North Korea launched a long range missle.

[il Padrino Ute]

I am not implying that the US can't have an opinion. Who cares if they have an opinion? Be my guest and form opinions all day long.

Your initial post implies that a verbal rebuke is not sufficient. So if you would, go ahead and clarify. What would be sufficient in this specific instance. What do you want to see happen?

[YOUTUBE]OmSSVt7Mfkk[/YOUTUBE]

[MindfulCoug]

The threat that a nuke will be used is a real one, but does anyone really believe that the USA would strike first in this way? Really? Of course not. It may not be possible for us to prevent others from having them, but it is legitimate for us to desire (and for the world to desire) that unpredictable regimes who are telegraphing their desire to USE such a weapon not achieve the capability to do so. So if you are implying with your question (as DDD has stated) that our capability disqualifies us from wanting certain other regimes not to acquire that capability, we are not for the reasons stated. If that is not your point, then I don't understand why you ask that question.

(Now where is SU, he has been wanting a long, ponderous, plodding post from me. I have delivered it and I expect some appreciative words).

Let me settle my gratitude for making time to provide an explanatory response .Even though you have endeavored to establish a good argument about why the united states should have the right to produce and take advantage of nuclear arms and the role it plays in world power balance ,i do see where this argument (atoms for peace) fails.

The united state ambition of running a one-polar world would perfectly justify her right to raise the concern over new emerging power nuclear activities ,but in no way would justify her right to prevent them .and there is a good reason for that.

First of all the United States is in total breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Non-Proliferation Treaty says three things. One, the nuclear powers will agree to disarm collectively. Secondly, that other countries can develop nuclear technology. And thirdly, that nuclear powers will give absolute assurances they will never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Which the United States has now said that if its security was at stake, she would use nuclear weapons.

The second reason is the height of hypocrisy practicing in the united state,makes her even more disqualified of stepping into other countries nuclear affair.

You surely would not need me to provide you the history of Israel nuclear weaponry provided by Britain and the united state since its birth .Who is responsible for Israel nuclear activities and threat it has emerged for the region and for the world?

I think you should stop practicing this worn out approach if you are really seeking peace . Its not any one's fault that you choose to ignore the consequences of your own acts .You have got to pay for the things you have purchased in the middle east and elsewhere .

[CJF]

My acting like my points are good ones is anything but ironic. You should all expect nothing less by now.

By the way, rank the following countries in order of how many innocent people they have killed with nuclear bombs, most to least...

1. USA
2. Rest of world combined

Just so I'm clear here, in your opinion using the atomic bomb against Japan was unjustified and the wrong decision. Is that correct?

[MindfulCoug]

Just so I'm clear here, in your opinion using the atomic bomb against Japan was unjustified and the wrong decision. Is that correct?

You are questioning his patriotism.

[TripletDaddy]

You are questioning his patriotism.

I don't care about the patriotism, since there is no one way to define that word, anyway. I found it to be a self-serving question, which is why I didn't answer it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let me settle my gratitude for making time to provide an explanatory response .Even though you have endeavored to establish a good argument about why the united states should have the right to produce and take advantage of nuclear arms and the role it plays in world power balance ,i do see where this argument (atoms for peace) fails.

The united state ambition of running a one-polar world would perfectly justify her right to raise the concern over new emerging power nuclear activities ,but in no way would justify her right to prevent them .and there is a good reason for that.

First of all the United States is in total breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Non-Proliferation Treaty says three things. One, the nuclear powers will agree to disarm collectively. Secondly, that other countries can develop nuclear technology. And thirdly, that nuclear powers will give absolute assurances they will never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Which the United States has now said that if its security was at stake, she would use nuclear weapons.

The second reason is the height of hypocrisy practicing in the united state,makes her even more disqualified of stepping into other countries nuclear affair.

You surely would not need me to provide you the history of Israel nuclear weaponry provided by Britain and the united state since its birth .Who is responsible for Israel nuclear activities and threat it has emerged for the region and for the world?

I think you should stop practicing this worn out approach if you are really seeking peace . Its not any one's fault that you choose to ignore the consequences of your own acts .You have got to pay for the things you have purchased in the middle east and elsewhere .

You are right about our hypocrisy regarding Israel. That was shameless. But the solution is not to allow proliferation to escalate unopposed. The solution is to be more consistent about non-proliferation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There was very little debate in Truman's cabinet prior to dropping the A-bombs on Japan. Given the death toll up to that point in WWII and the forecasted estimates for losses that would be incurred via an invasion of the Japanese mainland, there really was no question. To have a weapon that would end the war early but not use it would have been unthinkable.

[myboynoah]

Wow, sweet. Krazy Kim launches a missle over Japan, for the second time, and 3D goes into the don't worry, be happy routine. Then changes to the Soviet apparatchik routine of, "The U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another nation!" Mindful quickly backs him up.

As if history and context mean nothing. Thanks UD for expanding their minds.

But all is not lost. Obama intends to "seek a world without nuclear weapons," starting with the U.S. This will give us "greater moral authority to say to Iran, 'Don't develop a nuclear weapon,' to say to North Korea, 'Don't proliferate nuclear weapons.'" You go Barry, beat 'em with some "greater moral authority."

Next step: seek a UN Security Council resolution condemning the launch.

Response: middle finger from members of the Council.

Obama: "But, but, errrr . . . . . . . we're, ah . . . . . . going to, well . . . . . . have, ah, . . . . . . . . greater moral authority. America sucks. You gotta like that."

Chuck Schumer was on TV this morning saying that China is the key, that we must be willing to give China some things in order to get them to take care of this problem.

The American Left from the '70s is running the show now.

I suspect Krazy Kim launched the missle for several reasons:

• to get people excited, hopefully leading to actions that benefit NoKorea
• to see if the thing would work
• to further develop a product that he could actually export. I'm sure Mindful's countrymen/countrywomen would be very interested in purching a few intercontinental ballistic missles.

Not so crazy, really.

[TripletDaddy]

Wow, sweet. Krazy Kim launches a missle over Japan, for the second time, and 3D goes into the don't worry, be happy routine. Then changes to the Soviet apparatchik routine of, "The U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another nation!" Mindful quickly backs him up.

As if history and context mean nothing. Thanks UD for expanding their minds.

But all is not lost. Obama intends to "seek a world without nuclear weapons," starting with the U.S. This will give us "greater moral authority to say to Iran, 'Don't develop a nuclear weapon,' to say to North Korea, 'Don't proliferate nuclear weapons.'" You go Barry, beat 'em with some "greater moral authority."

Next step: seek a UN Security Council resolution condemning the launch.

Response: middle finger from members of the Council.

Obama: "But, but, errrr . . . . . . . we're, ah . . . . . . going to, well . . . . . . have, ah, . . . . . . . . greater moral authority. America sucks. You gotta like that."

Chuck Schumer was on TV this morning saying that China is the key, that we must be willing to give China some things in order to get them to take care of this problem.

The American Left from the '70s is running the show now.

I suspect Krazy Kim launched the missle for several reasons:

• to get people excited, hopefully leading to actions that benefit NoKorea
• to see if the thing would work
• to further develop a product that he could acutally export. I'm sure Mindful's countrymen/countrywomen would be very interested in purching a few intercontinental ballistic missles.

Not so crazy, really.

Another Bushie, I see. After skimming through your non-response, I am wondering what your practical solution would be. You apparently agree that words are not enough. So, as I initially suggested, you want to invade.

How many guns do you own at home?

[SeattleUte]

Anybody see this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/wo...a/06korea.html

It reminds me of the time that Soviet military pilot defeted to Europe flying that jet fighter. The Soviets were alarmed we'd copy their techonology and we were shocked at how primitive the plane was. These authoritarian regimes can't produce great technology.

[TripletDaddy]

Anybody see this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/wo...a/06korea.html

It reminds me of the time that Soviet military pilot defeted to Europe flying that jet fighter. The Soviets were alarmed we'd copy their techonology and we were shocked at how primitive the plane was. These authoritarian regimes can't produce great technology.

There are several pieces on NoKo in the NYT in the past couple of days, almost all of them with the same tone.

I find it interesting that the UN has decided that a stern rebuke would be sufficient for now (many of them are not even sure it violates the proliferation agreement) yet folks on CUF are responding as though it is common sense that rebuke is insufficient and that nuclear attack is imminent.

I feel safe knowing that CUF has the inside scoop on global security.

[UtahDan]

Let me settle my gratitude for making time to provide an explanatory response .Even though you have endeavored to establish a good argument about why the united states should have the right to produce and take advantage of nuclear arms and the role it plays in world power balance ,i do see where this argument (atoms for peace) fails. The united state ambition of running a one-polar world would perfectly justify her right to raise the concern over new emerging power nuclear activities ,but in no way would justify her right to prevent them .and there is a good reason for that.

What evidence can you point to that supports your argument that the USA has an ambition of "running a one-polar world?" The USA is concerned with what every country is concerned with: its own security. If you have followed American politics you will note that the last President's party was soundly thrown from office in large part because many Americans thought we were too unilateral in our approach to many issues. The USA does not begin to have the capability of being the single pole in this world. Though we are unmatched militarily and economically, the stark truth is that (as we see over and over) this power cannot be effectively used to bring about the outcomes we want. Otherwise, how to explain that we fail to get what we want over and over. We cannot even prevent NK, which is frankly is an impoverished little third world nation, from getting nukes and building delivery systems for them. One would think a hegemon (which is what you say we are or aspire to be) could fix that problem with a snap of the fingers. In point of fact we have no such ambition and could not exert hegemonic control even if we wanted to. Your assertion that this is our aim is the parroting of propaganda which gets repeated frequently in your part of the world with little if any critical analysis. If the USA really does want to dominate the globe, then any security action by a government fearful of this would be easily justified to its people. No wonder so many claim this is the case to their people who, inculcated in anti-western sentiments on cultural and social ground, are all to eager to believe it.

First of all the United States is in total breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Non-Proliferation Treaty says three things. One, the nuclear powers will agree to disarm collectively. Secondly, that other countries can develop nuclear technology. And thirdly, that nuclear powers will give absolute assurances they will never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Which the United States has now said that if its security was at stake, she would use nuclear weapons.

You should go back and read the treaty. What you have said there reflects a pretty serious misunderstanding of what it does and does not say. First, it does not have any requirement that the nuclear states disarm but rather in the very most general terms in its preamble states this as a goal. Second, non-nuclear countries can develop nuclear capability for civilian only upon condition that they demonstrate no military application is being pursued. Guess who won't allow inspections? Third the treaty does state that nukes won't be used against non-nuclear states but NATO nations have said from the beginning that they consider the treaty to be suspended in times of war under its own provisions. That is not new. Is this the breach you are talking about? What is your point?

NK is not any longer a signatory in any event so this discussion is even less relevant to them. If you are striking at Iran and you mean to say that because the US has said it would disregard the treaty under certain circumstance that Iran is justified in breaching it in an active way and moreover than no one should bat an eye because of this that is a flimsy argument indeed and, again, the parroting of the propaganda of a government seeking to justify its bad behavior.

The second reason is the height of hypocrisy practicing in the united state,makes her even more disqualified of stepping into other countries nuclear affair. You surely would not need me to provide you the history of Israel nuclear weaponry provided by Britain and the united state since its birth .Who is responsible for Israel nuclear activities and threat it has emerged for the region and for the world?

The difference between Israel and its neighbors is that whatever else Israel has done that is morally wrong, it has not sought to remove its neighbors from the map as political entities. Nor does it have on going policies and stated agendas that involve the destruction of any of its neighbors. But as to Israels nuclear program. You are aware, aren't you, that it was the French who provided the Israeli with both the technology and the uranium, correct? The USA didn't even find out about the program until 1958 when reconnaissance aircraft took photos of construction of the nuclear facility and that it was two years before it was confirmed to be such? I'm not sure why Israel's nuclear capability is being laid the the feet of the USA by you and others in this thread. I think there are some uninformed assumptions there.

However Israels capability came about, it has had nukes since the 1960s and how many times had it used or even threatened to use them for offensive purposes? They are a deterrent only and no one at this juncture can say with a straight face that they fear a first strike from Israel with the possible exception of one nation who is developing its own program and whose leaders keep saying they want to use them ands also say they desire to wipe Israel from the map.

I think you should stop practicing this worn out approach if you are really seeking peace . Its not any one's fault that you choose to ignore the consequences of your own acts .You have got to pay for the things you have purchased in the middle east and elsewhere .

What acts are you talking about? What have we purchased in the middle east? Give some thought to the idea that the mullahs in your country could not be happier to see American troops in their region because it provides them cover with their own people to develop a military nuclear capability and pretend that it is fore defensive purposes. That this state of affairs would motivate you to defend the North Korean dictator ought to give you some cause to reflect on your objectivity.

[UtahDan]

There are several pieces on NoKo in the NYT in the past couple of days, almost all of them with the same tone.

I find it interesting that the UN has decided that a stern rebuke would be sufficient for now (many of them are not even sure it violates the proliferation agreement) yet folks on CUF are responding as though it is common sense that rebuke is insufficient and that nuclear attack is imminent.

I feel safe knowing that CUF has the inside scoop on global security.

Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean that no one is out to get me. I don't say that nuclear attack is imminent. But I do think it is a real threat that we have very little will or capability of fending off.

As I said to mindful, I'm not sure why it matters whether it violates the treaty since NK has withdrawn from it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

What evidence can you point to that supports your argument that the USA has an ambition of "running a one-polar world?" The USA is concerned with what every country is concerned with: its own security. If you have followed American politics you will note that the last President's party was soundly thrown from office in large part because many Americans thought we were too unilateral in our approach to many issues. The USA does not begin to have the capability of being the single pole in this world. Though we are unmatched militarily and economically, the stark truth is that (as we see over and over) this power cannot be effectively used to bring about the outcomes we want. Otherwise, how to explain that we fail to get what we want over and over. We cannot even prevent NK, which is frankly is an impoverished little third world nation, from getting nukes and building delivery systems for them. One would think a hegemon (which is what you say we are or aspire to be) could fix that problem with a snap of the fingers. In point of fact we have no such ambition and could not exert hegemonic control even if we wanted to. Your assertion that this is our aim is the parroting of propaganda which gets repeated frequently in your part of the world with little if any critical analysis. If the USA really does want to dominate the globe, then any security action by a government fearful of this would be easily justified to its people. No wonder so many claim this is the case to their people who, inculcated in anti-western sentiments on cultural and social ground, are all to eager to believe it.



You should go back and read the treaty. What you have said there reflects a pretty serious misunderstanding of what it does and does not say. First, it does not have any requirement that the nuclear states disarm but rather in the very most general terms in its preamble states this as a goal. Second, non-nuclear countries can develop nuclear capability for civilian only upon condition that they demonstrate no military application is being pursued. Guess who won't allow inspections? Third the treaty does state that nukes won't be used against non-nuclear states but NATO nations have said from the beginning that they consider the treaty to be suspended in times of war under its own provisions. That is not new. Is this the breach you are talking about? What is your point?

NK is not any longer a signatory in any event so this discussion is even less relevant to them. If you are striking at Iran and you mean to say that because the US has said it would disregard the treaty under certain circumstance that Iran is justified in breaching it in an active way and moreover than no one should bat an eye because of this that is a flimsy argument indeed and, again, the parroting of the propaganda of a government seeking to justify its bad behavior.



The difference between Israel and its neighbors is that whatever else Israel has done that is morally wrong, it has not sought to remove its neighbors from the map as political entities. Nor does it have on going policies and stated agendas that involve the destruction of any of its neighbors. But as to Israels nuclear program. You are aware, aren't you, that it was the French who provided the Israeli with both the technology and the uranium, correct? The USA didn't even find out about the program until 1958 when reconnaissance aircraft took photos of construction of the nuclear facility and that it was two years before it was confirmed to be such? I'm not sure why Israel's nuclear capability is being laid the the feet of the USA by you and others in this thread. I think there are some uninformed assumptions there.

However Israels capability came about, it has had nukes since the 1960s and how many times had it used or even threatened to use them for offensive purposes? They are a deterrent only and no one at this juncture can say with a straight face that they fear a first strike from Israel with the possible exception of one nation who is developing its own program and whose leaders keep saying they want to use them ands also say they desire to wipe Israel from the map.



What acts are you talking about? What have we purchased in the middle east? Give some thought to the idea that the mullahs in your country could not be happier to see American troops in their region because it provides them cover with their own people to develop a military nuclear capability and pretend that it is fore defensive purposes. That this state of affairs would motivate you to defend the North Korean dictator ought to give you some cause to reflect on your objectivity.

UD, thanks for saving me about two hours of pulling together enough information to provide a similar, if less artful, response. Nicely done.

[TripletDaddy]

Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean that no one is out to get me.

No, it does not.

But it doesn't mean that they are, either. You could simply be paranoid.

I'll go with the UN's resolution, assuming that they have access to better data than you. Admittedly, we could all be wrong, though, and you could be right.

For clarity's sake, what is your point on this issue? Your initial post implies that rebuke is insufficient and military action is necessary. When pressed on it, you seem to back off somewhat, saying that you wish China would do something about it because you don't think the US could collectively get behind the notion of military intervention. So is your bottom line that we need military intervention in North Korea? We need to send in troops, topple the regime, and engage in nation building? I guess I am trying to see where you were going with your initial post. If you want to get rid of that regime, just say so. On CUF, unlike in Bush's White House, we DO engage in nation building. At least hypothetically so.