Why shouldn't the North Koreans have nukes?

Sure, the world would probably be a more dangerous place if they had nukes. But why is that our business?

Really, isn’t this a sovereignty issue? We have nukes, the UK has them, the Russians have them, India and Pakistan have them, China has them – hell, FRANCE has them. If you want to have nukes to protect your nation, who are we to say you shouldn’t have them? Nuclear weapon capability is a definite deterrent to invasion, and as such North Korea has a very logical reason for wanting them.

Sure, the interventionist Bush government doesn’t give a shit about sovereignty of other nations, but can’t we at least question this as a generic policy position? Nobody (excepting dirty smelly hippies) questions the US’s right to possess nuclear weaponry, it’s a simple national sovereignty issue. Ditto for the rest of the WW2 alies, plus India and Pakistan. Why are the countries that are powerful in the UN somehow entitled to a nuclear weapons program while the rest are supposed to just lie back and take our dick up their ass as if it were our right to fuck them?

Well, I for one would not be happy if a regime that on reading Orwell’s 1984 decided it was a pretty good model for government, gained a nuclear weapons capability.

Almost certainly, the main reason we don’t want N. Korea to have nukes was touched on in the OP: they would give the N. Koreans the ability to say “Fuck You” to the US. Ditto Iran. And in N. Korea’s case, we can’t be certain Kim Jong-Il wouldn’t actually be insane enough to use them. There’s also the legitimate fear that they may leak either nukes or nuclear technology to others. As it is, we probably had to threaten Pakistan’s president with death by slow torture if a Pakistani nuke were to ever get “stolen” by Islamic radicals.

Seriously, do we want to live in a world where twenty or thirty countries possess nukes, and if terrorists ever did acquire one there would be no way to trace where it came from? I think eventually either the world will resemble a nuclear Beruit, or else some authority is going to enforce a nuclear monopoly.

This policy goes back many years and also many administrations. It has been an accepted policy in the United Nations. At least one nation, South Africa, voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons to comply. It is a bit ludicrous to condemn Bush for what he has done concerning North Korea, Iran and others.

:confused:

Given the US’s past use of atomic weapons and the current admin’s interest in “bunker buster” nukes, who’s calling whom insane? Is the US to be the world’s psychiatrist as well as policeman?

kniz, I don’t think the OP blames the Bush admin. RexDart merely says that the ongoing policy doesn’t offend the admin’s sensibilities. Personally I think that bringing diplomatic/economic pressure to bear on a country for actions you don’t like is fair game on the world stage. We just have to be wary when we decide (or threaten) to use military force to destroy a projected hypothetical threat.

I have to agree that country A deciding country B should not have nukes (esp when country A has nukes) is arbirtray and illogical. As for NK, AFAIK they are not even signatories to the Nn-PT (nookular* non-proliferation treaty). Now, if they negotiated with us for some aid on the agreement that they would not develop nukes, we could certainly withdraw the aid. Or if, in Iraq’s case, part of the cease fire agreement in a war was for them not to develop nukes, that could void the cease-fire.

And while I do agree that the world is an overall better place if we limit the proliferation of nukes, a country like NK has little in the way of its own self interest to abide by that proposition.

  • :slight_smile:

North Korea pulled out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in 2003. Their claim at the time was that the withdrawal was due to continuing US threats in contravention to the agreement. (You know, all that axis of evil crap Bush kept spouting in lieu of negotiation)

I think there’s a much larger priciple at stake here. North Korea signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty in 1986, if memory serves, foreswearing its intentions to build nuclear weapons. It completed its obligations for joining the regime in 1992, but then the very next year, it goes ahead and pulls a fast one by saying that it has changed its mind, and that the NPT was no longer its bag, baby.

A decent bit of diplomacy reversed that course, but then in 2003, as has been mentioned, the DPRK really goes through with it, and trashed its obligations to the NPT.

If the world (heck, or even the US) were to say, “Eh, not much we can do, they are a sovereign country,” what kind of message would that send?

First, that there are no serious consequences for a country ripping up its obligations to one of the most important treaties of the past century. The one-hundred-sixty-or so countries who bound themselves not to seek nuclear weapons (not for nothing, but in exchange for assistance in building a peaceful nuclear power program) would more or less be given the green light to do the same, so long as they want to waste their own treasure on designing and producing the most horrible of weapons.

Second, such an acknowledgement would be a reverse course from the ideal of total nuclear disarmament. Yes, it’s kind of a pipe dream, but don’t we all sort of hope that there would be some way to guarantee peace and security in the world without resorting to the threat of weapons that can vaporize whole countries? I think most of us can agree that we ought to be reducing the world’s stockpile of these weapons to a much lowerlevel, and then, over the course of probably decades or generations, exploring ways to ban then entirely.

Third, there no goddamn good reason for North Korea to withdraw from the NPT. You can’t look at Bush and the Axis of Evil and the 2003 withdrawal without going back to the 1993 talk of withdrawal. By virtually every measure, the situation on the Korean penninsula has improved over the decades. ROK tourists are now able to visit the North. The US withdrew its tactical nukes from South Korea about 13 years ago. The North, as terrible shape as it is in now, is not likely to implode, explode, or crumble in the very near term. Why should the world be jerked around by this country on such a serious matter as building nuclear arms for no good reason?

There are lots of very good reasons to be concerned about North Korea, besides the notion that Kim Jong Il is a spastic whacko that could launch nukes at any moment.

Nobody should be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons (perhaps a united earth government should, but I cannot see that happening in the near future), imho ymmv.

Since the countries with nuclear weapons won’t give up their weapons, the next best thing is to limit everyone else’s nuclear capability.

Talking about withdrawing from agreements… didn’t the US withdraw from some commitments that would limit Star Wars program and other more modern nuclear technologies ?

Speaking frankly its no wonder North Korea feels it has the same right to give the finger to international agreements… the US did the same. With the Iraq Invasion it only confirms that HAVING NUKES is the best defense… something that most 3rd world countries didn’t think before Bush. (India and Pakistan have nukes against one another.)

Overall a positive reinforcement should be given for non-proliferation too… as well as non-military “negative” ones. Give good trade treaties and other goodies if they comply… and menace them with embargoes and diplomatic wars if they don’t. North Korea seems to get more goodies when they play “bad” than when they play along.

As an example... Brazil signed all the non-proliferation treaties when the US denied us acess to supercomputers that might help build nukes. When we signed the dam things they still stalled acess to buying those computers for a good time ! Now that we don't care about building nukes we don't get free reactors or food like N.Korea. Being the "bad boy" seems to bring more rewards apparently.

Also, isn’t the non-proliferation treaty saying ‘no-one else can have nukes’ rather than ‘no-one can have nukes’. If the treaty was a genuine attempt to reduce the numbers of fat warheads pointed at people, fine. If it was an attempt by the small club of nations already in possession of said warheads to maintain that strategic advantage, not so good. And if the second is the case, it sits a little uneasily to say ‘we are responsible, we are allowed them. They are crazy-insane, they must not be allowed to have them.’
Cheers.

One good example of why NK should not have nukes is Russia and the problems caused after the fall of the Soviet Union. NK is on the verge of collapse. Perhaps a better Doper can help me with sites, but NK has no natural resources, no exports and virtually no economy. It spends massive amounts of money on an archaic military while begging for aid to feed a starving nation. I respect your belief that “NK should have nukes now” but you need to ask, what happens to those weapons after the country implodes?

I’ve always seen this issue from the generic hypothetical: Should you give guns to criminals? Well the police have them, and use them, so of course criminals need guns to defend themselves from the police!

Although, if you don’t see a dictatorship as a criminal organization then my hypothetical falls apart.

Perhaps we should use the Chris Rock approach, let them have all the nukes they want, just charge them a billion dollars for an ounce of uranium…

You say positive reinforcement but I hear blackmail. “Give them what they want or they’ll blow us all up?”

Isn’t that the best reason to NOT let them have nukes?

The NPT does make an attempt to reduce the number of warheads in the world and ultimately for complete disarmament, Article VI of the NPT reads:

The NPT provided a framework for stopping the arms race and later reducing the numbers of warhead in the form of SALT I and II and START. I doubt the NPT is going to lead to complete global disarmament anytime soon, but it is a start and can be said to have reduced the numbers of warheads pointed at people.

The longstanding nuclear policy of the United States is Mutual Assured Destruction, or if you will Nuclear Deterrence. It is generally understood that if Russia launches nuclear missiles that we will as well and the whole thing just gets blown straight to hell.

So now we introduce a country long known to be supported by the Russians (and for that matter China) with whom we have fought a bitter war that is not in fact over. These people over the years have proven themselves to be a menace to the US (think of the tree-cutting affair in 1976 and the Pueblo affair in 1968) and South Korea. They are quite literally starving to death while their mortal enemies are eating well just a few miles away. So they develop nuclear weapons in order to coerce some food and a few other things like oil out of their richer neighbors.

If South Korea (and by extension, the US) refuses to give into their demands, does that make them more or less likely to pop off a nuke? They have nothing to lose, they’re dying anyway. If they fire a nuke, what do you think we are going to do? Duh, we’re gonna shoot back. If we shoot back at a country right off the Chinese border, what do you think China will do? Duh again. And China has a long history of hostility with Russia, so when they pop a few off how hard is it to imagine that a few might be aimed at Moscow? Whch leads us to the Russian response, which can only be launching nukes in accordance with their longstanding principle of MAD. So they launch, and since they’re not going to have the time or inclination to reprogram any of their missiles some will be aimed at the US. So what do we do? You guessed it, we launch at Russia in retaliation.

North Korea having nuclear weapons is a desabilizing influence. Their having nuclear weapons makes a full scale nuclear war more likely. I think that the above scenario is not only possible, but likely if things continue as they are right now.

Airman, that was torturous in the extreme.

The way I see it, isn’t what we’re saying ‘they can’t have nukes because they’ll use them. (gasp)’

So why have we got them? Is it to use them.

But, of course, they’re all madmen, as George Bush so merrily labelled half a dozen world leaders in that Meet the Press affair. Except that do we really believe that the Russians are (or ever were) a country run by madmen? Or the Chinese? Sure, we don’t really understand them a lot of the time, but are they really mad?

It’s like calling George Bush stupid. Would he be president if he were a dumbass? Would North Korea (or its military) tolerate a raving lunatic at the helm. Bush says Saddam was a madman, but have we seen any evidence of this?

Sorry. I rambled a bit. In summary, we trust us, but not ‘them’. And yet we’re the only ones who’ve ever actually nuked anything, and it’s us making all the threats to nuke stuff. Isn’t this all about maintaining our strategic edge (which I think justifies the retention of nukes - not morally, but in real terms).
Cheers.

Maaaaaaan, maybe im seeing things but your taking the whole ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ philosophy too damn far.

North Korea is arguably the most human rights unfriendly country on earth. They also have no problem with selling materials on the black market for money as evidenced by their role in the drug trade and slave trade in asia. Not wanting them to have nukes is not a problem.

other countries that are more responsible are a totally different matter. Not wanting the most human rights unfriendly rogue nation on earth to not have nukes is a totally different matter.

No reason really. I’m beginning to see the light.

KJI builds his nuclear arsenal, we begin demilitarizing the Korean Peninsula.

The South Koreans and the Japanese suddenly realize that we are actually serious this time and begin frantically building their military arsenals to match KJI.

Japan, a peaceful nation, constrained by their US written constitution, quickly passes some necessary security amendments.

Then, given their level of technology, in a short period of time become the first or second most nuclear capable nation on Earth. Glad they like baseball and Elvis. Michael Jackson, um Japan, we need to have a talk.

Then, of course, North Korea will be able to do whatever they want. Is that the argument?

Um…because we live in it?

As one of the nations that will likely have to intervene and other wise become involved in these trouble spots, I think we have a vested interest and a right to prevent aggressive nations like NK from increasing their capacity to be aggressive.

Well, yes…so they can stream across the border into South Korea by the millions and prevent NATO or UN intervention by holding a nuclear gun to people’s heads.

Sure he does. But “sovereignty” is not a magic shield that allows you to do what you want without consequence.

Yes…I’m sure South Korea would like to keep theirs.

Yes Airman, please use smaller words. :smiley:

No…we are saying that they can’t have them because they will probably use them against us or our allies.

No, we have them as a deterrent against others using them. For the types of wars we fight, nuclear weapons are impractical. In fact, for anything other than complete annihilation of a nations infrastructure, there is no practical use for them in modern warfare.

Um…you are familiar Stalin, right?

And you don’t think that is important?

I’m sorry but the concept of “do unto others…” foreign policy sounds hopelessly naive to me. I believe we do have a right and a responsibility to prevent oppressive nations like North Korea from obtaining weapons and increasing their regional influence.

If they want to play with big-boy toys like the grown-ups, let them demonstrate some responsibility.