Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Does North Korea have the right to possess Nuclear Weapons for self defense purposes?

Does North Korea have the right to possess Nuclear Weapons for self defense purposes? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
roam
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: A Banana Republic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 02:15 PM
 
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I hope they get your house first.
Fine, I'd rather die for a noble cause, than the sheer wars based on lies. I'd prefer to die by am Iranian bomb, than a US one.

If you don;t like the sound of people asking for US to live up to its responsibilities for its actions, then don't go around fcuknig bombing innocent nations under false pretences.

How dare we assume its ok to go threaten these people, invade them, murder them; and yet baulk at the idea that we are above reproach?

On eying I o hope, if the US is acting like the playground bully, then they deserve whatever they get, like for like. You don't get to assume you are the moral right by virtue of what you say, an the US is far from virtuous.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 02:25 PM
 
Here's something for yo to ponder: You eagerly encourage N. Korea or Iran to pop a nuke on the US. Given your feelings about the current administration of the US, what do you think the response would be? You call others ignorant asses, but you have to be the stupidest of the bunch. You would gladly start world war 3 just because you don't like the US? Maybe you need to grow up a bit and start living in the real world. You can use school yard analogies all you want, but the truth is I've never seen a playground fight that left entire cities incinerated. If you think it's good for psychotic despots to have a nuclear weapons, then you're a jackass, plain and simple. And this is not name calling, it's just an observation.

If we were going to invade N. Korea, we would have done it before they actually had nukes. If we were going to nuke them, it would have been back in the 50's when there were people that actually thought it was a good idea. The US used atomic weapons twice, 60 years ago. I think we have shown that we can be trusted with them. N. Korea has never shown that it can be trusted in anything. I don't find the current regime in Iran all that trustworthy either.

And just so you know, in the real world, dead is dead and it doesn't matter whose bomb it is that makes you that way. If you new there was a warhead inbound on your town, you wouldn't be saying "Well, at least it's Iranian". People that have never faced death find it pretty easy to have a cavalier attitude about it.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
roam
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: A Banana Republic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 02:28 PM
 
Wait, let's say Iran did want to nuclear weapons? So? Why not? Are they not allowed to build weapons for self-defence? Ah, that old treaty they signed up to. Fcvuk that, th US is doing a fine job of ripping up old treaties, military ones too, so why not others.

Hypocrisy. |In any case, Iran is constantly being threatened by Israel, I say do what you can do defend yourselves.

Fcuknig idiot, you must be, to believe what Bush says on this. Iran a destabilising nation? Hey slimyWhiny, I think you'll find that it's the majority of countries who oppose military intervention on Iran, and the majority who actually believe Iran when they say they only want it for peaceful purposes.

But that doesn't sound good to you, because it flies in the face if your little agenda.

Ah, wait a minute, you're a dumb hick(sorry, wannabe hick since you're actually a filthy English republican who thinks that the US is the world, or the voice of the world.


Keep sucking up to the powers that be yo might just get that dinner place at the next convention.

If all of this is mighty harsh., well, I'm sorry, but the time for reasonable debaet with dicks Like these is over, they are self-serving pricks who need a god kicking. Who type the most god-awful, naive crap one ever hears. Spouting of pre-releases as though we actually buy it.

Whiny - if you were to ever actually surround yourself by real people, you'd be the laughing stock

Bu bye, ********.
lol
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 02:32 PM
 
Which chemical induced that rant?
     
BoomStick
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 02:42 PM
 
Originally posted by roam:
Wait, let's say Iran did want to nuclear weapons? So? Why not? Are they not allowed to build weapons for self-defence? Ah, that old treaty they signed up to. Fcvuk that, th US is doing a fine job of ripping up old treaties, military ones too, so why not others.

Hypocrisy. |In any case, Iran is constantly being threatened by Israel, I say do what you can do defend yourselves.

Fcuknig idiot, you must be, to believe what Bush says on this. Iran a destabilising nation? Hey slimyWhiny, I think you'll find that it's the majority of countries who oppose military intervention on Iran, and the majority who actually believe Iran when they say they only want it for peaceful purposes.

But that doesn't sound good to you, because it flies in the face if your little agenda.

Ah, wait a minute, you're a dumb hick(sorry, wannabe hick since you're actually a filthy English republican who thinks that the US is the world, or the voice of the world.


Keep sucking up to the powers that be yo might just get that dinner place at the next convention.

If all of this is mighty harsh., well, I'm sorry, but the time for reasonable debaet with dicks Like these is over, they are self-serving pricks who need a god kicking. Who type the most god-awful, naive crap one ever hears. Spouting of pre-releases as though we actually buy it.

Whiny - if you were to ever actually surround yourself by real people, you'd be the laughing stock

Bu bye, ********.
lol
Now THAT was a fistfull of stupid.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 02:56 PM
 
Originally posted by roam:

Bu bye, ********.
lol

     
Twilly Spree
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 04:06 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fortunately, the rest of the world isn't quite as gullible as you.

Did it ever occur to you to ask why a country swimming in oil needs nuclear power plants?
To make more money of the oil by selling than burning it for electricity and make cheap clean energy with nuclear power?

Don't be stupid, there is a reason. Whether Iran can be trusted with nuclear power is another issue entirely.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 04:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
To make more money of the oil by selling than burning it for electricity and make cheap clean energy with nuclear power?

Don't be stupid, there is a reason. Whether Iran can be trusted with nuclear power is another issue entirely.
I favor civilian nuclear power. The widespread use of it is one of the things I admire about the French. But even in oil importing countries there isn't an economic case for nuclear power. Nuclear power is expensive.

The economics are especially damning when the country is a major oil exporter. To my knowledge, Iran has no stocks of Uranium. You don't sell a cheap and plentiful domestic source of energy in order to buy a a scarce and expensive imported one.

The particular power plants Russia is building for Iran aren't the safest designs in the world, but they do produce plutonium as a byproduct. As I understand it, Iran is also purchasing Russian reprocessing plants that can refine nuclear fuel to weapons grade.

As you said: don't be stupid, there is a reason.
     
Curios Meerkat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Am�rica
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 04:27 PM
 
20 years from now, Iran will be an oil importer. Unless it develops alternate means of producing (a lot of) energy. And oil is becoming really, really expensive.

�somehow we find it hard to sell our values, namely that the rich should plunder the poor. - J. F. Dulles
     
Twilly Spree
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 05:14 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I favor civilian nuclear power. The widespread use of it is one of the things I admire about the French. But even in oil importing countries there isn't an economic case for nuclear power. Nuclear power is expensive.

The economics are especially damning when the country is a major oil exporter. To my knowledge, Iran has no stocks of Uranium. You don't sell a cheap and plentiful domestic source of energy in order to buy a a scarce and expensive imported one.

The particular power plants Russia is building for Iran aren't the safest designs in the world, but they do produce plutonium as a byproduct. As I understand it, Iran is also purchasing Russian reprocessing plants that can refine nuclear fuel to weapons grade.

As you said: don't be stupid, there is a reason.
Yes as I said don't be stupid. You must be trying.

Oil to electricity is more expensive than nuclear power to electricity. It's as simple as that.

Your preference of whether nuclear power is in civilian hands or not doesn't enter into this or any discussion, so I'll just consider it to be filler.

As is your explaination about the economics. Filler. Buying uranium for oil doesn't just make sense to laymen it is also the economically sound thing to do. Oil is a far more valuable source of energy than uranium. You don't use uranium to fuel a car. Or an army.

You personal opinions on Russian nuclear powerplant designs don't enter into this discussion either. Whether Iran is using refined uranium to make weapons or if it is planning to is another issue entirely - as I said.

Stripping your personal observations out of your reply to me not a lot remains

Nothing really.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 05:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Yes as I said don't be stupid. You must be trying.

Oil to electricity is more expensive than nuclear power to electricity. It's as simple as that.

Your preference of whether nuclear power is in civilian hands or not doesn't enter into this or any discussion, so I'll just consider it to be filler.

As is your explaination about the economics. Filler. Buying uranium for oil doesn't just make sense to laymen it is also the economically sound thing to do. Oil is a far more valuable source of energy than uranium. You don't use uranium to fuel a car. Or an army.

You personal opinions on Russian nuclear powerplant designs don't enter into this discussion either. Whether Iran is using refined uranium to make weapons or if it is planning to is another issue entirely - as I said.

Stripping your personal observations out of your reply to me not a lot remains

Nothing really.
Obviously I have to do a little translating for those who can't discuss something without being overly personal about it.

Civil nuclear power means nuclear power for power generation. That's as opposed to nuclear power for weapons and nuclear warships. It has nothing to do with whether the operators are civilians.

Uranium is as much dual use as oil. The problem is that one of those dual uses is nuclear weapons. It's not a matter of whether oil is better used in cars or power plants. It's whether uranium is used to make bombs or not, and in whose hands those bombs will end up if it is used in bombs. That means you don't just assume that assertions of peaceful uses are to be trusted. If it turns out they were lying the consequences can be really bad.

The economics are simply not correct. Nuclear power is significantly more expensive than conventional oil-burning technology, even in countries that have virtually no oil of their own. If that wasn't the case, nuclear power would be a lot more popular than it is.

The design of the reactor is significant. Some are more suitable for bombmaking than others. Also, some governments are less picky about who they sell them to than others. Russia isn't terribly picky, and this reactor is apparently pretty good for making bombs. Not as good as a fast breeder reactor, but good enough.

Notwithstanding the fact that Russia isn't very picky (and is quite cash starved), the Russian government along with those of Europe as well as the US, through the IAEA are quite concerned about the potential for Iran to divert its "civilian" nuclear program for military weaponsmaking purposes.

In other words, you may be satisfied with the Mullah's words, but, thankfully, nobody else is.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Feb 10, 2005 at 05:34 PM. )
     
Twilly Spree
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 05:40 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Obviously I have to do a little translating for those who can't discuss something without being overly personal about it.

Civil nuclear power means nuclear power for power generation. That's as opposed to nuclear power for weapons and nuclear warships. It has nothing to do with whether the operators are civilians.

Uranium is as much dual use as oil. The problem is that one of those dual uses is nuclear weapons. It's not a matter of whether oil is better used in cars or power plants. It's whether uranium is used to make bombs or not, and in whose hands those bombs will end up if it is used in bombs.

The economics are simply not correct. Nuclear power is significantly more expensive than conventional oil-burning technology, even in countries that have virtually no oil of their own. If that wasn't the case, nuclear power would be a lot more popular than it is.

The design of the reactor is significant. Some are more suitable for bombmaking than others. Also, some governments are less picky about who they sell them to than others. Russia isn't terribly picky, and this reactor is apparently pretty good for making bombs. Not as good as a fast breeder reactor, but good enough.

Notwithstanding the fact that Russia isn't very picky (and is quite cash starved), the Russian government along with those of Europe as well as the US, through the IAEA are quite concerned about the potential for Iran to divert its "civilian" nuclear program for military weaponsmaking purposes.

In other words, you may be satisfied with the Mullah's words, but, thankfully, nobody else is.
Cutting trough the immaterial filler that you wrote, I'll get right to the point:

Putting words or opinions in my mouth doesn't make your case. It just shows how badly you are losing this argument

There is no dual use for unenriched uranium.

You are of course familiar with national economics? No? Didn't think so.

You are of course familiar with nuclear physics or engineering? No? Didn't think so

"Civil" nuclear power or "civilian" nuclear power or whatever you liberals call it seems to be the same as nuclear power used for the creation of electricity through standard use of nuclear powerplants, which was my argument all along. Thanks for proving my point

Next please..
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 05:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Cutting trough the immaterial filler that you wrote, I'll get right to the point:

Putting words or opinions in my mouth doesn't make your case. It just shows how badly you are losing this argument

There is no dual use for unenriched uranium.

You are of course familiar with national economics? No? Didn't think so.

You are of course familiar with nuclear physics or engineering? No? Didn't think so

"Civil" nuclear power or "civilian" nuclear power or whatever you liberals call it seems to be the same as nuclear power used for the creation of electricity through standard use of nuclear powerplants, which was my argument all along. Thanks for proving my point

Next please..



Btw, they are building an enrichment plant. As those dangerous neocons at the BBC put it, there is no non-military requirement for that.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:11 PM
 
NK's possession of nukes isn't what scares me. Its the fact that they got them at the same time we have a gung-ho ideolgoue president who has staked the US's crediblity on an absolute position that it can't back up--i.e. NK can't be allowed to have the bomb when they already do.

Well now what?

Left to their own devices, NK's ugly little regime would probably go the way of most ugly little regimes of that sort.

But a mexican standoff with Bush is what makes the situation dangerous.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:22 PM
 
Good thing we invaded Iraq, right guys?


...



Guys?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:30 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Good thing we invaded Iraq, right guys?


...



Guys?
Hmmm...you may have a point. This calls for sterner stuff.

Maybe once we invade and occupy Iran and unleash the full "untidiness" of democracy on them those bastards in NK will finally recognize the error of their ways?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:38 PM
 
Originally posted by iDriveX:
I'm split on this one actually. There are some countries (the United States included) that feel it is a God given right to possess nuclear weapons and have them deployed all over the globe (Attack Class Submarines). North Korea though has had a history of aggression and invasion. But, the same can be said about the US. So is this just a case of the big guy beating up on the little guy? OR Is North Korea a legitimate threat with Nuclear Weapons to the rest of the world?
Let me paraphrase.

"I'm split on this one actually. There are some people (Good Americans included) that feel it is a God given right to possess firearms and have them deployed all over the place . Bad Americans though have had a history of aggression and assaults. But, the same can be said about the Good Americans. So is this just a case of the big guy beating up on the little guy? OR are Bad Americans a legitimate threat with Firearms to the rest of America?"

Of course it doe not make sense. Political leaders make all the difference. Drawing a whole country as a threat is overgeneralizing. You need to be specific and target the leaders. They are the ones making the threat.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:39 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The economics are simply not correct. Nuclear power is significantly more expensive than conventional oil-burning technology, even in countries that have virtually no oil of their own. If that wasn't the case, nuclear power would be a lot more popular than it is.
That's not exactly true. Doing all the research to gain the technology, and then designing plants, implementing necessary oversight, etc is expensive. But once operational, nuclear's costs are pretty much the same as fossil fuel. Nuclear power is pretty popular, just not in the United States.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote, though. Certainly I don't think Iran's government is progressive enough to eagerly bear the high cost of nuclear development just for peaceful reasons, when they already have a strong energy source.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:46 PM
 
Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Let me paraphrase.

"I'm split on this one actually. There are some people (Good Americans included) that feel it is a God given right to possess firearms and have them deployed all over the place . Bad Americans though have had a history of aggression and assaults. But, the same can be said about the Good Americans. So is this just a case of the big guy beating up on the little guy? OR are Bad Americans a legitimate threat with Firearms to the rest of America?"

Of course it doe not make sense. Political leaders make all the difference. Drawing a whole country as a threat is overgeneralizing. You need to be specific and target the leaders. They are the ones making the threat.
Okey-dokey.

Countries invaded by Kim Jong Il?

Countries invaded by Bush?

Yep. I can honestly see why NK believes it is legally justified in claiming self-defense. Nice going, fellas.

Again. What's next? Is Bush gonna call them more names to make them come to their senses? Will he demand that NK can't have nukes louder? Will he declare them the Axis of Super-Duper Evil and Small Penises?

If NK was embarked on a policy of expansionism and aggression, I think Bush's rhetoric and posturing might make sense. They probably wouldn't work, but at least they'd make sense.

In a context where NK's primary demands are for aid and bilateral non-aggression pacts I'm not sure the present policy makes any kind of sense.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:54 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hmmm...you may have a point. This calls for sterner stuff.

Maybe once we invade and occupy Iran and unleash the full "untidiness" of democracy on them those bastards in NK will finally recognize the error of their ways?
Whoa, now hold on there. I'm not one of them Science types... what is it exactly that you're saying?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 08:56 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Whoa, now hold on there. I'm not one of them Science types... what is it exactly that you're saying?
He is sarcastic.


     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 09:13 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Whoa, now hold on there. I'm not one of them Science types... what is it exactly that you're saying?
I guess I'm saying that you might disagree with Kim Jong Il on the issues, but at least you know where he stands!!!
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 09:23 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I guess I'm saying that you might disagree with Kim Jong Il on the issues, but at least you know where he stands!!!
I think I need to work harder on my sarcasm.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 09:27 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
I think I need to work harder on my sarcasm.
I could also make more liberal use of the emoticon. I guess I can't shake the feeling that good satire/sarcasm doesn't need them, but maybe my shyt just ain't good enough.

"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 09:28 PM
 
Originally posted by itai195:
That's not exactly true. Doing all the research to gain the technology, and then designing plants, implementing necessary oversight, etc is expensive. But once operational, nuclear's costs are pretty much the same as fossil fuel. Nuclear power is pretty popular, just not in the United States.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote, though. Certainly I don't think Iran's government is progressive enough to eagerly bear the high cost of nuclear development just for peaceful reasons, when they already have a strong energy source.
No, the actual plants Iran is buying aren't developed by Iran. AFAIK, they are purchased designs. The latest ones are Russian. They have some Chinese and i believe one German reactor.

It's primarily the construction costs which are so expensive. Conventional oil, gas, or coal power plants are much cheaper to build. Not only are they simpler, but the safety margins are simply bigger. You don't need to put a huge containment building around a fossil fuel power plant, and of course, you aren't worrying about keeping it from melting down. I'm not an engineer, of course, but I do know some project finance people. The difference in cost between a conventional and a nuclear power plant is enormous.

Given that and the fact that Iran is clearly buying things they don't need for a civilian program, it is smart to be skeptical. Taking Iran at its word on this would be beyond naive. But nobody in any authority is doing that. Not even the people selling them the plants.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 09:36 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Given that and the fact that Iran is clearly buying things they don't need for a civilian program, it is smart to be skeptical. Taking Iran at its word on this would be beyond naive. But nobody in any authority is doing that. Not even the people selling them the plants.
Maybe we'd better replay the Iraq war on CNN since Iran appears to have missed it?

Or maybe we can add another horrific unintended consquence to the ever growing list of things Bush has yet to acknowledge?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2005, 11:22 PM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
How can anyone see a nuclear North Korea as being a good thing.

Multiply a government based on lies, secrets and the hatred of other cultures with an economy on the brink of disaster, throw in a population literally starving to death and you have a wonderful combination.
Because it may make them feel safer and that there back isnt against a wall. They also wont worry about the US invading any more. That will make things safer. And they also know if they ever used them in a attack they would be wiped off the face of the earth. So they wont start a war and they have something to protect them so they feel safer. overall a slightly better situation.

Now on the topic of them selling nucs, thats bad.... very bad.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 12:21 AM
 
Originally posted by roam:
Wait, let's say Iran did want to nuclear weapons? So? Why not? Are they not allowed to build weapons for self-defence?
A recurring nonsense theme throughout this thread- a nuclear weapon is NOT a weapon for 'self defense'.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 01:01 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
A recurring nonsense theme throughout this thread- a nuclear weapon is NOT a weapon for 'self defense'.
Isn't that the legal fiction under which the US (and the other atomic powers) justify their atomic monopoly?

Or are we parsing some qualitative difference between "self defense" and "deterrent"?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 01:22 AM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Isn't that the legal fiction under which the US (and the other atomic powers) justify their atomic monopoly?

Or are we parsing some qualitative difference between "self defense" and "deterrent"?
The US�s ownership of nukes CAN�T be divorced from history, hard as many of those who very obviously haven�t read it, may try to do. The US absolutely did not develop nnukes as a defensive weapon; it was a �war-winning� weapon of aggression and projected power from day one. That the genie was let out of the bottle, and that we got locked into a nasty Cold War stand off with the Soviets is truly unfortunate, not something anyone but an absolute nutcase would want to see repeated anywhere.

It amazes me that people that should be intelligent enough to see how insane MAD was- (which doesn�t actually stand for Mutually Assured DETERRENT nor DEFENSE, rather DESTRUCTION) isn�t something that needs to be repeated anywhere else, ever for any reason.

Whining about the US and other western powers having nukes, and ignoring the history behind it (that can�t be revised willy-nilly as some like to do when actual history doesn�t suit them) doesn't really count for much.

It�s amazing (and sad) that some people have such an irrational hatred of the US (and presumably other western nations that also have nukes) that they�d push for setting up more insane MAD situations because they think this somehow makes it more �fair� since part of the assured destruction that nukes would wreak, would be against the US they hate so much. It�s lunacy on a scale that I would scarcely believe anyone could stoop to, but then again, I guess I shouldn�t be that surprised.
     
sideus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 03:03 AM
 
Originally posted by roam:
Wait, let's say Iran did want to nuclear weapons? So? Why not? Are they not allowed to build weapons for self-defence? Ah, that old treaty they signed up to. Fcvuk that, th US is doing a fine job of ripping up old treaties, military ones too, so why not others.

Hypocrisy. |In any case, Iran is constantly being threatened by Israel, I say do what you can do defend yourselves.

Fcuknig idiot, you must be, to believe what Bush says on this. Iran a destabilising nation? Hey slimyWhiny, I think you'll find that it's the majority of countries who oppose military intervention on Iran, and the majority who actually believe Iran when they say they only want it for peaceful purposes.

But that doesn't sound good to you, because it flies in the face if your little agenda.

Ah, wait a minute, you're a dumb hick(sorry, wannabe hick since you're actually a filthy English republican who thinks that the US is the world, or the voice of the world.


Keep sucking up to the powers that be yo might just get that dinner place at the next convention.

If all of this is mighty harsh., well, I'm sorry, but the time for reasonable debaet with dicks Like these is over, they are self-serving pricks who need a god kicking. Who type the most god-awful, naive crap one ever hears. Spouting of pre-releases as though we actually buy it.

Whiny - if you were to ever actually surround yourself by real people, you'd be the laughing stock

Bu bye, ********.
lol
Wow. You sure are a nice guy.
     
Twilly Spree
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 06:43 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Btw, they are building an enrichment plant. As those dangerous neocons at the BBC put it, there is no non-military requirement for that.
You have a point I'm sure? Or not. Liberals like to talk a lot.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 06:50 AM
 
Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
You have a point I'm sure? Or not. Liberals like to talk a lot.
SIMEYTHELIMEY OUTED AS LIBERAL SHOCKER!!!

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 07:29 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...

In any case, Bush is doing the right thing keeping the pressure multilateral with Japan, China, and South Korea. NK wants only to deal with the US, and that would be a mistake. NK has to deal with its neighbors.
No offense, but I still insist that Bush's strategy is `too loud'. Especially since you are dealing with an Asian country (who prefer non-confrontative approaches to problems). Japan, South Korea, and China in particular never took eyes from China, even though there hasn't been much on the news.

Just compare Koizumi's (or the Chinese) reaction to the current developments: no name-calling and no big comments in the media. North Korea didn't say or do anything new.

Unlike the Soviet Union or China (Hong Kong, Taiwan), NK has no plans to expand as it barely manages to sustain itself. In that sense, it is contained as much as possible. Extending dependencies on other countries will calm down the situation, not threats.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 07:32 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The US�s ownership of nukes CAN�T be divorced from history, hard as many of those who very obviously haven�t read it, may try to do. The US absolutely did not develop nnukes as a defensive weapon; it was a �war-winning� weapon of aggression and projected power from day one. That the genie was let out of the bottle, and that we got locked into a nasty Cold War stand off with the Soviets is truly unfortunate, not something anyone but an absolute nutcase would want to see repeated anywhere.

It amazes me that people that should be intelligent enough to see how insane MAD was- (which doesn�t actually stand for Mutually Assured DETERRENT nor DEFENSE, rather DESTRUCTION) isn�t something that needs to be repeated anywhere else, ever for any reason.

Whining about the US and other western powers having nukes, and ignoring the history behind it (that can�t be revised willy-nilly as some like to do when actual history doesn�t suit them) doesn't really count for much.

It�s amazing (and sad) that some people have such an irrational hatred of the US (and presumably other western nations that also have nukes) that they�d push for setting up more insane MAD situations because they think this somehow makes it more �fair� since part of the assured destruction that nukes would wreak, would be against the US they hate so much. It�s lunacy on a scale that I would scarcely believe anyone could stoop to, but then again, I guess I shouldn�t be that surprised.
"Nutcase" now there is an interesting word. Since NUTs (Nuclear Use Theory) isn't any more desirable than MAD there is a clear rationale behind wanting neither dictatorial regimes nor those nations perceived as benign or respectable as owners or "custodians" of nuclear weapons arsenals. Not worth finding out how far the leaders of such upright nations as the United States are willing to go in keeping themselves "safe" at the expense of sacrificing half a million of "them" here and there with a single detonation.

Being one of "them" in that regard for me puts someone like GW Bush -with his guy carrying the football- in just a marginally more favorable light than Kim Jong Il with whatever kind of button pushers he has at his beck and call.

Find something less barbaric to settle your disagreements and we'll look at you with less skepticism. The record of US foreign policy doesn't warrant -blind- trust.

Is Kim a greater danger? Sure.
But with Kim as a reality I don't trust Bush either.
Without Kim perhaps Bush all by himself would again drop slightly down the dangerous looney scale but the combination of them both presently shaping nuclear policies with at least one undisputed arsenal to back it up is not something I find reassuring.
A sole nuclear superpower still can't be trusted either however. imnsho. No matter what the pleasantly distorted self image of the giant may be.
"Better than" does not equal "good".
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 08:09 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
No offense, but I still insist that Bush's strategy is `too loud'. Especially since you are dealing with an Asian country (who prefer non-confrontative approaches to problems). Japan, South Korea, and China in particular never took eyes from China, even though there hasn't been much on the news.

Just compare Koizumi's (or the Chinese) reaction to the current developments: no name-calling and no big comments in the media. North Korea didn't say or do anything new.

Unlike the Soviet Union or China (Hong Kong, Taiwan), NK has no plans to expand as it barely manages to sustain itself. In that sense, it is contained as much as possible. Extending dependencies on other countries will calm down the situation, not threats.
First of all, North Korea may be Asian, but to say that their regime prefers non-confrontation is, well, bizarre. They have been going out of their way to be confrontational.

I agree that all of North Korea's neighbors are deeply concerned, and that concern wouldn't go away whatever the US did or did not do. But what I was talking about is more specific and formal than that general statement. North Korea has for many years sought to exclude China, South Korea, and Japan from talks, and deal with this unilaterally with the US alone. The US has rightly resisted those efforts. North Korea's neighbors have a deep interest in this matter, and have significant leverage, or at least more leverage than the US.

Nobody except South Korea is worried about North Korea expanding in a direct sense. South Korea does worry about invasion, and rightly so. Its capital is in artillary range of the North, and it has a 4 million man army poised to invade. Teetering regimes are particularly prone to lashing out. North Korea can barely feed itself, but Kim's army does not want for anything.

Everyone else is concerned about three things. North Korean uncontrolled exports of high tech weapons. They already do this with nuclear capable ballistic missiles. They could do it with nukes. Including nukes to groups like al-Quaida.

Second, being sucked into a new war on the Korean peninsula, as both the US and China (then on the other side) were last time.

Third, China worries about mass refugee flows into its coastal provinces. Incidentally, also its main modern industrial provinces.

This is the basic set of reasons why NK's neighbors are very much in agreement with the Bush Admin approach. Koizumi is particularly vocal about being very close to Bush. Read his statements. China is characteristically more quiet. But they are there too.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 08:34 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First of all, North Korea may be Asian, but to say that their regime prefers non-confrontation is, well, bizarre. They have been going out of their way to be confrontational.

I agree that all of North Korea's neighbors are deeply concerned, and that concern wouldn't go away whatever the US did or did not do. But what I was talking about is more specific and formal than that general statement. North Korea has for many years sought to exclude China, South Korea, and Japan from talks, and deal with this unilaterally with the US alone. The US has rightly resisted those efforts. North Korea's neighbors have a deep interest in this matter, and have significant leverage, or at least more leverage than the US.

Nobody except South Korea is worried about North Korea expanding in a direct sense. South Korea does worry about invasion, and rightly so. Its capital is in artillary range of the North, and it has a 4 million man army poised to invade. Teetering regimes are particularly prone to lashing out. North Korea can barely feed itself, but Kim's army does not want for anything.

Everyone else is concerned about three things. North Korean uncontrolled exports of high tech weapons. They already do this with nuclear capable ballistic missiles. They could do it with nukes. Including nukes to groups like al-Quaida.

Second, being sucked into a new war on the Korean peninsula, as both the US and China (then on the other side) were last time.

Third, China worries about mass refugee flows into its coastal provinces. Incidentally, also its main modern industrial provinces.

This is the basic set of reasons why NK's neighbors are very much in agreement with the Bush Admin approach. Koizumi is particularly vocal about being very close to Bush. Read his statements. China is characteristically more quiet. But they are there too.
They are Asians, and unless you have lived in an Asian country among Asians for a longer time, I suggest that you trust me on this. Just reconsider my example of China's reaction by shutting down a pipeline. Officially, for inspections, but Pjoenjang got the message.

I have been at the border last year in February and there are sufficient troops on both sides so that nothing will happen any time soon.

I also don't believe that NK will export their weapons to Al Quaeda (a far more likely source, if any, would be Pakistan).

I agree with China being worried aobut refugees, but I cannot see any country supporting NK in case of a war. (NK has isolated itself from China after they chose to open up their country in the 70s; their official policy is to be selfsustained, but obviously, reality looks somewhat different.) I don't see how NK could withstand a two to three-pronged attack (South Korea, China).

Japan is traditionally close to the US, but the Japanese have a very strong opinion of their own about the whole thing. They'll deal with it as they did with most other countries: economic aid and negotiations. It's part of their non-confrontational approach: do not argue with the Americans is the basic slogan of Japanese foreign policy since 1945.

Asians don't work like Westerners, in particular Japanese compared to Americans. Japanese think in much longer terms and think of Westerners as being extremely impatient.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 09:57 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
They are Asians, and unless you have lived in an Asian country among Asians for a longer time, I suggest that you trust me on this. Just reconsider my example of China's reaction by shutting down a pipeline. Officially, for inspections, but Pjoenjang got the message.

I have been at the border last year in February and there are sufficient troops on both sides so that nothing will happen any time soon.

I also don't believe that NK will export their weapons to Al Quaeda (a far more likely source, if any, would be Pakistan).

I agree with China being worried aobut refugees, but I cannot see any country supporting NK in case of a war. (NK has isolated itself from China after they chose to open up their country in the 70s; their official policy is to be selfsustained, but obviously, reality looks somewhat different.) I don't see how NK could withstand a two to three-pronged attack (South Korea, China).

Japan is traditionally close to the US, but the Japanese have a very strong opinion of their own about the whole thing. They'll deal with it as they did with most other countries: economic aid and negotiations. It's part of their non-confrontational approach: do not argue with the Americans is the basic slogan of Japanese foreign policy since 1945.

Asians don't work like Westerners, in particular Japanese compared to Americans. Japanese think in much longer terms and think of Westerners as being extremely impatient.


On North Korean arms proliferation, the fact is they do have a record of selling the most hi-tech arms teh have to the highest bidder. Where do you think Pakistan got its nuclear missiles from? The are from the same country that lobbed ballistic missiles over Japan a few years ago.

You seem to have ignored the point of what I indicated above. Bush's multilateral approach is what has kept Japan, South Korea, and China formally part of the process. The North Koreans want their neighbors out of the process entirely. They want bilateral talks only with the US. You might recall that Kerry said in the campaign that he would agree to that condition. Bush said no, and I don't think that is lost at all on the governments of those countries. What North Korea does is central to their security, and they ought to be at the table.

As for supposed Asian cultural traits of non-confrontational approaches, oh please. History simply doesn't support your thesis, as the many wars in that part of the world attest. Asian nations have proven themselves to be no less (or more) confrontational than anyone else. North Korea is a good example of a highly confrontational regime. Japan, historically is as well. Don't forget that the Japanese Peace Constitution is a foreign import.

Recent history also suggests a more assertive Japan. The Japanese Self-Defense forces have been modernized, and are extremely professional. And in particular, didn't Japan not so long ago suggest that they might aquire nuclear weapons to counter North Korea? That's pretty confrontational. China's approach is also more confrontational than you suppose. As you indicated above, they have used the leverage they have. Threatening to cut off energy isn't a passive approach.

Anyway, this bash Bush tendency is tiresome. There is very little international disagreement about North Korea. That which exists is basically tactical. See here in The Economist.

I think you should read this in Foreign Affairs as well.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Feb 11, 2005 at 10:15 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 11:09 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
On North Korean arms proliferation, the fact is they do have a record of selling the most hi-tech arms teh have to the highest bidder. Where do you think Pakistan got its nuclear missiles from? The are from the same country that lobbed ballistic missiles over Japan a few years ago.

You seem to have ignored the point of what I indicated above. Bush's multilateral approach is what has kept Japan, South Korea, and China formally part of the process. The North Koreans want their neighbors out of the process entirely. They want bilateral talks only with the US. You might recall that Kerry said in the campaign that he would agree to that condition. Bush said no, and I don't think that is lost at all on the governments of those countries. What North Korea does is central to their security, and they ought to be at the table.

As for supposed Asian cultural traits of non-confrontational approaches, oh please. History simply doesn't support your thesis, as the many wars in that part of the world attest. Asian nations have proven themselves to be no less (or more) confrontational than anyone else. North Korea is a good example of a highly confrontational regime. Japan, historically is as well. Don't forget that the Japanese Peace Constitution is a foreign import.

Recent history also suggests a more assertive Japan. The Japanese Self-Defense forces have been modernized, and are extremely professional. And in particular, didn't Japan not so long ago suggest that they might aquire nuclear weapons to counter North Korea? That's pretty confrontational. China's approach is also more confrontational than you suppose. As you indicated above, they have used the leverage they have. Threatening to cut off energy isn't a passive approach.

Anyway, this bash Bush tendency is tiresome. There is very little international disagreement about North Korea, except among a section who for political reasons prefer to think that if we just close our eyes and pretend that a problem will go away it will go away. It won't, but the governments concerned all know that -- which is why they are working together to deal with this pressing issue.
You make it sound like multilateral talks have been invented by the Bush administration, but frankly, I don't remember any important talks with NK that were not multilateral.

About Japan's Self Defense forces, that's a much bigger issue than you can imagine. Even the current constitution's tatemae will not allow for nuclear weapons and Japan has been quite content having them `passively' (like Germany). AFAIK the Japanese army (sic!) is among the top three armies (as far as technology and funding is concerned) in the world.
If you follow the Japanese media about that question, you will find out that it won't happen any time soon. That's why the Japanese-American connection is so important to the Japanese.

I still think you should re-evaluate your current position about Asian countries, your knowledge just scratches the surface. If you take Japan as an example, Japan has been pretty much non-confrontational since the 13th century (ok, let's forget about the Ainu for a second). It's aggressive expansion was a direct consequence of the forceful opening by the West. Europe's and America's history recorded a lot more bloodshed than that in Japan.

`Nonconfrontational' in this (Asian) context means two things: talk more polite, but you still let the other know what you want (China shutting down the pipeline). It sounds paradox, but do a little reading about it. One definitive author (ok, this one is to be used for Japan in particular) is Takeo Doi.

There are various guides for business men and some of their conclusions also apply to negotiations for international treaties. Generally you will find a lot more room for interpretation (which is quite irritating for Westerners) -- take the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1952 if my memory still works) which basically did not address some core issues.

Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, so I'll get back on topic.

I don't `bash Bush' because it's en vogue or whatever. I criticize his Administration for some strategical choices they have made.

What you like to perceive as a `change in policy' truly isn't a change in policy at all. There is very little you can do about things and from personal experience (indirectly via my uncle and his visits to NK and directly by knowing Asia a bit better) I can say that the recent comments made by e. g. Rice and Bush are pretty counterproductive, especially in Asia.

They admitted themselves that NK didn't say anything spectacularly new or did something it hadn't done before.

Addendum: Just to make sure that there are no misunderstandings: I do not disagree with the (common) goal of the international community, including the US Administration. I just disagree with the way the Bush cabinet has handled things so far. Too much polemics.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 11:21 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
You make it sound like multilateral talks have been invented by the Bush administration, but frankly, I don't remember any important talks with NK that were not multilateral.
I never said otherwise, and in fact I pointed you to the Gallucci letter in part to stress that this is an issue that didn't change abruptly when Bush came into office. Gallucci was Clinton's negotiator. But they have expanded somewhat recently. Russia is now a part of the six country talks.

It is a fact, however, that North Korea has pressed for bilateral talks, and that the US has resisted that pressure and sought to keep the active participation of the other nations in the region. Do you disagree that is the right policy? If so, why?

Again, I disagree that Asians are culturally predisposed to being non-confrontational. I don't particularly want to get into a qualifications pissing match with you, and that isn't necessary anyway because the the list of counterexamples is too long. See 20th century history for a long list of examples. In any case, I don't think that culture is all that determinative of how nations react. The minute someone starts asserting "race (or nation X) is . . . " you know that you have ceased to think about the issue, and have started dealing in little more than stereotypes.

Of course, we'd all like this problem to just disappear, but that is just wishful thinking. Wishful thinking isn't confined to any culture.

Diplomatic comments expressed here or there really have very little to do with any of this. It doesn't matter at all what people in the street might be telling you. All that matters is how this is resolved in the minds of the tiny clique that rules in Pyongyang. Unfortunately, the North Korean regime is a particularly reclusive and opaque one, and not necessarily a very rational one.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Feb 11, 2005 at 11:34 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 11:30 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I never said otherwise. But they have expanded somewhat recently. Russia is now a part of the six country talks.

It is a fact, however, that North Korea has pressed for bilateral talks, and that the US has resisted that pressure and sought to keep the active participation of the other nations in the region. Do you disagree that is the right policy? If so, why?
Reread the last paragraph. The best way is a multilateral approach (keywords: coordination, one strategy, higher pressure).

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Again, I disagree that Asians are culturally predisposed to being non-confrontational. That's a convenient assertion, but the list of counterexamples is too long. See 20th century for examples. Of course, we'd all like this problem to just disappear, but that is just wishful thinking. Wishful thinking isn't confined to any culture.
I specifically said that you should take a look at history before the forceful opening of China (which basically ended around 1846 with the British-French victory over China aka the Asian superpower at that time) and that of Japan (which really started with the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate in 1868). The initial urge for expansion (especially Japan) was an allergic reaction (as in the other extreme, not good). From a Western point of view, their tactics were neither new nor unusual (some random keywords: British Empire, India, Russia, Sakhalin).

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Diplomatic comments expressed here or there really have very little to do with any of this. It doesn't matter at all what people in the street might be telling you. All that matters is how this is resolved in the minds of the tiny clique that rules in Pyongyang. Unfortunately, the North Korean regime is a particularly reclusive and opaque one.
North Korea's seclusiveness makes things more difficult, but IMHO big words usually stand in the way of action. I'm more pragmatic. Politicians talk too much, because they have to sell their political ideas to make a living (concerns all possible parties). You don't hear too much about a good foreign minister (aka Secretary Of State), because they know they are a lot more effective when they are quiet.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 11:37 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I specifically said that you should take a look at history before the forceful opening of China (which basically ended around 1846 with the British-French victory over China aka the Asian superpower at that time) and that of Japan (which really started with the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate in 1868). The initial urge for expansion (especially Japan) was an allergic reaction (as in the other extreme, not good). From a Western point of view, their tactics were neither new nor unusual (some random keywords: British Empire, India, Russia, Sakhalin).
First of all, I have looked at that history. It's a little arrogant of you to presume otherwise. Second, it has very little to do with anything today. It is as relevant as comments about Japan invading Manchuria and nerve gassing Chinese would be as proof that the Japanese are predisposed to militarism.

Leave the national stereotypes out. They don't tend to be determinative of foreign policy.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 11:46 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First of all, I have looked at that history. It's a little arrogant of you to presume otherwise. Second, it has very little to do with anything today. It is as relevant as comments about Japan invading Manchuria and nerve gassing Chinese would be as proof that the Japanese are predisposed to militarism.

Leave the national stereotypes out. They don't tend to be determinative of foreign policy.
I don't know what you know about Asian history, but your insistance on examples after the mid-19th century suggests that you do not know that much about it. Furthermore, when dealing with another culture, you have to be aware of cultural differences. So it is important since you just quote the Japanese Prime Minister without knowing how and why (or at least: explaining it to others).

I think your insistance to `leave national stereotypes out' misses my point. Asia has very different and very old cultural roots and even China could just gloss over them during the cultural revolution. I don't need to resort to national stereotypes to say that Germans, Americans, Japanese, and Mexicans are very much different (I can tell from personal experience).

Furthermore, I don't have the naive idea that Asians (Japanese in particular) are more peace-loving than Americans, Germans, or French.

Looking for explanations for behavior always sounds apologetic to people like you, but for me it's a preliminary to creating a strong strategy to reach a goal.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First of all, I have looked at that history. It's a little arrogant of you to presume otherwise. Second, it has very little to do with anything today. It is as relevant as comments about Japan invading Manchuria and nerve gassing Chinese would be as proof that the Japanese are predisposed to militarism.

Leave the national stereotypes out. They don't tend to be determinative of foreign policy.
I don't know what you know about Asian history, but your insistance on examples after the mid-19th century suggests that you do not know that much about what happened before. Furthermore, when dealing with another culture, you have to be aware of cultural differences. So it is important since you just quote the Japanese Prime Minister without knowing how and why (or at least: explaining it to others).

I think your insistance to `leave national stereotypes out' misses my point. Asia has very different and very old cultural roots and even China could just gloss over them during the cultural revolution. I don't need to resort to national stereotypes to say that Germans, Americans, Japanese, and Mexicans are very much different (I can tell from personal experience).

Furthermore, I don't have the naive idea that Asians (Japanese in particular) are more peace-loving than Americans, Germans, or French.

Looking for explanations for behavior always sounds apologetic to people like you, but for me it's a preliminary to creating a strong strategy to reach a goal.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 12:08 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I don't know what you know about Asian history, but your insistance on examples after the mid-19th century suggests that you do not know that much about it. Furthermore, when dealing with another culture, you have to be aware of cultural differences. So it is important since you just quote the Japanese Prime Minister without knowing how and why (or at least: explaining it to others).

I think your insistance to `leave national stereotypes out' misses my point. Asia has very different and very old cultural roots and even China could just gloss over them during the cultural revolution. I don't need to resort to national stereotypes to say that Germans, Americans, Japanese, and Mexicans are very much different (I can tell from personal experience).

Furthermore, I don't have the naive idea that Asians (Japanese in particular) are more peace-loving than Americans, Germans, or French.

Looking for explanations for behavior always sounds apologetic to people like you, but for me it's a preliminary to creating a strong strategy to reach a goal.
There is nothing wrong with understanding history and using that as a factor in making a decision or evaluating a situation. I agree that is a good idea. That is why any student of foreign policy studies history to a considerable extent.

Where the mistake is comes from assuming that a grossly overbroad generalization about culture (or cultures) is determinative of contemporary foreign policy. That is simplistic at best. At worst . . . Well, it can get ugly.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 12:18 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is nothing wrong with understanding history and using that as a factor in making a decision or evaluating a situation. I agree that is a good idea. That is why any student of foreign policy studies history to a considerable extent.

Where the mistake is comes from assuming that a grossly overbroad generalization about culture (or cultures) is determinative of contemporary foreign policy. That is simplistic at best. At worst . . . Well, it can get ugly.
I'm not assuming anything. I have read tons of books on the subject, talked to some researchers (Japanese and foreign) about the subject and collected personal experience while living there. That includes people from country like Taiwan, China, and obviously (South) Korea. As for North Korea, my uncle has been there more than ten times and most of what I know about that country, I know from him.

I don't think I'm glossing over the subject or following a trend or whatever.

Personally, I find that the current lack of respecting and knowing cultural differences (especially in the beginning of the Bush administration) were one of the most serious problems. It got a lot better now, because apparently they learned from past mistakes (which is a good thing).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 12:45 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Personally, I find that the current lack of respecting and knowing cultural differences (especially in the beginning of the Bush administration) were one of the most serious problems. It got a lot better now, because apparently they learned from past mistakes (which is a good thing).
Part of the problem is that "understanding cultural differences" can have a very condescending side to it. For example, Samuel Huntington argued some years ago in The Clash of Civilizations that countries with a Confucian cultural history were incapable of establishing democracy and would always be authoritarian. He wasn't so much arguing a cultural point as writing an entire culture off. He was referring specifically to South Korea, which at the time had a repressive authoritarian government. Optimists said that Huntington's thesis was overstated, and that democracy was possible outside of the western world. South Korea seems to be proving the optimists right. Maybe China will one day too.

We really have seen the same pattern reflected in much of the criticism of the Bush Administration and its approach to foreign policy. One of the common arguments against the policy of democracy promotion is that Islam is incompatible with democracy. That argument really disturbs me because it is so unbelievably condescending. Borderline racist even.

I think anyway you overstate the situation. The US government is full of people with deep understanding of foreign policy, history, and the rest. I've had the privilege of meeting a few, and even studied under some (but because of the party cycle, only one who advised the Bush admin). They aren't usually household names, but I assure you they are there in the background. As of course, they are in every country's government.

With one possible hugely important exception -- North Korea. A real concern is the extent to which the North Korean regime is isolated and almost entirely ignorant about the world. How rational would a leader's thought processses be under those circumstances? Historical examples suggest not very rational. That really is a much bigger thing to worry about than whether an American official's comments played well in the Japanese press.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Feb 11, 2005 at 12:58 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2005, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Part of the problem is that "understanding cultural differences" can have a very condescending side to it. For example, Samual Huntington argued some years ago in The Clash of Civilizations that countries with a Confucian cultural history were incapable of establishing democracy and would always be authoritarian. He wasn't so much arguing a cultural point as writing an entire culture off. He was referring specifically to South Korea, which at the time had a repressive authoritarian government. Optimists said that Huntington's thesis was overstated, and that democracy was possible outside of the western world. South Korea seems to be proving the optimists right. Maybe China will one day too.

We really have seen the same pattern reflected in much of the criticism of the Bush Administration and its approach to foreign policy. One of the common arguments against the policy of democracy promotion is that Islam is incompatible with democracy. That argument really disturbs me because it is so unbelievably condescending. Borderline racist even.

I think anyway you overstate the situation. The US government is full of people with deep understanding of foreign policy, history, and the rest. I've had the privilege of meeting a few, and even studied under some (but because of the party cycle, only one who advised the Bush admin). They aren't usually household names, but I assure you they are there in the background. As of course, they are in every country's government.

With one possible hugely important exception -- North Korea. A real concern is the extent to which the North Korean regime is isolated and almost entirely ignorant about the world. How rational would a leader's thought processses be under those circumstances? Historical examples suggest not very rational. That really is a much bigger thing to worry about than whether an American official's comments played well in the Japanese press.
I agree when you say that you doubt certain cultures are incompatible with democracy.

I also think that the important people are usually in the background, real progress will be made by more quiet people.

But I do think countries need to mature until democracy is possible. This includes easy things such as being able to read and write (illiteracy is a problem in countries like India, China, et al), and then the idea of why a democracy is useful. Just take a look at German history and the reason why things turned out the way they did here (keyword: democracy of non-democrats). In this sense, I don't think Bush's democratization program will work or is a `good thing'. I don't disagree (no double negations) on the goal, I disagree on the way. Feels more like an elephant in the China shop to me. (And I think this might even be the biggest misconception of many Americans of `the Europeans'. This is also particularly true of Iran, as the biggest struggle will have to be fought within Iran, not in Iran.)

(BTW, in my opinion, even Japan has still quite a way until it is fully `democratized'. But I think we should leave this topic for a separate discussion.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2005, 04:09 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
It�s amazing (and sad) that some people have such an irrational hatred of the US (and presumably other western nations that also have nukes) ...
But it's not irrational. They have real concerns that the United States will invade their country and set up a government, economic, and even ethnic foundation based on western idealism.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
f1000
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2005, 06:09 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I still think you should re-evaluate your current position about Asian countries, your knowledge just scratches the surface. If you take Japan as an example, Japan has been pretty much non-confrontational since the 13th century (ok, let's forget about the Ainu for a second). It's aggressive expansion was a direct consequence of the forceful opening by the West. Europe's and America's history recorded a lot more bloodshed than that in Japan.
Holy Japanese revisionism, Batman! So once again it's America that's the cause of all suffering. I think it's your knowledge that needs some more scratching:


Seven Year War

Toyotomi Hideyoshi initiated two invasions of Korea, in 1592 and again in 1597, with the professed aim of conquering China. In both campaigns, the Japanese were defeated by the expeditionary armies of Ming Dynasty China and local Korean forces, notably the naval fleet of Yi Sun-sin.

The war brought the local political, economic, and social order in Korea to a state of complete collapse. It also carried dramatic consequences for East Asian history. For Korea, the horrible devastation would leave the country in a perpetually weakened state until the Japanese returned and annexed Korea in 1910. In addition, the cost of the conflict also helped to bankrupt the Ming Dynasty and led to its eventual collapse at the hand of the Manchus.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-Year_War


Japan, Korea and 1597: A Year That Lives in Infamy
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times
Published: September 14, 1997

The Ear Mound dates from Japan's plans to conquer China and divide it among Japanese lords. Korea was in the way, so Japan assembled some 200,000 troops in 1592 and launched an invasion, setting off a war that lasted six years and by some accounts killed more than one million Koreans -- close to one-third of the country's population at that time.

The samurai in those days often cut off the heads of people they had killed as proof that their deeds matched their stories, but it was impossible to bring back so many heads by boat to Japan. So the samurai preserved the noses and sometimes the ears of those whom they killed, soldiers and civilians alike.

Most of the noses were cut off corpses, but some Koreans reportedly were not killed and survived for many years without noses or ears.

The Japanese troops brought back barrels that may have contained the noses or ears of 100,000 Koreans, scholars say, but these numbers are unreliable. Korean estimates are sometimes tainted by the partiality of the researchers, and the subject has not attracted extensive Japanese scholarship, partial or impartial.


http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybe...t/earmound.htm
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:31 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,