FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Is it time to accept North Korea as a nuclear power?
Is it time to accept North Korea as a nuclear power?
Jump to: Newest in thread
The international community has laid the sanctions on hard. Yet this time North Korea have gone ahead and tested their biggest nuke yet. It's seems they have called our bluff and the sanctions are not working. Despite all the tough words I doubt anyone has the stomach for war. Maybe in a couple of years time they will truly have an ICBM hydrogen bomb. What else can we do if we are not prepared for all out war? Is it time to accept North Korea as a nuclear power? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Mutually assured destruction works because there's nothing left if someone decides to kick off. Let NK do what they want if they're not actually harming anyone, they will be the first to be wiped off the Earth if they aim their nukes anywhere but the sea.
But best build a bunker just in case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Tbh I think war has got to come sooner rather then later for damage limitation.
He is a nutter and it's only a question of time before he uses it so it is best to stop him now.
BTW have you seen his face when all them missiles were hitting that mountain....was like a kid at a firework display.
Absolute nutter  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mutually assured destruction works because there's nothing left if someone decides to kick off. Let NK do what they want if they're not actually harming anyone, they will be the first to be wiped off the Earth if they aim their nukes anywhere but the sea.
But best build a bunker just in case."
That bunker maybe a good thing. Mutual destruction may work in theory when you assume all sides are of sound mind. But what when the button is in the hands of people who judgement and descision making is dubious at best? Also the more nukes and different factions with nukes increases the chances of them being used. Even a small localised nuclear war (if you can call any nuclear exchange little) the effects globally would be catastrophic for the environment, weather activity and for global food production.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think we have any choice now but to.
The main reason the US has not attacked North Korea is the Chinese have said if they do they will jump in and probably Russia to.
The truth is the US can't even win a successful war against Afghanistan let alone a major power like China so North Korea hold all the aces in this stand off.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Like it or not it is time to accept them but we already have, kind of. We acknowledge the fact they have them.
Everyone else keeps quiet about what they have and have them for defence purposes.
This guy seems to tell us how he wants them in an attack way rather than defence. That's one of the differences.
Just let him keep doing what he wants for now, as previous.
As long as he knows any form of attack will be acted on, it's the best bet for now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For a south Korean point of view the folding of the North Korea regime would be disastrous and probably bankrupt the south Korean government. The South Koreans don't want the North Korean regime to fold but on the other hand North Korea having the ability to vaporise much of the country in the future must be a concern. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea.. "
This.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea.. "
I agree with you on a very simplistic moral principle. But with a more pragmatic head on I disagree as this would make the world a more dangerous place and I for one don't really want to find out what a nuclear war is like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea..
I agree with you on a very simplistic moral principle. But with a more pragmatic head on I disagree as this would make the world a more dangerous place and I for one don't really want to find out what a nuclear war is like."
Surely the easiest thing to do is the same as he did with his half brother.
Take the fecker out...and not on a date |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Even China is thinking of increasing sanctions with NK now.
I personally think does it really matter.
Everybody else has far more advanced countermeasures and weaponry all trained on NK.
It's more of a humanitarian issue. The inhabitants who are not to blame.
Is someone in the west willing to recreate Hiroshima or Nagasaki should KJU feel a bit wonwy! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No it's not.
There's a UN agreement that no countries should proliferate nuclear weapons beyond the five permanent member states
They should have been tougher on India and Pakistan and forced them to give them up like they did south Africa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't see it ending well. I want to be obliterated instantly, not staggering around a wasteland of half dead zombies."
You should be alright you're on Fab, consider it training!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't see it ending well. I want to be obliterated instantly, not staggering around a wasteland of half dead zombies.
You should be alright you're on Fab, consider it training! "
How bloody dare you....cheeky twat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No it's not.
There's a UN agreement that no countries should proliferate nuclear weapons beyond the five permanent member states
They should have been tougher on India and Pakistan and forced them to give them up like they did south Africa."
Funny, who is UN by the way? These super powers are the ones who been in power all these years in UN, if a country supports these super power and if these super power need any of the other countries for their personal benefits they will allow them to have one, the country who oppose or doesn't give a shlt about those super power, then they portray as a enemy of the univers.
This is exactly what happening with Russia too. This is politics, we only know .01% of the truth here.
Everyone condemns going on war and killing people, but actually who is supplying and manufacturing these weapons? This is state sponsored business and they make money only if people and countries buy these weapons, when do they buy then only if there is threat from other people or country, so these guys create these wars and make business by selling those weapon.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No it's not.
There's a UN agreement that no countries should proliferate nuclear weapons beyond the five permanent member states
They should have been tougher on India and Pakistan and forced them to give them up like they did south Africa."
I agree 100%. It just goes to show how powerless the United Nations is (and how timid the West has become)! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No it's not.
There's a UN agreement that no countries should proliferate nuclear weapons beyond the five permanent member states
They should have been tougher on India and Pakistan and forced them to give them up like they did south Africa.
Funny, who is UN by the way? These super powers are the ones who been in power all these years in UN, if a country supports these super power and if these super power need any of the other countries for their personal benefits they will allow them to have one, the country who oppose or doesn't give a shlt about those super power, then they portray as a enemy of the univers.
This is exactly what happening with Russia too. This is politics, we only know .01% of the truth here.
Everyone condemns going on war and killing people, but actually who is supplying and manufacturing these weapons? This is state sponsored business and they make money only if people and countries buy these weapons, when do they buy then only if there is threat from other people or country, so these guys create these wars and make business by selling those weapon.
"
I blame those pesky Rothschild's and those Central Banks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea.. "
Because the existing nuclear powers have political systems in place that have checks on the use of nuclear weapons. They also have intense security surrounding them. On the other hand a country like North Korea has an insane, power mad dictator as ruler who rules a country where he cares nothing for his own people, rules with fear and his secret police and most importantly has no one to stand against him if he decided to use nuclear weapons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the theory of nuclear deterrence holds true – and it is the only argument the supporters of WMD have got – then we should all be cheering the North Korean bomb. The logic of nuclear deterrence is that it is much better that every state has nuclear weapons, because then we can all deter each other.
It is demonstrably true that possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrent to other nations acquiring them. But it is supposed to deter other nations from using them. In which case, surely the more the merrier, so we can all deter each other.
The madness of the argument is self-evident. We are borrowing hundreds of billions we cannot afford for Trident, yet in all the reams of analysis of what to do about North Korea, Trident never gets a mention. It is a system entirely useless even in the one situation in which it was supposed to be effective.
How did we get here? In the 1950s the USA dropped 635,000 tonnes of bombs on North Korea including 35,000 tonnes of napalm. The US killed an estimated 20% of the North Korean population. For comparison, approximately 2% of the UK population was killed during World War II.
That this massive destruction of North Korea resulted in a xenophobic, American-hating state with an obsession with developing powerful weapons systems to ensure national survival, is not exactly surprising. The western media treat the existence of the Kim Jong-un regime as an inexplicable and eccentric manifestation of evil. In fact, it is caused. Unless those causes are addressed the situation can never be resolved. Has any western politician ever referenced the history above in discussing North Korea? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *htcMan
over a year ago
MK |
no they shouldn't be accepted, should be blacklisted world wide of all trade unless they destroy all there nuclear weapons and agree to stop further progress into them
then should make it clear, they further obtain nuclear weapons, war will come to disarm them of all nuclear weapons.
the more they test them the more likely they will use them against others. with south korea and japan being there main targets, and then usa and other nuclear states being next. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea..
Because the existing nuclear powers have political systems in place that have checks on the use of nuclear weapons. They also have intense security surrounding them. On the other hand a country like North Korea has an insane, power mad dictator as ruler who rules a country where he cares nothing for his own people, rules with fear and his secret police and most importantly has no one to stand against him if he decided to use nuclear weapons. "
Insane leader? So you saying Trump is not insane or Bush & Blaire wasn't insane on going on war? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the theory of nuclear deterrence holds true – and it is the only argument the supporters of WMD have got – then we should all be cheering the North Korean bomb. The logic of nuclear deterrence is that it is much better that every state has nuclear weapons, because then we can all deter each other.
It is demonstrably true that possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrent to other nations acquiring them. But it is supposed to deter other nations from using them. In which case, surely the more the merrier, so we can all deter each other.
The madness of the argument is self-evident. We are borrowing hundreds of billions we cannot afford for Trident, yet in all the reams of analysis of what to do about North Korea, Trident never gets a mention. It is a system entirely useless even in the one situation in which it was supposed to be effective.
How did we get here? In the 1950s the USA dropped 635,000 tonnes of bombs on North Korea including 35,000 tonnes of napalm. The US killed an estimated 20% of the North Korean population. For comparison, approximately 2% of the UK population was killed during World War II.
That this massive destruction of North Korea resulted in a xenophobic, American-hating state with an obsession with developing powerful weapons systems to ensure national survival, is not exactly surprising. The western media treat the existence of the Kim Jong-un regime as an inexplicable and eccentric manifestation of evil. In fact, it is caused. Unless those causes are addressed the situation can never be resolved. Has any western politician ever referenced the history above in discussing North Korea? "
North Korea started the Korean War by crossing the 38th Parallel and invading South Korea.
North Korea is a totalitarian state and has a populace living in terror and where torture, executions and assassination are the norm.
People are afraid to speak out because of the secret police spying on them and are afraid that themselves and their entire family will be executed.
A state where only politicians and the military can own motor vehicles.
All televisions are tuned to state-controlled domestic programming to ensure brain washing
There is no religious freedom
Homes only have limited electricity per day
There is no independent judicial system
There are labour camps and human experimentation
There are armed borders to cities to keep their own 'lower class' people out
There's a video of a young woman who escaped North Korea on youtube which shows what goes on.
North Korea should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons full stop
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" The western media treat the existence of the Kim Jong-un regime as an inexplicable and eccentric manifestation of evil. In fact, it is caused. Unless those causes are addressed the situation can never be resolved. Has any western politician ever referenced the history above in discussing North Korea? "
You are quite correct. Really good post ....The Western powers for years has done whatever it takes to maintain Western security and standards of living (yours and mine) even if it means the total destruction of another country! But isn't best to maintain our superiority and safety? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This politics and no one can stop this.
Banning Russia from athletics is politics. Mr Gatlin was drug cheat, if he was allowed to come back and win gold medal, then why they not allowing Russia? Because they hate Putin.
PS:USA started doping in first place... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea..
Because the existing nuclear powers have political systems in place that have checks on the use of nuclear weapons. They also have intense security surrounding them. On the other hand a country like North Korea has an insane, power mad dictator as ruler who rules a country where he cares nothing for his own people, rules with fear and his secret police and most importantly has no one to stand against him if he decided to use nuclear weapons.
Insane leader? So you saying Trump is not insane or Bush & Blaire wasn't insane on going on war? "
I am not a supporter of Bush or Blair and both should be tried for war crimes. However, we are discussing nuclear weapons and the UK and USA has checks in place to prevent any 'misuse' of them. North Korea has a megalomaniac dictator in charge whose word is everything. There is no checks in place and if the NK leader says fire then they will. Anyone who thinks NK should have nukes is insane |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Probably going to sound super stupid or as if I watch too many American movies (I do lol!) But why hasn't the American or English government sent in a sniper to wipe out Kim Jong-un? Or make it look like he's had an accident?? Surely enough is enough now.
As you can tell, I don't keep up with politics |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't see it ending well. I want to be obliterated instantly, not staggering around a wasteland of half dead zombies."
I've always said this. I'd want to be as close to one the epicentres as possible. Instant vaporisation. Surviving in what was left would be unthinkable. Chances are you'll die anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Probably going to sound super stupid or as if I watch too many American movies (I do lol!) But why hasn't the American or English government sent in a sniper to wipe out Kim Jong-un? Or make it look like he's had an accident?? Surely enough is enough now.
As you can tell, I don't keep up with politics "
But then what happens next? Who takes over from him? Maybe it's a case of better the devil you know? Look what happen to Libya and Iraq once their dictatorships were removed!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Send ....... in ............. chuck ................ Norris  "
Maybe a Special Task Force consisting of Chuck Norris, Rambo, Bruce Willis, Crocodile Dundee, James Bond and Austin Powers
...they should sort it out  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Probably going to sound super stupid or as if I watch too many American movies (I do lol!) But why hasn't the American or English government sent in a sniper to wipe out Kim Jong-un? Or make it look like he's had an accident?? Surely enough is enough now.
As you can tell, I don't keep up with politics "
I guess it's because if caught there would be a major diplomatic incident that Russia and China could use to their advantage. I assume it's better to react rather than instigate in this case! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well nostradamus predicted that people from around that race will rule the world. Or will an asteroid hit earth in 2029 and wipe us out! Best get Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck on stand by just in case,,,, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea..
Because the existing nuclear powers have political systems in place that have checks on the use of nuclear weapons. They also have intense security surrounding them. On the other hand a country like North Korea has an insane, power mad dictator as ruler who rules a country where he cares nothing for his own people, rules with fear and his secret police and most importantly has no one to stand against him if he decided to use nuclear weapons.
Insane leader? So you saying Trump is not insane or Bush & Blaire wasn't insane on going on war? "
A lot more checks and measures with Trump, Blair's etc. They can't just act alone. For example Trump has struggled with getting things done like the repeal of Obama care. On the other hand Kim Jong Un is sole dictator and has the freedom to do exactuly what his mad little heart desires. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just had a thought regarding that pic of Kim Jong wotsit smiling at his warhead....
Maybe the media have got it all wrong and that is just his brand new giant buttplug? It kind of looks like one.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Even China is thinking of increasing sanctions with NK now.
I personally think does it really matter.
Everybody else has far more advanced countermeasures and weaponry all trained on NK.
It's more of a humanitarian issue. The inhabitants who are not to blame.
Is someone in the west willing to recreate Hiroshima or Nagasaki should KJU feel a bit wonwy! "
I wouldn't put all my hopes in THAAD, especially if over the next few years NK develop improved and/More missiles. It's a bit of an unknown quantity. I think they are reluctant to use it to shoot down any of NK Koreas missile tests for fear it fails to destroy the target. Anyone remember poor performance of patriot system in the gulf war against Sadmas scuds. ICBMs are very hard to hit, especially if they get to re-entry stage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Send ....... in ............. chuck ................ Norris
Maybe a Special Task Force consisting of Chuck Norris, Rambo, Bruce Willis, Crocodile Dundee, James Bond and Austin Powers
...they should sort it out "
James Bond tried that in Die another day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Probably going to sound super stupid or as if I watch too many American movies (I do lol!) But why hasn't the American or English government sent in a sniper to wipe out Kim Jong-un? Or make it look like he's had an accident?? Surely enough is enough now.
As you can tell, I don't keep up with politics
But then what happens next? Who takes over from him? Maybe it's a case of better the devil you know? Look what happen to Libya and Iraq once their dictatorships were removed!!!!"
South Korea are partially fearful of regime change. A lot of the talk out of NK recently suggests the people genrally do hate him and do know that the outside world is far better (a lot thanks to dissidents acting out of South Korea smuggling films, tv series and information into the country). But they are repressed by the fear, punishment and the culture of survalence and reporting. If he was replaced by a leader who wanted to reunite with the south it would probably bankrupt the south. The status quo suits south Korea as long as the North dosent nuke them of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea..
Because the existing nuclear powers have political systems in place that have checks on the use of nuclear weapons. They also have intense security surrounding them. On the other hand a country like North Korea has an insane, power mad dictator as ruler who rules a country where he cares nothing for his own people, rules with fear and his secret police and most importantly has no one to stand against him if he decided to use nuclear weapons.
Insane leader? So you saying Trump is not insane or Bush & Blaire wasn't insane on going on war?
A lot more checks and measures with Trump, Blair's etc. They can't just act alone. For example Trump has struggled with getting things done like the repeal of Obama care. On the other hand Kim Jong Un is sole dictator and has the freedom to do exactuly what his mad little heart desires."
Every single war happened in this world are due to act taken after these checks and measures that u talking about mate, they didn't ask you or me before they went war on Iraq or afghan.. They will blow the world if they want to show who is daddy... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If USA, U.K. , China, India, Iran can have nuclear capabilities then why not any other country..
If you going to condemn someone, then they need to follow the rules and act upon them. None of those super power countries are fit to impose any restriction on North Korea..
Because the existing nuclear powers have political systems in place that have checks on the use of nuclear weapons. They also have intense security surrounding them. On the other hand a country like North Korea has an insane, power mad dictator as ruler who rules a country where he cares nothing for his own people, rules with fear and his secret police and most importantly has no one to stand against him if he decided to use nuclear weapons.
Insane leader? So you saying Trump is not insane or Bush & Blaire wasn't insane on going on war?
A lot more checks and measures with Trump, Blair's etc. They can't just act alone. For example Trump has struggled with getting things done like the repeal of Obama care. On the other hand Kim Jong Un is sole dictator and has the freedom to do exactuly what his mad little heart desires.
Every single war happened in this world are due to act taken after these checks and measures that u talking about mate, they didn't ask you or me before they went war on Iraq or afghan.. They will blow the world if they want to show who is daddy..."
No but they werent the sole descision of one person. In the case of the UK they where decided on at least by democratically electes persons. There was at least some consultation. We put these people in power to make the decisions for us. Obvisoly in our current system we do not get a big, lengthy and expensive vote on everything (bar brexit). I mean imagine a huge referemdom lasting months everytime we there was a case for military action? Would you propose we do? If so maybe you would be for change in the way our political system works to allow this. But in a game of political system top trumps our system is better and safer that all the power being held by a constantly provocative and nasty dictator.
Also apeasment/inacation has had its faliures too. For example not olny apeasement of Germany in ww2 but more contemporary examples in places like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Our inaction to prevent blood thirsty dictators/governments who kill thousands of their people and threaten war and instability across their borders has bitten the international community too. It's sort of seem history has taught us your dammed if you do and your dammed if you dont. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
