Does North Korea have the right to nuclear weapons?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We aren't the only people who lie, you know.

I knew that would yank your chain. I was referring more to the concept of false treaties and agreements as tools of war via diplomatic deception.

Actually, we don't know whether the DPRK has nukes. They only say they have them. Where were the test detonations? So much can go wrong with a bomb that until you blow one up, you don't know if it will work.

Unfortunately, there's a tough little problem - we don't want to see their "test" occur 4000 feet AGL over Seoul or Tokyo.

Their current waffling about "rights" etc. is all pretty meaningless - I really doubt the DPRK government has nothing better to do than rhetorical exercises over hypotheticals.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Where did they test theirs?

IIRC, the Negev desert in Southern Israel.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I knew that would yank your chain.

I was referring more to the concept of false treaties and agreements as tools of war via diplomatic deception.

The US has done its fair share of those, like the treaty "temporarily" dividing Vietnam that it knew it had no intention of honoring.

[Dr Strangelove]

If North Korea has the right to nokes then so does South Korea. I think we should secretly promise the North Koreans that we will give nuclear weapons to South Korea if they develop their own bomb.

[GePap]

Che:

Israel has never gone as far as actually testing its nuclear weapons. It likes to be as mysteriou as possible with its arsenal. The diamona nuclear complex is in the Negev desert, if that is what your mind might be thnking of.

Nk is big enough to test a small bomb anyway, and ocne you test a few basic designs you are home free. Its not like they are goign to make fission bombs.

[chequita guevara]

The RoK is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as is the US. We are bound by law to place sanctions on any country we know has developed weapons since the signing of the treaty. This is why the US officially doesn't know that Israel has the bomb.

[Carver]

Originally posted by GePap
Che:

Israel has never gone as far as actually testing its nuclear weapons. It likes to be as mysteriou as possible with its arsenal.

Israel does like mystery. But Israel tested off of a South African island in a joint operation with the apartheid forces.

[Gatekeeper]

Now, c'mon folks. Ya'll know that North Korea and Iraq are upstanding citizens of the world and that they will take good care of whatever arsenals they have and wouldn't even *think* of using them against a non-aggressor.

Why, those weapons are just posturing tools, nuthin' more! Blackmail, that's all! They'd never actually use them (**discreetly pushes Kurd corpse beneath rug**)!

Gatekeeper

[Odin]

NO country should have nukes, besides it's a waste of pefectly good Uranium or Plutonium for power plants. We shouldn't waste something that is rarer and more expensive than gold and instead use it for the world's benefit?

[Oerdin]

Do they have the right to have Nuclear weapons? Yes. Should we make it abundantly clear that they will be treated like dogs and that the current reproachment & economic aid will cease unless they give them up? Yes.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Can I have some nukes, too? I promise not to misuse them, really.

I mean, if the US has them, why can't anyone else have them? It's completely self serving to insist that one's own country is the only one responsible enough *coughNagasakicough* to have a nuclear arsenal.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We aren't the only people who lie, you know.

Communists aren't the only people to lie but they sure do lie a whole lot more then your average bear.

Get the pun? Yogi Bear... communists... oh, never mind.

[Seeker]

According to Joong-Ang Il Bo, the US is going to stop heavy fuel oil shipments after the next one, so that they can make other arrangements and prevent a humanitarian disaster.

Also, the NKs are now trying to retreat from the position that they have a working bomb. Naturally, no one believes them...

On, and Kim is trying to rebuild his alliance with Russia and the NK 'special economic zone' is being revamped...

[Ned]

I think the more interesting question is whether NK will continue to exist unless it abandons its nuclear weapons program.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Communists aren't the only people to lie but they sure do lie a whole lot more then your average bear.

This coming from an American...

Anyway, every country should have nukes. Because remember, nukes don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people!

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Is that a challenge?

No, just reality.

[Ramo]

What does a state having a right to do something mean?

No, North Korea shouldn't have nukes, but no one else should either.

[The Mad Monk]

If a nation has the strength to insist on a particular right, it has that particular right.

"Strength" does not necessarily mean "military strength".

[The Vagabond]

Rights are not God-given. Rights are either granted by the mighty of this world, or grabbed when the mighty are unable to prevent that. Neither is applicable to NK as far as nukes are concerned. Therefore NK doesn't have the right to nuclear weapons. Simple and straightforward.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Ned
I think the more interesting question is whether NK will continue to exist unless it abandons its nuclear weapons program.

I think the more interesting question is: if little Bush does something stupid (agressive) against NK, will anyone in Aptos, CA (being first on the target list) hear about it or will they be incinerated first?

[Eli]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


IIRC, the Negev desert in Southern Israel.

Errr, do you have a source for that? It's the first time I hear this claim.

AFAIK Carver is right, Israel tested it's nukes together with SA.

[Gatekeeper]

Y'know, for some freakin' strange reason, I guess I *trust* the likes of the United States, Britain, China and France to control their nuclear arsenals than I do the likes of, say, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, India and/or Pakistan. If the world's going to have nukes, better that they're under the thumb of democratic nations or, at the very least, stable nations (I'm thinking China here).

I'm sorry if it offends some folks, but I'd wager that the Indian subcontinent is a far more dangerous place today than it was 30 years ago. I'd wager that the likes of NK or Iraq would do something really, really stupid with whatever they have than the United States, Britain or France would do.

Hell, NK wants a non-aggression pact with the USA now! What does that mean? We pull our 30,000 troops out of South Korea? That, so long as NK doesn't attack America directly, we can't do jack **** about their little (or not-so-little) shenanigans?

Yep, the future looks so bright I gotta wear shades! (To protect my eyes from the flash of nudets.)

Gatekeeper

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The ocean? The border? Use slave labor and dig a big tunnel somewhere? Israel's even smaller, and they detonated tests.

A thought just occured to me. Do you think Greenpeace would be interested in trying to prevent such a test.

[BeBro]

Does North Korea have the right to nuclear weapons?

Of course, everyone has. Remember, nuclear weapons don´t kill people, people kill people...

[aahz_capone]

NK can have nukes if they want to, I have no fear if they get them either. However, according to International Law they can't. Any country has a sovereignity which allows them to bare any arms except those disallowed by treaties they have signed. NK signed a treaty that said they would discontinue nuke research in return for aid from the US. It has yet to be proved whether they broke the agreement. In theory as long as no one finds out, they haven't broke it, and a sovereign country has a right to hold secrets. If they have them no one should fear their use.

No country in their right mind would dare use them for fear of MAD. The US would never first strike with them, nor would Russia, nor would NK. Especially nowadays, any country using them first, especially rogue countries, would be wiped of the map, because missiles can be traced back to point of origin. The fact that NK is developing missiles along side nukes shows that they are "safe" nukers.

A country like Iraq, only interested in nukes but not ICBM tech is dangerous because a car with nuke can't be traced and terrorism is hard to deflect. Iraq has signed a no-nuke treaty, after the Gulf war, which gives them no legal precedance to bare nukes.

Only sociopathic leaders would nuke and Saddam is a sociopath, but thats besides the point, because he gave up his nuke rights after the Gulf War. I'm talking International Law here, peeps, and that's what it boils down to no matter what Bush says. Basically it boils done to everyone has the right, NK (and Iraq) don't have the legal presidance to though.

I actully votd for banana, because it's everyone God-given right to bare banana and banana power is eco-friendly, anti-terror, pro-porn and financially viable.

[aaglo]

The N-Koreans right to have nuclear weapons is as justified as the USA right to have nuclear weapons.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by aaglo
The N-Koreans right to have nuclear weapons is as justified as the USA right to have nuclear weapons.

When we sign a treaty promising not to develop them, then you can make stupid claims. You are jumping the gun a bit.

[Arrian]

Exactly. They may have the right to them, but they don't have the right to free oil, food, and help with building nuclear power plants. They traded their right to have nukes for those three things pursuant to a written agreement.

-Arrian

[MattyBoy]

What aaglo said

[JCG]

What the flaming heck?

"Somebody give Iraq nukes then! And some/more ICBMs! Quickly! They have the right to 'em too!"