[Bullseye]

Re: N Korea : Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:00 pm  

Cronus wrote:

So, how far down the road of true intercontinental nuclear capability does the rest of the world allow them to progress? This country that has, for decades, repeatedly issued threats to SK and the USA, amongst others?

Difficult to say if the rest of the world can do anything about it now especially given the ramifications of using a military response to prevent any further progress.

As Putin said the N Korean leadership are prepared to let their people eat grass to achieve it so further sanctions are unlikely to achieve anything further either.

Re: N Korea : Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:50 pm  

Cronus wrote:

So, how far down the road of true intercontinental nuclear capability does the rest of the world allow them to progress?

Perhaps that's the attitude that creates this kind of behaviour? Several nuclear nations, including the UK, have failed to abide by NP and disarmament pledges, by upgrading or improving their capacity - so it's not a massive leap to assume that we've lost the moral high ground in the eyes of countries like NK?

I can't actually see why he wants them - one can only assume that he wants a seat at the big boy table - and given that a military option is totally out of the question, he'll probably get one.

[Bullseye]

Re: N Korea : Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:02 pm  

Well he's got the nukes and will eventually get the means to deliver them. I can't see him ever getting a seat on the UN security council - nukes or not.

Re: N Korea : Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:04 pm  

bren2k wrote:

Perhaps that's the attitude that creates this kind of behaviour? Several nuclear nations, including the UK, have failed to abide by NP and disarmament pledges, by upgrading or improving their capacity - so it's not a massive leap to assume that we've lost the moral high ground in the eyes of countries like NK?

No, I rather think the West preventing NK occupying SK in the early 50s and supporting them with enough firepower (including nuclear) and manpower to deter any further invasions, in addition to being ruled by a fookin fruitcake and his son utterly brainwashed by a failed ideology for decades, an ideology utterly opposed by most of the world, who incidentally have imposed crippling sanctions for decades probably has more to do with NK's view of the world.

I can't actually see why he wants them - one can only assume that he wants a seat at the big boy table - and given that a military option is totally out of the question, he'll probably get one.

What, a leftist who doesn't really understand but says a lot anyway? Who'dathunkit. He wants them primarily as a deterrent which will ensure the survival of NK and hopefully remove sanctions. He wants them so NK is viewed and respected as a global power. He also wants them in order to strike at his enemies should he perceive the threat level gets too high.

You and I both know SK and the USA will never invade NK. Does Kim Jong Un? Does he truly believe only a nuclear deterrent will prevent that, or is his goal simply to arm NK to the point any action against them is unthinkable? Or is he planning a pre-emptive strike? Remember, this is a man who executed one of his own ministers with an anti-aircraft gun. For falling asleep in a meeting.

BTW, he'll never get a seat on the Security Council. Not a chance in hell. My flabber is gasted that you even typed the words.

Re: N Korea : Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:50 am  

China could end all this within 5 minutes but choose not to for whatever reason. Still, if the biggest killer of innocent civilians in the world, the US of A and the UK are allowed nuclear weapons, why shouldn't NK? Maybe NK are tired of watching the west slaughter innocent people or invade countries for no reason and feel their only deterrent are nuclear weapons

Regards

King James

Re: N Korea : Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:14 pm  

A very good point LJ

Re: N Korea : Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:28 pm  

RoyBoy29 wrote:

A very good point LJ

It's right though RB. The sooner people stop believing the rhetoric from the daily mail like chronus and dally do the better. The west is at war for one reason. Money. If you don't believe this you are thick. I'm sorry but it's true. NK give the west even more reason to spend trillions on "defence". NK will never a trigger a war and neither will the west but as long as the sheeple think that there may be a war, congress can pump trillions into companies that have politicians as shareholders

Regards

King James

Re: N Korea : Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:29 pm  

Cronus wrote:

What, a leftist who doesn't really understand but says a lot anyway? Who'dathunkit. He wants them primarily as a deterrent which will ensure the survival of NK and hopefully remove sanctions. He wants them so NK is viewed and respected as a global power. He also wants them in order to strike at his enemies should he perceive the threat level gets too high.

You and I both know SK and the USA will never invade NK. Does Kim Jong Un? Does he truly believe only a nuclear deterrent will prevent that, or is his goal simply to arm NK to the point any action against them is unthinkable? Or is he planning a pre-emptive strike? Remember, this is a man who executed one of his own ministers with an anti-aircraft gun. For falling asleep in a meeting.

BTW, he'll never get a seat on the Security Council. Not a chance in hell. My flabber is gasted that you even typed the words.

I didn't say I didn't understand the issue - I said I don't understand why he wants them; because I'm not expertly versed in the politics of the region and I don't know what, if any, his end-game is. You helpfully go on to explain, patronisingly and with the requisite amount of bluster, the various scenarios - and as per my previous post - I tend to believe the first is the most plausible - he's trying to elevate NK to the same level as the UK, the US, Russia et al, such that action against them is unthinkable - hence my reference to the appropriately named MAD conventions.

I wasn't suggesting he'd get on the UN Security Council btw - so retract your ghasted flabber - my point was broader; he wants to be taken seriously, and if he ends up with the capability to vaporise half the world, he probably will be; what other choice is there? Which in the circular way of these things - leads us back to where I started; if we don't abide by the NPT and disarmament treaties - on what moral or indeed legal basis can we expect other nations to fall into line?