Why shouldn't the North Koreans have nukes?

Great Debates
41

So porn and cognac make him a madman?

I think we agree more than we’re letting on. I never said the world wouldn’t be a more dangerous place with more nukes in it, but you can understand the North Korean desire to accquire them, yes? I never said they should have them, all I’m saying is the U.S. have no moral grounds for stopping them from getting them. Strategic, yes. Moral, still open to debate, I would have thought…

Can we summarise the reasons against, then, that we’ve got so far?

Kim is mad, they shouldn’t have them.
They can’t have them, they’ll use them.
Nuclear weapons are dangerous, they can’t have them.

Add points at will…

Thing is, none of these seems, to me, to be a reason to actively prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. And it certainly doesn’t make the case for any sort of preemptive attack.
Cheers.

42

I don’t think it speaks particularly well for his character that he goes to such lavish excesses when the people he’s allegedly leading are starving to death and have no electricity. Those are just examples. He’s a highly unusual character and I don’t think it’s so strange of me to question his mental state. I’m not the first.

Unless I’m posting while unconscious, I said NOTHING about making the case for a pre-emptive attack. Please find the post where I did if I’m wrong. I don’t support that policy at all. But I still think North Korea should be prevented diplomatically from having nuclear weapons.

If we can boil it down- I don’t see any good reason for ANY other country develop nuclear weapons, since I don’t think it’s easy for the ones that DO have them to justify that fact. Extending the moral equivalency issue to permit other countries to have them helps nobody, and I think it’s a bad argument.

Here’s the thing: Bush’s strategic nukes plan is a terrible idea. The difference is that it’s just a plan. If Bush doesn’t win the next election, or if it becomes clear the public really hates the idea, there won’t be strategic nukes. If Kim Jong Il wants to use strategic nukes, what’s to stop him? The only thing preventing it would be the capability, since he doesn’t have to worry about elections or popular support. He’s not accountable to the people of North Korea in any way. So that probably makes him more likely to use them and to threaten other countries with them. If North Korea goes nuclear for good, Japan may drop its anti-nuclear weapons for defense reasons. Then there are THREE nuclear countries in that region. I’m not sure what South Korea would do, perhaps they would do the same, making four.

43

Do you think that it’s a good idea to leave that decision to the judgement of someone who would kill 20 million of his own people?

I seriously question your judgement in this area. No one said they “couldn’t” be used against us. What I said that WE would not likely use them since we do not fight wars where we would have to anihilate an entire city. It should be very obvious to you that terrorist groups WOULD use such a weapon if they could get ahold of one since they have little to fear in the way of retaliation in kind.

Assuming that any of these points are accurate, what rational person could make a case that Kim SHOULD be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?
I would take strategic necessity over “moral right” any day. It is well within our moral right to take reasonable steps to prevent our enemies and rivals from increasing their power.

44

Further up in the thread we have it suggested that Stalin was killed by his generals because he was going to start a war. Are we likely to believe that the North Korean military is so unhinged (too much porn and too much cognac) as to actually nuke someone? With total destruction looming? Kim might not be answerable to the people of North Korea, but he can’t run the country on his own…

You’re going to have to make concrete links to back up terrorist claims. Why would you give away (or sell) your nukes, if you were Kim?

Though I think you’re right. Strategic necessity is what we should be arguing. Why should, after all, the U.S. have to justify its desire for global military dominance?
It’s not a question of us allowing North Korea to do anything. If they develop a nuclear weapon capability, what say have we got in it?
Cheers.

45

Joachim Pieper –

Cite on North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism Link.

Cite on North Korea selling long-range missiles Link

Clearly, North Korea is willing to sell military techonology for cash in order to support their moribund economy. Nobody said that the DPRK is going to sell all of them – but there’s a damn good chance that he might sell some of them! That makes nukes in their hands particularly dangerous, because who knows where they will end up?

Can’t you see that there might be dangerous consequences if North Korea collapses and these nukes are left unsecured?

I repeat again, North Korea voluntarily, and without coersion, agreed in 1985 to never pursue nuclear weapons. That has been shown to be a lie. Why should the world just roll over and take it when a country lies in order to further its interests? Don’t you think that the world should confront nations when they lie?

I, for one, do not think Kim Jong Il is insane. I think he’s a murderous weirdo, and he’s completely amoral. But he acts rationally, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is a method behind his history of, uh, madness in seeking nuclear weapons, launching missiles over Japan, sending spies and assassins into South Korea and elsewhere.

I just can’t believe in this day and age that folks really believe that countries (including North Korea) making moves to increase the number of nuclear weapons in the world is no big deal. Honestly, shouldn’t the world be trying to get rid of these weapons?

46

North Korea is the last bastion of Stalinist tyrrany. Sometimes it is quaint and nice, especially to tourists. Listening to everyone compliment the “Great Leader” with a big smile on their face is probably uplifting if your JudgOpeoplemeter is malfunctioning.

Cuba, same deal. Some people think that if you believe in collectivism, you must mean well. OTOH, all capitalists are selfish. What great research institutions and charitible foundations did Communism leave us? RPGs, missiles, and tanks don’t count. Meanwhile, a couple million Cubans in Miami, and a million or so more drowned in the Straits of Florida, and who knows how many (three recently) executed for non-capital crimes in a matter of days? Somehow, to progressive minded intellectuals, the Cubans that left the tyrrany are the problem or didn’t know what they were doing – they only lived there. Many people blame the US for all these Communist bastards, especially Cuba and North Korea. After all, we don’t help prop up Castro’s government like the Europeans do. We can all see how well that’s working.

NK has around a million troops massed on the border. They have heavy artillery and missile launchers all over their nation. Most of these missiles, quite simply, aren’t very good. But, shoot enough of them, loaded up with special warheads – and the North Koreans are more than willing to waste money on missile stockpiles and WMDs – and even a missile accurate to only 1000 meters at a range of 30 miles can be a real headache.

I love libertarianism. It’s a boutique luxury philosophy that we can engage in here in the United States, because our government won’t use us as lab rats if we do.

FIRST STRIKE First point, this does not mean that the US reserves the right to attack any nation.

The term “first strike” is very complex. It came from nuclear politics.

If North Korea rolls tanks over the border into the DMZ, all behind a huge artillery barrage of chemical warheads (one small part of the predicted scenario) – the US might respond with a small tactical nuclear weapon on the follow up tank divisions out in the open, let’s say.

Even though the North Koreans already attacked, and used chemical weapons in my hypothetical – the use of nuclear weapons might be termed a “first strike”.

By the way, RexDart as much as I respect the right of US citizens to be critical of their government and politicians, that is why I find it horribly mystifying how a so-called libertarian could make the same old mechanical arguments when dealing with a state like North Korea.

Guess what, they don’t care what Hume, Locke, Jefferson, or the UN Charter on Human Rights has to say about anything. At all.

Please read the death camp links I posted above. This is a government that would “negotiate” with you, sure. Your concepts would be a nice joke for them, until they killed you.

47

I don’t think he would do that, but if there’s anybody who would, he’s your guy. In my opinion he has a large ego and a very flimsy grasp on reality.

You don’t give away (!) or sell nukes. You sell the technology. Why? Because there are tons of money to be made, which North Kore aneeds. There are a lot of interested buyers. Have you been following the news about Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan? He’s why Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and he apparently shared technology with North Korea, Libya, and Iran for years. I don’t think it’s very hard to imagine a scenario in which Kim would sell his info elsewhere, and it doesn’t have to be only other countries.

48

Neither could Hitler, Saddam Hussain or any other tyrant in history. What’s your point? Did you live on some alternate-universe Earth that did not experience ten thousand years of war and international aggression? Do you truly believe that all of the worlds conflicts could have been prevented if the leaders just sat down and sang Cumbaya?

By this logic, what say does the rest of the world have in anything anyone does? What interest do we have if Bosnians and Croates or Indians and Packistanis or Israelis and Arabs blast each other into the stone age as long as they don’t bring that shit all up in here?

49

Kim Jong Il IS crazy. Everything I’ve read about the guy indicates he’s nuttier than a tree full of squirrels.

For instance, he fancies himself a film expert. So he KIDNAPPED one of the top directors and one of the top starlets in South Korea, and demanded that they make his film. When they refused, he threw them in jail. They languished in jail for years, and then they announced that they’d make his movie. He let them out, and they escaped back to South Korea.

Kim still writes movie reviews for South Korean newspapers, which are never published. He’s been doing this for years and years - taking the time to write long, detailed reviews of South Korean movies, which are never read by anyone but some newspaper honcho who squashes them. But he doesn’t quit.

Got that? This is a guy who risked a war in order to make a movie. And you want him to have the bomb?

He hatched a plan once where his entire army was going to invade South Korea by tunnelling under the heavily-mined DMZ. South Korea discovered the plan when a tractor in a field fell through into a collapsed tunnel. Do you know how nutty it is to think you can successfully invade a country by tunnelling into it? Do you want to trust in this man’s military sense to not use the bomb?

Read about the guy. He’s crackers. He’s an evil, maniacal dictator. That anyone would even suggest that it’s okay for him to have nuclear weapons is incredible.

50

I’ll go one step further, I don’t “trust” any nation with nuclear weapons. If I haven’t made it clear, I include my own. Neither does Russia. That “Usable Nukes” topic I posted a long time ago has resurfaced again. Russia would be crazy not to make a note of it.

Any nation can produce a nut. Yes, even the United States. I know, that is almost impossible to believe.

Nukes are machines, complex machines with many failsafes. OTOH, we are risking all of our lives on it, every day.

As much as we are darn sure that nobody ever gets control of one of OUR nuclear submarines, should the Russians just assume that? That’s only one of many nightmare scenarios. Anyone can write real drama with nuclear weapons.

And, of course, one must always be monitoring the skies in order to determine if there is a weapon in the air, and where it came from. At least the Soviet Union and the United States had a few minutes to decide what to do.

The basic reality is this: so long as there are nations with nuclear missiles the chances for nuclear war will be greater than the chances if somehow we could agree not to use them. I’m not saying that’s possible, but a goal to be worked towards. Reducing the stockpiles little by little builds confidence.

51

Does North Korea has a right to nukes, You ask?
Hmmm…No wonder mainstream America sees equalizing liberals as flabby minded flakes.

The United States is a country, North Korea is a country, right?
Bush is evil, Kim Jong II is evil, right?

Today the World Food Aid Program discontinued shipments to North Korea because the food donated by many sympathetic countries from around the world was being intercepted by the military and was not reaching the starving Korean people.

Maybe two million North Koreans will die this winter if food is not forthcoming.

Meanwhile we entertain ourselves with our idle musings…

Does or does not Kim Jong II have a right to own nukes?

52

I certainly would prefer not to see North Korea and it’s leadership in possession of the bomb. Even if Kim Jong Il doesn’t rise to the level of being clinically nuts, he most certainly is an evil, maniacal dictator. I think the tunnels that you are referring to were the ones dug during his father’s leadership, though, and they were quite dangerous and useful. There’s a link on them here, four were discovered out of an estimated twenty. They were designed to allow the rapid movement of large numbers of forces complete with their heavy equipment to infiltrate into the rear areas of ROK and US forces at the DMZ. For example the second tunnel

and the third tunnel is

Having several divisions suddenly appearing in the rear areas of the ROK/US front line could be very effective at breaking through the DMZ’s defenses.

Oh, and Milum, before you equate liberals with flabby minded flakes, you might want to look up the differences between libertarian and liberal. You won’t find many liberals claiming Ayn Rand as an influence on their philosophical outlook.

53

And uh, oh yes, ** Dissonance**. I take note of your blatant disregard of the fact that you commented not a drip or slobber on my assertion that millions of North Koreans might die of starvation within the next few months. Instead you rambled on with prissy comments about Ayn Rand and the difference between liberals and libertarians. How old are you? Don’t you give a swinging damn about Koreans?

54

Back to the nuclear weapons for a moment…

So you don’t think he should have them. What do we do if he already has them, or if he develops them in the near future. If Kim appears on his state tv thing saying ‘woo hoo we can now defend ourselves from yankee agression’ what do we do?

Nobody has a right to nuclear weapons, surely? What do we do if people have them?
Cheers.

55

Its not a question of ‘do they have a right’ as much as ‘is it a good idea for them to have nukes’ type of thing.

56

I think the current view is that he might already have a couple (but not more than that). Although come to think of it, American intel being what it is… anyway, the hope obviously is that negotiations can result in Kim destroying the weapons and taking apart his capacity to produce them. Inspections would have to be a part of it, I imagine.

I would guess he already says this and more. If you mean ‘what do we do if he says he has them?’ We’re pretty much at that point. I don’t think he’s admitted he has useable nukes (someone correct me if I’m wrong … you know, that phrase is totally unnecessary on the SDMB ;)), but it seems likely he does have them and the means to deliver them. Kim is kind of the embodiment of the Kissinger idea of making your opponents think you’re a little crazy and capable of doing absolutely anything if provoked.

57

Nitpick: his father started this idea in 1974. They are also believe to have been used in spy infiltrations of the South. But it is pretty funny that the North denies having built them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/northkorea/dmz.html (about half way down)

58

Or, what to do when everyone has the bomb.

  1. There are no nuclear weapon survival tips.

  2. Nobody talks about rule one.

  3. Dig a hole, preferably about 200 meters underground. Make sure you have filtered air, water, and foodstuffs for at least several months. I’d suggest buying a lot of lead. Mineshafts are the key.

59

And gentlemen, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap. Protect your precious bodily fluids.

Nice world it’s turning into, eh? Thanks, W…

60

Why of course everything bad in the world is W’s fault. If it weren’t for W, I’m sure North Korea would be a utopia of puppy dogs and flowers headed by Patron Saint of Hennessy, the enlightened and benevolent Kim Jong Il.