hazard.[64] Health effects of DU are determined by factors such as the extent of exposure and whether it was internal or external. Three main pathways exist by which internalization of uranium may occur: inhalation, ingestion, and embedded fragments or shrapnel contamination. Properties such as phase (e.g. particulate or gaseous), oxidation state (e.g. metallic or ceramic), and the solubility of uranium and its compounds influence their absorption, distribution, translocation, elimination and the resulting toxicity. For example, metallic uranium is relatively non-toxic compared to hexavalent uranium(VI) uranyl compounds such as uranium trioxide.[65][66]

Carbo
02-06-2009, 14:04
Wait a minute! Wasn't USSR a dictatorship?! You have just proven that under dictatorship the nukes can be at least as safe as under democracy. Congratulations!

Carbo, you have left out from your story over 400 tons of depleted uranium used by the democracies in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Yugoslavia.



That's all the statistics we have to go by, hope you are not blaming my country for not using the nukes and hence for not making the statistics more complete:).




Aren't the US a flagship of the democratic movement and a beacon of freedom in the world?
Yes. It is.

And I know they are the statisitcs we have to go by. I am merely pointing out that the statistics are insufficient to reach any kind of conclusion.

As for your depleted uranium mumbo jumbo, read my previous post. I wrote it before you added more to yours.

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 14:24
Ok, just for me to understand your position better. USSR was not a dictatorship. Right? It logically stems from this statement of yours that Stalin was not a dictator?! Am I getting the right picture?
Carbo, see how it is in discussions - one mistake, a slip of tongue, and one has enormous difficulties in proving his statements:).

Carbo
02-06-2009, 14:30
Ok, just for me to understand your position better. USSR was not a dictatorship. Right? It logically stems from this statement of yours that Stalin was not a dictator?! Am I getting the right picture?
Carbo, see how it is in discussions - one mistake, a slip of tongue, and one has enormous difficulties in proving his statements:).
OK, whatever.

If you can't see the difference, that's up to you.

But one play on semantics doesn't prove your point; nor does it repudiate any of the points in my original post.

Or, for that matter, your absurd citing of depleted uranium.

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 14:34
But one play on semantics doesn't prove your point; nor does it repudiate any of the points in my original post.

But it was not a play on semantics, it was your own position that you expressed in a rather long sentence, and rather clearly, without a space left for doubts. I found it necessary to clarify it though, it sounded sort of unexpected, coming from you and so easily proving my own point.

As to DU, it is a coin with two sides, it is certainly not a WMD, but at the same time it is a rather lethal nuclear byproduct, so it does not belong to this discussion, but it certainly is on the fringes of it. 400 tons of DU have caused a lot of deaths and mutilations, among the soldiers of democratic armies as well as among the arabs and Serbians they were chasing.

Carbo
02-06-2009, 14:47
But it was not a play on semantics, it was your own position that you expressed in a rather long sentence, and rather clearly, without a space left for doubts. I found it necessary to clarify it though, it sounded sort of unexpected, coming from you and so easily proving my own point.

As to DU, it is a coin with two sides, it is certainly not a WMD, but at the same time it is a rather lethal nuclear byproduct, so it does not belong to this discussion, but it certainly is on the fringes of it. 400 tons of DU have caused a lot of deaths and mutilations, among the soldiers of democratic armies as well as among the arabs and Serbians they were chasing.
Depleted uranium is a ballistic weapon, and, to be sure, it is more effective than some armour piercing weapons. However, it is not an explosive weapon. It is not a nuclear weapon. It is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It therefore does not belong anywhere near the discussion.

Swordfish90293
02-06-2009, 15:06
One cannot argue with children of alcoholic parents...

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 15:14
One cannot argue with children of alcoholic parents...

Is it an invitation to discuss the sex life of your mother?

GaNozri
02-06-2009, 15:23
Depleted uranium is a ballistic weapon, and, to be sure, it is more effective than some armour piercing weapons. However, it is not an explosive weapon. It is not a nuclear weapon. It is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It therefore does not belong anywhere near the discussion.

Tell that to the Iraqis, who's countryside is littered with them. Neither Turkey nor China will buy scrap metal from Iraq. It just sits there pierced with these munitions, which raise the radioactivity level to dangerous levels. I've seen kids play on destroyed tanks. Noone seems to care. By your logic a "dirty bomb" is also neither a nuclear weapon, nor a weapon of mass destruction.

Carbo
02-06-2009, 15:25
But it was not a play on semantics, it was your own position that you expressed in a rather long sentence, and rather clearly, without a space left for doubts. I found it necessary to clarify it though, it sounded sort of unexpected, coming from you and so easily proving my own point.
OK, so let's say, in the widest definition of 'dictatorship' the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. So what's your point?

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 15:29
is not a nuclear weapon.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me, Carbo.


"More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing [of nuclear bombs] has been released from DU weaponry since 1991," said Leuren Moret, a U.S. nuclear scientist. "The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive."

Because DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the Middle East will, for all practical purposes, be radioactive forever.

The two U.S. wars in Iraq "have been nuclear wars because they have scattered nuclear material across the land, and people, particularly children, are condemned to die of malignancy and congenital disease essentially for eternity," said anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott.


OK, so let's say, in the widest definition of 'dictatorship' the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. So what's your point?

My point was (and you seem to agree with it) that a dictatorship can handle nukes as safely as a democracy, if not better, and USSR seems to have proven it (you referred to it yourself). With all the pertaining ramifications bearing on NK.

GaNozri
02-06-2009, 15:32
Iraq and Serbia should gather all the DU and ship it to the US for safe storage. I wonder what would Carbo say to that idea?

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 15:37
It is not that easy, the land and water supplies will remain contaminated, Ganozri. This waste nuclear product can be stored safely, but it is another story when it is dispersed in the land, in air and water.

GaNozri
02-06-2009, 15:42
I say ship it to the US and dump it in a big pile near the Washington monument.

GaNozri
02-06-2009, 15:47
Better yet - the White House lawn.

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 15:53
How about the Ovary Office? :)

Carbo
02-06-2009, 16:25
First, if you're talking about depleted uranium weaponry, you have to include the USSR.

What the hell do you think those tank-busting Hind helicopters fire? Konfyetki?

However, your point was that dictatorships were less likely to use nuclear weapons than democracies.

First, I argued that the statistics available were not large enough to draw this conclusion. Which they are not.

Second, you quite wrongly include DU ammunition in the range of nuclear weapons. Korea is developing a nuclear bomb. This is what we mean when we say nuclear weapon: a once stage fission 'Hiroshima-style' weapon, or something more advanced such as a multiple stage fission-fusion Tellar-Ulam design or fission-fusion-fission weapon.

Clearly, in its designed application and their effects, DU ammunition does not fall into this category.

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 18:20
Second, you quite wrongly include DU ammunition in the range of nuclear weapons. Korea is developing a nuclear bomb. This is what we mean when we say nuclear weapon: a once stage fission 'Hiroshima-style' weapon, or something more advanced such as a multiple stage fission-fusion Tellar-Ulam design or fission-fusion-fission weapon.


Carbo, even if we dismiss DU as not nuclear weapons, which is hard to do because of their nuclear essence and rather heavy nuclear pollution they produce when used, we still end up with USSR (a formidable dictatorship whose ideas are still live and kicking in some countries) that kept nukes for dozens of years without using them on a single occassion, and with the US, a democracy, that used the nukes twice. I agree that those were unique circumstances, however, the war was drawing to its final stage and there was absolutely no need to use the nukes, taking hundreds of thousands of human lives in exchange for several thousand saved lives.
You know what else I think? Most of the current Western democratic regimes, especially in the US, have nothing to do with democracy, just like USSR, for most of the years of its existence, had nothing to do with true socialism. Alas, people are prone to self-destruction, and I strongly doubt that WW-III, which is, in my view, imminent, will be started by a dictatorship.
Most of the modern dictatorships are trying to defend themselves from the oncroach of a Friedman-style capitalism that does not bode well for any society. They have their food and shelter, they consume much less, and the Western societies are drowing in AIDS, free speech, drugs, religion, consumption, prostitution and pornography. Why not let those squinted-eyed brothers have their own way? Live and let live is my motto. The motto of most Western democracies seems to be: "Let me teach you how to live slaving for me".

fenrir
02-06-2009, 19:29
Tell that to the Iraqis, who's countryside is littered with them. Neither Turkey nor China will buy scrap metal from Iraq. It just sits there pierced with these munitions, which raise the radioactivity level to dangerous levels. I've seen kids play on destroyed tanks. Noone seems to care. By your logic a "dirty bomb" is also neither a nuclear weapon, nor a weapon of mass destruction.

You way over-exaggerate the dangers of DU munitions.

Read this.

NATO Depleted Uranium - May 2000 (http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d000500e.htm#4)

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 19:59
Yes, surely, a NATO site is a reliable source of info on DU. It is like asking a drug dealer about the dangers of shooting heroin.

And even your DU dealers state the following on your link:


If certain minimal precautions are taken - i.e. no trespassing on tank wrecks and no long-term contact with remaining DU ammunition fragments - the health risks of a time-limited stay in a DU-contaminated area are shown to be negligibly small, especially in comparison to other risks such as mine fields, duds, snipers, etc.



after the fighting, in the more highly contaminated places, the remaining local environmental contamination by uranium and its radiation exceeds the internationally recommended standards.

As Ganozri said, nobody is restricted access to the tank wrecks in Iraq, everyone is free to partake of the democracy.

Again, this is from your link:

In Iraq, about 300 metric tons of DU ammunition were fired by American and British troops. Recently, NATO confirmed the use of DU ammunition in Kosovo battlefields, where approximately 10 metric tons of DU were used.





Just imagine that amount of nuclear waste lying in the ground. The place becomes nothing but a radioactive dump, my democratic friend. How about piling it up on the White House manicured lawn?

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 20:29
YouTube- A peoples history of american imperialsism by Howard Zinn

YouTube- che

fenrir
02-06-2009, 20:58
Yes, surely, a NATO site is a reliable source of info on DU. It is like asking a drug dealer about the dangers of shooting heroin.

And even your DU dealers state the following on your link:





As Ganozri said, nobody is restricted access to the tank wrecks in Iraq, everyone is free to partake of the democracy.

Again, this is from your link:



Just imagine that amount of nuclear waste lying in the ground. The place becomes nothing but a radioactive dump, my democratic friend. How about piling it up on the White House manicured lawn?

Read the entire article instead of cherry picking individual statements. In its totality, the article clearly demonstrates that Ganozri is wrong in his assumptions.

And besides your Russian paranoia, what is wrong with NATO's website for information on this topic? Do you have a better one?

Russian Lad
02-06-2009, 21:14
And besides your Russian paranoia, what is wrong with NATO's website for information on this topic? Do you have a better one?

Like I said, even this source is enough to see the danger. Or 300 tons of nuclear waste freely lying on the ground is ok for you? Nobody seems to deny it, not even NATO.
300 tons of nuclear waste. Come on, Fenrir. It does look BAD to see a guy like you saying: "Come on, boys, nothing special, those 300 tons of nuclear waste on the ground, no danger at all". Care to go on vacation to Chernobil? I will buy you the tickets.

Look at the pics here, that's how it looks today.
http://www.fotopalomnik.ru/im/art/ch/chern.htm

Kvartiraokhotnik
02-06-2009, 22:57
You way over-exaggerate the dangers of DU munitions.

Read this.

NATO Depleted Uranium - May 2000 (http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d000500e.htm#4)

Heres a true and interesting story.

Nathan Stubblefield. Inventor of the first ever telephone system back in the 1870s using ''earth currents''. Simple melon farmer who was just an electrical hobby scientist, yet seemed to be able to generate endless current from his strange earth batteries that he used on his farm for lighting and heating, as well as telephones.

During his later years 3 of his children died, and his wife left him. He was using ''pitchblend'' on his farms which is an old word for uranite (Uranium ore). I believe this was probably the cause of his 3 sons deaths, as well as the source of some of the strange amounts of power he was getting from his strange ''batteries''.

I doubt that Uranium is safe, whether processed, depleted, or in its natural ore state.

Its toxic and lethal.

Scrat335
02-06-2009, 23:14
Good videos RL, especially the first one. Empire is the reason we are still in NK and Indonesia, we are defending our assets abroad. Empires need enemies also in order to have a reason no matter how thinly disguised to maintain the huge military expendatures involved.

fenrir
02-06-2009, 23:20
Good videos RL, especially the first one. Empire is the reason we are still in NK and Indonesia, we are defending our assets abroad. Empires need enemies also in order to have a reason no matter how thinly disguised to maintain the huge military expendatures involved.

You're right: enemies such as Georgia, Estonia, Ukraine, etc.

Scrat335
03-06-2009, 09:45
That's right Fenrir, enemies. I would think a more apt description would be petty lunatics dragging their countries into an abyss or into stupid wars at the bidding of their masters.

They're called proxy wars.

Carbo
03-06-2009, 12:15
Carbo, even if we dismiss DU as not nuclear weapons, which is hard to do because of their nuclear essence and rather heavy nuclear pollution they produce when used, we still end up with USSR (a formidable dictatorship whose ideas are still live and kicking in some countries) that kept nukes for dozens of years without using them on a single occassion, and with the US, a democracy, that used the nukes twice. I agree that those were unique circumstances, however, the war was drawing to its final stage and there was absolutely no need to use the nukes, taking hundreds of thousands of human lives in exchange for several thousand saved lives.
Well, the simple answer to that is this: the USSR didn’t have nukes during the Second World War. If it had, it would have certainly used them. Or, the same argument the other way, during the time that the USSR had nukes, the US didn’t use them either.

However, it seems to me that you have completely ignored, or not understood, my point that the size of the sampling is too small. You’ve got 60 years with at least eight countries that were nuclear capable, and tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and loads of opportunities to use them, and yet they never were. America, especially, had plenty of opportunity to use them – especially during the Korean War, when MacArthur wanted to use them to cut off Chinese re-supply routes, and then during the Cuban missile crisis – and yet they never were.

As I said, it’s rather like asking two people who they’re going to vote for and extrapolating that to predict the election.

But you've ignored that.

Most of the modern dictatorships are trying to defend themselves from the oncroach of a Friedman-style capitalism that does not bode well for any society. They have their food and shelter, they consume much less, and the Western societies are drowing in AIDS, free speech, drugs, religion, consumption, prostitution and pornography.
Well, now. This is absurd.

Look, you may have noticed that Kvarty, AstroNoodle and DDT give me plenty of stick for my supposedly “anti-capitalist” stance on this forum, but I'm proud to be a supporter of capitalism and democracy -- and history has clearly, unequivocally proven me right.

First, North Koreans do not have either food or shelter, as you suggest. They are constantly sitting on the verge of starvation, and if it wasn’t for the kindness of China, there would have already been an Ethiopia style famine in that country. To argue that NK have an alternative but just as good lifestyle as its capitalist peers is not an opinion -- it's just plain wrong.

In fact, the Korean peninsula provides a unique and excellent opportunity to compare living in a capitalist society to living in a socialist-communist-dictatorship. I think we all know where we’d want to be: South Korea, which emerged from being a third world country to being an Asian emerging market Tiger, to being a fully developed first world nation, with high standards of living and average wages and tremendous prospects for the future? Or North Korea which perpetually holds its population on the verge of starvation, and relies on charity handouts for basics like food, electricity and infrastructure? To say nothing of the relative levels of liberty and justice in those nations.

There are other brilliant examples -- East and West Germany, Eastern and Western Europe, the emergence of China since the Deng reforms -- and in each case, where Capitalism and Democracy have battled Socialism and Dictatorship, there has been only one winner -- not just in terms of the wealth of its wealthiest, but in terms of its mean and, importantly, median wealth. There are also examples of countries going the other way: Egypt and Iran as emerging economies that slipped into dictatorship and fundamentalism and went backward. Zimbabwe. And, best of all, Argentina, which in the 19th century was the South American version of the USA, and every bit as likely to emerge as a superpower, but slipped into an aristocracy of wealth, and then dictatorship and then nationalism and socialism. And where America has gone on to be the most powerful economy in history, Argentina languishes as a typical third world basket case.

But despite these supporting examples, the killer for your argument is the Korean Peninsula, where the fruits of capitalism and democracy are laid in stark juxtaposition with the ruinous consequences of absolute power and socialism.

Of course, I believe in the moral superiority of capitalism and democracy, but even if you don’t, the results and evidence, unfortunately, renders your position untenable.


Why not let those squinted-eyed brothers have their own way? Live and let live is my motto. The motto of most Western democracies seems to be: "Let me teach you how to live slaving for me".

Well, this is the point, old boy. If only North Korea would leave us alone, we wouldn’t mess with it. This isn’t Iraq or Lybia. It has a powerful army -- of course, no match for the US, but capable of providing a bloody nose and uncomfortable footage of planes landing at Andews Air Field brim-full of body bags containing the blistered remains of the flower of American youth cut down by VX gas. It also has the 20 million or so people who live in the Seoul metropolitan area within artillery range. So if only the loathsome thugs in Pyongyang would just get on with oppressing their own people and left our friends alone.

But they won’t.

From its sneak attack and war of aggression in the fifties, through its violation of international law and treaty after treaty, through its acts of terrorism, international crime, and brazen militaristic agitation on the peninsula, it has done little since its creation but stir the hornets nest and generally make the life of us democratic nations uncomfortable.

You’re all for North Korea’s right to be left alone, but what about the right of South Korean and Japanese actresses to be free from the threat of kidnap by Kim’s special forces? What about the right of South Korea to have its armistice, which it signed in good faith with the North, honoured? What about the right of Japanese citizens to live without the fear of a nuclear weapon being fired on their densely populated urban areas? What about the citizens of Seoul, who have had to live under the threat of a chemical attack because Kim decided to move chemical artillery rounds onto mountains overlooking the city? What about their rights?

If only Kim would leave us alone, so we could forget about his little hell hole of a nation. But he won’t. He sits, holding the Sword of Damocles over our collective heads while acting crazy enough -- flouting in the process a plethora of international laws with his warmongering actions -- to make us believe that he might just let it drop.

I admire your peaceful intentions, Russian Lad, and there’s a time and a place where I wish there were more like you in the world, but North Korea ain’t it, I’m afraid. And you must know this in your heart of hearts.

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 16:02
From its sneak attack and war of aggression in the fifties, through its violation of international law and treaty after treaty, through its acts of terrorism, international crime, and brazen militaristic agitation on the peninsula, it has done little since its creation but stir the hornets nest and generally make the life of us democratic nations uncomfortable.

You’re all for North Korea’s right to be left alone, but what about the right of South Korean and Japanese actresses to be free from the threat of kidnap by Kim’s special forces? What about the right of South Korea to have its armistice, which it signed in good faith with the North, honoured? What about the right of Japanese citizens to live without the fear of a nuclear weapon being fired on their densely populated urban areas? What about the citizens of Seoul, who have had to live under the threat of a chemical attack because Kim decided to move chemical artillery rounds onto mountains overlooking the city? What about their rights?



What about the freedom of Indians in the US? NK is not threatening to attack the US to liberate those people from reservations:). Carbo, what you write is a polished veneer of imperialistic thugs and murderers, it sounds smooth and articulate, only until hundreds of thousands of people suddenly start dying. What good have the democracies brought to Iraq and Afghanistan? 300 tons of nuclear waste, resumed production of heroin, death to many people, etc.
You may mean good, but the thugs you speak for don't. Why are the US and the British government not prosecuted for the war crimes they have already committed? Why are we discussing a potential threat from NK instead?

Carbo
03-06-2009, 16:42
What about the freedom of Indians in the US? NK is not threatening to attack the US to liberate those people from reservations:)
*Head bangs against desk*

Qdos
03-06-2009, 16:52
What good have the democracies brought to Iraq and Afghanistan?

They wouldn't have needed to even be in Afghanistan if your Russian troops had done a good job during the nine years they occupied the country now eh? ;)

And what a blerdy mess you created too! :cool:


Soviet Damage to Afghanistan...


Over one million Afghans were killed. Five million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, a third of the prewar population of the country. Another two million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.

Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and three million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants).

Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing by Soviet forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or government troops, according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts.

The population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants, following a months-long campaign of carpet bombing and bulldozing by the Soviets in 1987. Land mines had killed 25,000 Afghans during the war and another 10-15 million land mines, most planted by Soviet forces, were left scattered throughout the countryside to kill and maim.

A great deal of damage was done to the civilian population by land mines. A 2005 report estimated 3-4% of the Afghan population were disabled due to Soviet and Afghan communist land mines. In the city of Quetta, a survey of refugee women and children taken shortly after the Soviet withdrawal found over 80% of the children refugees unregistered and child mortality at 31%. Of children who survived, 67% were severely malnourished, with malnutrition increasing with age.

Carbo
03-06-2009, 17:36
And excellent example of how, when we talk of the US and UK militaries, they might cause collateral damage, but their rules of engagement differ vastly from almost every other army in the world.

When we talk of what horrors the US and UK inflict on Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that while we are right to question and probe and expose and criticize, we must also keep in mind that it's all relative.

Scrat335
03-06-2009, 18:08
First, North Koreans do not have either food or shelter, as you suggest. They are constantly sitting on the verge of starvation, and if it wasnt for the kindness of China, there would have already been an Ethiopia style famine in that country. To argue that NK have an alternative but just as good lifestyle as its capitalist peers is not an opinion -- it's just plain wrong.

In fact, the Korean peninsula provides a unique and excellent opportunity to compare living in a capitalist society to living in a socialist-communist-dictatorship. I think we all know where wed want to be: South Korea, which emerged from being a third world country to being an Asian emerging market Tiger, to being a fully developed first world nation, with high standards of living and average wages and tremendous prospects for the future? Or North Korea which perpetually holds its population on the verge of starvation, and relies on charity handouts for basics like food, electricity and infrastructure? To say nothing of the relative levels of liberty and justice in those nations.

First North Koreans do have food and shelter, they do not live in roadside ditches, lean tos or caves, eating bugs they find or running across the landscape in groups hunting and gathering like in the days of old. They don't live like Ethiopians, they don't live like Somalies. I'm not going to argue the lifestyle there is as good as the capitalist countries, it's not but it sure as hell is not as bad as some African nations.

In your post above you fail to take into account the sanctions kept in place by the powers that be in the west. Were the situation different I have no doubt the North Koreans situation would be different.

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 19:12
*Head bangs against desk*

It was a joke, Carbo, hope your head is ok.

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 19:13
When we talk of what horrors the US and UK inflict on Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that while we are right to question and probe and expose and criticize, we must also keep in mind that it's all relative.

Relative to what? To Hitler's crimes? Surely you would not want 300 tons of depleted uranium scattered around YOUR country?


They wouldn't have needed to even be in Afghanistan if your Russian troops had done a good job during the nine years they occupied the country now eh?



Russian or Soviet troops? Or you fail to see the difference? The Soviets did a bad thing, a shame some of them did not get persecuted by a war tribunal, but how can you justify the modern atrocities by the atrocities committed in the past? Does not make any sense to me.

is4fun
03-06-2009, 19:24
... how can you justify the modern atrocities by the atrocities committed in the past? Does not make any sense to me.

Do you actually read what you write? LOL

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 19:31
Do you actually read what you write? LOL

I do. What is not clear? If you go into the street and stab someone with a knife you will not be pardoned after you claim that another dude did the same thing some years ago, so it is ok to kill people and spread radioactive waste all over their country.

Qdos
03-06-2009, 19:41
Russian or Soviet troops? Or you fail to see the difference?

What's the difference between the Russian war crimes in Chechnya and the Soviet acts in Afghanistan? I'm afraid that I really do fail to see any tangible difference, and can only form quasi-identical views on the 'modus-operandi' of both these wars - which isn't surprising when you consider it was Moscow pulling the puppet strings in both cases... :whisper:

fenrir
03-06-2009, 19:57
Russian or Soviet troops? Or you fail to see the difference? The Soviets did a bad thing.

I like when something bad was done by the USSR, Russians will say it was the Soviet's fault but when there is something good/positive then all of a sudden it is to the credit of Russia. You can't have it noth ways.

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 19:57
What's the difference between the Russian war crimes in Chechnya and the Soviet acts in Afghanistan? I'm afraid that I really do fail to see any tangible difference

Afghanistan was never a part of Russia, Qdos. You may as well not see the difference between the Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. But for the purposes of this discussion, even if we assume that there is no difference, one still cannot justify his crimes by the crimes committed by others. They all remain what they are - crimes. War crimes in our case.


You can't have it noth ways.

Why not, Fenrir? I understand perfectly well the Germans who are proud of, say, their cars but claim they have nothing to do with the nazi Germany. That they cannot be held accountable for Hitler's crimes. Mark it, it was even the same country. See how your Western democratic logic faults when confronted by a sound argument?:) That is why I understand NK who wants a nuke. Safer this way, helps fighting off the democratic dogs salivating for their throats.

fenrir
03-06-2009, 19:59
I do. What is not clear? If you go into the street and stab someone with a knife you will not be pardoned after you claim that another dude did the same thing some years ago, so it is ok to kill people and spread radioactive waste all over their country.

I provided you with documentation that shows that your DU charges are rubbish. How about coming up with something better than 'would you want it in your backyard' as an argument. Hell, I don't want someone's cigarette butts in my backyard, so what does that prove?

Qdos
03-06-2009, 20:03
Afghanistan was never a part of Russia, Qdos. You may as well not see the difference between the Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. But for the purposes of this discussion, even if we assume that there is no difference, one still cannot justify his crimes by the crimes committed by others. They all remain what they are - crimes. War crimes in our case.

What on earth have military tactics got to do with whose territory the country you're making war against may have once belonged to? :suspect:

What was done under a Soviet banner in Afghanistan and under a Russian flag in Chechnya were very similar military campaigns...

I do have a better than vague idea of the geography and even a clue as to the historical sovereignty of these countries you know... ;)

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 20:07
Like I said, Qdos, for the sake of this discussion we may say it was the same.

Does it justify the carnage in Iraq in any way?

is4fun
03-06-2009, 20:31
Afghanistan was never a part of Russia, Qdos. You may as well not see the difference between the Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. But for the purposes of this discussion, even if we assume that there is no difference, one still cannot justify his crimes by the crimes committed by others. They all remain what they are - crimes. War crimes in our case.



Why not, Fenrir? I understand perfectly well the Germans who are proud of, say, their cars but claim they have nothing to do with the nazi Germany. That they cannot be held accountable for Hitler's crimes. Mark it, it was even the same country. See how your Western democratic logic faults when confronted by a sound argument?:) That is why I understand NK who wants a nuke. Safer this way, helps fighting off the democratic dogs salivating for their throats.

Certainly the victims must be compensated for their grief in some way? Don't you think? If your parents committed atrocities, would you not have to share in their blame? Would you not not feel ashamed that your parents have committed such heinous crimes that in some part you too would feel responsible? Do not the victims of an unjustifiable offense deserve compensation?

This is a great question as in history those who never compensated their victims gained infamy and those who did, gained respect. I respect the Germans because they did indeed voluntarily pay monetary retribution to their past crimes and publicly admitted their wrongs. This happens to be a major stumbling block with Russia's interpretation of retribution.

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 20:46
Certainly the victims must be compensated for their grief in some way? Don't you think? If your parents committed atrocities, would you not have to share in their blame? Would you not not feel ashamed that your parents have committed such heinous crimes that in some part you too would feel responsible? Do not the victims of an unjustifiable offense deserve compensation?

This is a great question as in history those who never compensated their victims gained infamy and those who did, gained respect. I respect the Germans because they did indeed voluntarily pay monetary retribution to their past crimes and publicly admitted their wrongs. This happens to be a major stumbling block with Russia's interpretation of retribution.


What exactly are you talking about? I personally lost many family members who were fighting the nazi, I have not seen a single kopeck, neither did my parents. Oh, I LOVE Western democratic propaganda. It brainwashes people even better than the Soviet one.

is4fun
03-06-2009, 20:52
What exactly are you talking about? I personally lost many family members who were fighting the nazi, I have not seen a single kopeck. Oh, I LOVE Western democratic propaganda. It brainwashes people even better than the Soviet one.

What do you mean you have not seen a single kopeck? After the defeat of Germany the German prisoners were enslaved to the Soviet State to rebuild the country. Ok, ok you personally did not receive any money but your parents did indeed enjoy the work the enslaved Germans provided to rebuild much of Russia's infrastructure. LOL

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 21:02
After the defeat of Germany the German prisoners were enslaved to the Soviet State to rebuild the country. Ok, ok you personally did not receive any money but your parents did indeed enjoy the work the enslaved Germans provided to rebuild much of Russia's infrastructure.

So, exploitation of criminal war prisoners is your idea of retribution? Fine with me, go capture Berezovskiy and his cronies (most of them committed indespicable war crimes in Chechnya, are hiding in Britain now), or whomever you can find among the Russians who committed war crimes and put them in a labor camp, I cannot care less.
Again, even if war crimes were committed in Chechnya, does it justify the carnage in Iraq?

fenrir
03-06-2009, 21:07
What do you mean you have not seen a single kopeck? After the defeat of Germany the German prisoners were enslaved to the Soviet State to rebuild the country. Ok, ok you personally did not receive any money but your parents did indeed enjoy the work the enslaved Germans provided to rebuild much of Russia's infrastructure. LOL

Plus all the industrial production they took from East Germany as war reparations and all the Polish factories that were disassembled and taken to the USSR because they were designated 'German' factories because the Germans were using them as well as factories in Germany that were actually German, etc.

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 21:13
Plus all the industrial production they took from East Germany as war reparations and all the Polish factories that were disassembled and taken to the USSR because they were designated 'German' factories because the Germans were using them as well as factories in Germany that were actually German, etc.


Well, at present the Russian government is pouring a lot of money into the Chechen economy, you may consider it as a retribution of a sort. And mind it, it was a part of Russia.
No relevance for that in this discussion, however. One murder does not justify another.

Qdos
03-06-2009, 21:21
Does it justify the carnage in Iraq in any way?

I was saying Afghanistan and Chechnya were practically the same, and unless I'm mistaken you were disagreeing with that on the technicality of distinction between the Soviet and Russian nations.

I'm pretty certain civilian populations of Iraqi cities haven't been decimated to 10% of what they were (as happened in Afghanistan) by the coalition forces or the American military ;)

I can tell you that the carnage comitted with Kuwaits oil wells was dreadful, and was an act of unprovoked hostility on the part of the Iraqis - I had to get into the thick of that in my (then) professional capacity and it made the air in Moscow seem rose scented...

Qdos
03-06-2009, 21:27
So, exploitation of criminal war prisoners is your idea of retribution? Fine with me, go capture Berezovskiy and his cronies (most of them committed indespicable war crimes in Chechnya, are hiding in Britain now), or whomever you can find among the Russians who committed war crimes and put them in a labor camp, I cannot care less.
Again, even if war crimes were committed in Chechnya, does it justify the carnage in Iraq?

Berezovskiy appears to have been accused of financial irregularities, however there's nothing whatsoever to do with Chechnya in his Wikipedia entry...

Boris Berezovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Boris_Berezovsky.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Boris_Berezovsky.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/1/16/Boris_Berezovsky.jpg

He's not 'hiding' in Britain. He was granted political asylum ;)

is4fun
03-06-2009, 21:29
So, exploitation of criminal war prisoners is your idea of retribution? Fine with me, go capture Berezovskiy and his cronies (most of them committed indespicable war crimes in Chechnya, are hiding in Britain now), or whomever you can find among the Russians who committed war crimes and put them in a labor camp, I cannot care less.
Again, even if war crimes were committed in Chechnya, does it justify the carnage in Iraq?

Well actually, if you read my post correctly, the exploitation of war criminals was initiated by the Soviet Russians. It has nothing to do with me. Did I err in the way in which I wrote my post? I apologize if I did, however, I feel an apology would be in order if indeed my post was unclear so sorry. I hope other members may point out the mistakes I might have made in my prose, as poor as it is.

I am unable to comment on Berezovsky as I have not seen or heard any facts whatsoever on his involvement in the Chechen war, however, what I do know is that it was the RF that was fighting the war. Are you trying to say this was on behalf of Mr. B? I am interested in knowing more about this as I am sure many others are too.

As for the carnage in Iraq? Since the end of the actual war, how many atrocities were actually committed by coalition soldiers and how many were committed by suicidal bombers convinced by their spiritual leader promising that if one dies he will go to heaven and receive one hundred of the most beautiful maidens waiting for his beckon call. :)

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 21:53
Berezovskiy appears to have been accused of financial irregularities, however there's nothing whatsoever to do with Chechnya in his Wikipedia entry...

Keep digging, Qdos. 1st war in Chechnya.

Qdos
03-06-2009, 22:03
Keep digging, Qdos. 1st war in Chechnya.

OK, I had a dig. Berezovsky gave a lot of money to the government of Chechnya which was clearly done to pi$$ of Putin and cronies. It's said in official terms that the money was for the repair of a cement factory.

It's there on the Wiki link I posted earlier :cool:

Nada, zilch, regards Berezovsky and Chechnyan war crime... maybe you have a link from a reputable western media source RL? :suspect:

Jack17
03-06-2009, 22:21
Well, at present the Russian government is pouring a lot of money into the Chechen economy, you may consider it as a retribution of a sort. And mind it, it was a part of Russia.
No relevance for that in this discussion, however. One murder does not justify another.

What does all this discussion about DU have to do with the Dear Leader? He's producing plutonium and while DU is not good, Plutonium can really ruin your day, especially if it becomes the fissionable materia in a nuclear warhead.

As for this CCCP vs. US control of nukes debate, it's not so much an issue of democrat vs dictator as stable vs. unstable. Say what you want about Breshnev, Beria or Putin, no one seriously believes any of these leaders would have sold a nuke to Bin Laden (or a Rockefeller who I suppose RL views as more dangerous). But the Dear Leader? I think the record shows he'll sell whatever someone will buy. It's not so much NK using a nuke that's the problem; but to whom they might sell one. But what to do about it beats me. Guess all you can do is keep a close eye on them.

And now is time to put in a good word for Putin and United Russia. Maybe some of you don't know that Raytheon (major US Defense Contractor) has an office on Tverskaya-Yamskaya. They and the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) have been working for years to dispose of Russian plutonium and DU. With US Defense dollars, they are decommissioning Russian plutonium reactors and building new clean reactors as we speak. They are also working to safely dispose of old Russian submarine reactors. The effort also extends to destroying stock piles of Russian chemical and biological agents. So, my point is, cooperation is possible to combat nuclear proliferation among civilized people. It would be nice if a similar program were possible between the US and NK.

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 22:24
Berezovsky financed terrorists by paying ransoms €“ Chechen prez | Politics from 2009-04-08 | RT (http://www.russiatoday.ru/Politics/2009-04-08/Berezovsky_financed_terrorists_by_paying_ransoms___Chechen_prez.html)

Just an example. He used to betray the military in the 1st Chechen campaign as well, one of the reasons we had such heavy losses. War criminals are not only those who kill themselves, those pulling the ropes are even more dangerous.

Qdos
03-06-2009, 22:25
Berezovsky financed terrorists by paying ransoms €“ Chechen prez | Politics from 2009-04-08 | RT

Just an example. He used to betray the military in the 1st Chechen campaign as well, one of the reasons we had such heavy losses. War criminals are not only those who kill themselves, those pulling the ropes are even more dangerous.

That is not the definition of a war crime RL! ;)


It would be nice if a similar program were possible between the US and NK.

OMFG, are we finally back on topic? :9456:

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 22:30
That is not the definition of a war crime RL!


It is not. It was just a thought. Hitler probably did not kill a single person himself during WW-II...

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 22:38
Jack, sorry to try to disillusion you, but it looks like this program exists only because FSB cronies can make money through it and the US can have more eyes watching the Russian nuke situation.

Jack17
03-06-2009, 22:55
Jack, sorry to try to disillusion you, but it looks like this program exists only because FSB cronies can make money through it and the US can have more eyes watching the Russian nuke situation.

You are absolutely correct RL, except for one word - "only." Do you think I'm so stupid to think a multi billion dollar program is going to happen inside Russia without everyone up and down the Russian food chain taking their cut? (Don't answer that question.)

While all that is true, the fact remains tons of plutonium, DU and chem/bio agents have been destroyed - and more importantly, breader reactors have been shut down and new clean reactors are being built.

I'm sure the folks at DTRA would be just as content to see the Dear Leader and his buds take their cut if he'd agree to such a program.

As for "eyes watching Russian nukes" that's part of the START treaty and there are plenty of Russian eyes on American nukes too.

















'

Russian Lad
03-06-2009, 23:05
START treaty

A funny name for a treaty like that:).
Well, as to NK, let's see how it goes. China is also a dictatorship, they have nukes but they do not seem to be rushing to use them.

is4fun
03-06-2009, 23:06
You are absolutely correct RL, except for one word - "only." Do you think I'm so stupid to think a multi billion dollar program is going to happen inside Russia without everyone up and down the Russian food chain taking their cut? (Don't answer that question.)

While all that is true, the fact remains tons of plutonium, DU and chem/bio agents have been destroyed - and more importantly, breader reactors have been shut down and new clean reactors are being built.

I'm sure the folks at DTRA would be just as content to see the Dear Leader and his buds take their cut if he'd agree to such a program.

As for "eyes watching Russian nukes" that's part of the START treaty and there are plenty of Russian eyes on American nukes too.















'

Thank you for bringing some reasoning back to this discussion. :)

GaNozri
03-06-2009, 23:29
You way over-exaggerate the dangers of DU munitions.

Read this.

NATO Depleted Uranium - May 2000 (http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d000500e.htm#4)

You are such a brainwashed ............ "estonian".:10475:

GaNozri
03-06-2009, 23:39
What do you mean you have not seen a single kopeck? After the defeat of Germany the German prisoners were enslaved to the Soviet State to rebuild the country. Ok, ok you personally did not receive any money but your parents did indeed enjoy the work the enslaved Germans provided to rebuild much of Russia's infrastructure. LOL

You are a D*ckhead! After losing 26 million people to the war that was forced on us, were we supposed to pay them restitution? Good thing as many of them left here alive as they did. Should have shot them all, after what they tried to do to us. Shut up and say "spasibo" that you are not speaking German right now!

GaNozri
03-06-2009, 23:48
and under a Russian flag in Chechnya were very similar military campaigns...

I do have a better than vague idea of the geography and even a clue as to the historical sovereignty of these countries you know... ;)

Please do tell us, ignoramuses, how is Chechnya's claim on historical independence legitimate?

Russian Lad
04-06-2009, 00:10
I'm sure the folks at DTRA would be just as content to see the Dear Leader and his buds take their cut if he'd agree to such a program.

I guess the Dear Leader maybe would like to have such a program and have a cut in it together with his buds, however he maybe slightly baffled by the fate of Saddam who was trying to cotton up to the nukes inspectors and ended up hanging on a gibbet with a rope tight around his neck. Such a barbarity, truly a democratic move! And the mockery of it - he did not even possess the damn thing in the first place, as it turned out! Guess the Dear Leader's sleep is somewhat perturbed sometimes when he wakes up at night, sweating heavily, and realizes that it was just a bad dream. One cannot blame the dude for wanting a nuke. In all fairness, I would want the toy myself if I was in his shoes.

GaNozri
04-06-2009, 00:20
One cannot blame the dude for wanting a nuke. In all fairness, I would want the toy myself if I was in his shoes.

I would say that nowadays, owning a nukilar weapon is the ONLY guarantee against US agression. How can anyone blame them for trying?

fenrir
04-06-2009, 00:56
You are such a brainwashed ............ "estonian".:10475:

Where is your counter-evidence?

GaNozri
04-06-2009, 01:06
Where is your counter-evidence?

Bystrrrrryi parrrennnnnn',
jmi nnnna torrrrrmoz!

GaNozri
04-06-2009, 01:09
How about we dump all the DU somewhere near Tallin?
That would give you an economy, of sorts.

Scrat335
04-06-2009, 01:29
While we're debating on everything but the original subject of this thread it appears NK is assembling another long range missile. Heard it on the radio.

The question is, just what is going to be done about it?

Qdos
04-06-2009, 01:37
While we're debating on everything but the original subject of this thread it appears NK is assembling another long range missile. Heard it on the radio.

They'll point it towards Japan and claim it's for launching another satellite... ;)

If they go too far all their neighbours, and the international community, will determine a way to make them kiss a$$ in an appropriate fashion... :mooooh:

Jack17
04-06-2009, 04:16
While we're debating on everything but the original subject of this thread it appears NK is assembling another long range missile. Heard it on the radio.

The question is, just what is going to be done about it?

Probably nothing.

Jack17
04-06-2009, 04:30
I would say that nowadays, owning a nukilar weapon is the ONLY guarantee against US agression. How can anyone blame them for trying?

You might feel differently if the Dear Leader cuts a sweet deal for one of his nukes with the Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs.

You see GaNozri, the Dear Leader aint motivated by ideology; only hard currency. Chechen dollars spend just same as Syrian or Iranian dollars.
Russia may not be the number one enemy of radical Islam; but you're up there in the top 10 for sure.

fenrir
04-06-2009, 09:36
Russia may not be the number one enemy of radical Islam; but you're up there in the top 10 for sure.

Judging by the number of attacks on Russian security forces in Dagestan and the surrounding region, I would say they are getting plenty of attention from the faithful brethren of the crescent.

fenrir
04-06-2009, 09:40
How about we dump all the DU somewhere near Tallin?
That would give you an economy, of sorts.

Our economy is doing better than yours. You don't see our workers closing down highways and causing 400 km long traffic jams (according to MT) to get wage arrears.

Maybe you can dump the DU in Moscow since the enlightened authorities there from the past had already established nuclear dump sites there. A little more won't hurt.

Carbo
04-06-2009, 11:29
Berezovsky financed terrorists by paying ransoms €“ Chechen prez | Politics from 2009-04-08 | RT (http://www.russiatoday.ru/Politics/2009-04-08/Berezovsky_financed_terrorists_by_paying_ransoms___Chechen_prez.html)

Just an example. He used to betray the military in the 1st Chechen campaign as well, one of the reasons we had such heavy losses. War criminals are not only those who kill themselves, those pulling the ropes are even more dangerous.
Says Razman Kadyrov.

Pur-lease.

Carbo
04-06-2009, 11:34
You are a D*ckhead! After losing 26 million people to the war that was forced on us, were we supposed to pay them restitution? Good thing as many of them left here alive as they did. Should have shot them all, after what they tried to do to us. Shut up and say "spasibo" that you are not speaking German right now!
Well isn't it interesting the way the allies treat West Germany and the way the Soviets treat the East.

We let the people vote. We enshrined liberty. We set up a country that would become the largest economy in Europe.

The Soviets raped the country for reparations, used its men as slave labour and the land as a cynical gumshield against future attack.

While West Germans grew rich, East Germans remained in abject poverty.

There weren't too many people trying to travel eastward over the Berlin wall, were there?

As for the thank you I'm supposed to offer for not speaking German, I have no idea what you mean. While Britain stood alone in the face of Nazi aggression, the Soviet Union was best friends with Hitler, invading the other half of a sovereign nation and carving it up like a cake to be shared among brutal dictators. While we were liberating Jews, the Soviets were oppressing them. I have the greatest respect for the suffering that Russians endured. I really don't think any other nation in the world could have done that, and when I meet a man or woman who fought in that war I look at them in awe. What they found within their hearts was truly awesome and inspiring.

On the other hand, I have nothing but loathing for the Soviet Union and Stalin.

Judge
04-06-2009, 11:41
Our economy is doing better than yours. You don't see our workers closing down highways and causing 400 km long traffic jams (according to MT) to get wage arrears.

Maybe for now it is.

Latvia may be a small country but it has vast repercussions for the region, said Bartosz Pawlowski, of BNP Paribas. If the currency breaks in Latvia, it is likely to break in Estonia and Lithuania as well, and perhaps Bulgaria, with effects on other countries like Romania.

Latvian debt crisis shakes Eastern Europe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5438615/Latvian-debt-crisis-shakes-Eastern-Europe.html)

Carbo
04-06-2009, 11:46
You might feel differently if the Dear Leader cuts a sweet deal for one of his nukes with the Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs.

You see GaNozri, the Dear Leader aint motivated by ideology; only hard currency. Chechen dollars spend just same as Syrian or Iranian dollars.
Russia may not be the number one enemy of radical Islam; but you're up there in the top 10 for sure.
I would say top two.

You think all those Mujhadeen vets have forgotten?

You think the Soviets were nice to the Muslims inside the empire?

You think Chechnya is something they'll sweep under the carpet?

Oh no. Russia is definately top three, and maybe second.

fenrir
04-06-2009, 11:53
Maybe for now it is.

Latvia may be a small country but it has vast repercussions for the region, said Bartosz Pawlowski, of BNP Paribas. If the currency breaks in Latvia, it is likely to break in Estonia and Lithuania as well, and perhaps Bulgaria, with effects on other countries like Romania.

Latvian debt crisis shakes Eastern Europe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5438615/Latvian-debt-crisis-shakes-Eastern-Europe.html)

That may be true. I read the local business news every day and analysts from the Swedish banks (they are the most heavily involved here), the ECB, the IMF, etc. all have conflicting predictions and advice. Some say devalue, some say don't, some say give up on the euro, some say adopt the euro unilaterally, etc. Who is one supposed to believe?

This is like being back in Miami sitting out Hurricane Andrew. We just have to wait until the storm passes and see what is left over.