Mushrooms Growing On North Korea

Remove all ads!

Took time out to think. I don't believe anyone caught the thought that seemed to start US comments. I was trying to put across the horror that the boomers (me) and also a lot of others from before that time feel about the damage nukes did to Japan. "We" as a group never want to see them used again. Ever. Never. The US is an 800lb gorilla and as a group we do support a jewish state. This has led to a lot of hate and sometimes it comes through. The picture of a dead toddler in an open area made me want to kill someone, I saw my little ones there. Who do you blame? Now multiply that by thousands or millions, THAT is what a nuke or two can do. I would rather give NK everything the people need than see one baby die of starvation or lack of care and never from war. Threats with atomics make that hard. I still think China and Russia are the ones to look to for a solution with China the best bet. Their time has come and they are growing into it slowly and steadily and yes they too will make mistakes and mistime actions. I do believe China will help NK as soon as NK comes to their senses. Arab, Jewish, Christian, Korean, American, British, it does not matter whos kids are being killed, it's wrong and mass weapons don't see people! Sorry I exploded and did not wait to calm down all.

 

Isn't napalm still used by the US and just as cruel?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg

The *whole* world should decomission its nuclear weapons. I am very proud that Ireland is nuclear free.

Regarding Sanctions:

Scantions do nto work. During the first Gulf War, the US has blown up a water processing plant and scanctions prevented the plant from being repaired, resulting in thousands of deaths to (mostly) children. Did Sadam suffer under sanctions? No it was the civillians.

 

What was Ireland doing to it's own people and in England 30 years ago? How many people died in attacks there by that countrys own people? I can't tell what is happening behind that 'Nam era picture but I think it reinforces what I have said early on in this topic, All war needs to be avoided and once again nukes don't see people. Now that NK has said under what conditions it will declare war on the US (conditions already met) we (the US) still need to show restraint.

The *whole* world should decomission its nuclear weapons.

On at least this one thing we are in total agreement. We are still working on that.

[ October 11, 2006, 15:08: Message edited by: Old One ]

 

Ireland didn't do anything to its own people or England 30 years ago, but I agree with what you say on avoiding war. We all need to show restraint.

 

Ireland didn't do anything to its own people or England 30 years ago, but I agree with what you say on avoiding war. We all need to show restraint.

IRA? Smoldering civil violence for many years? This seems to be sliding into the past too and of that I am glad. I'm Irish desent, mostly anyway and proud of it!

 

I'd like to think nothing's going to come of this. Kim Jong Il may be mad, but I think he's smart enough to know what would happen if he launched a nuke at anyone.

 

No, we don't still use it, and no napalm exists in the U.S. at this time. I can speak on this point with authority, as I work for the government on the Elimination of Chemical Weapons Program. In 1997, a large group of countries (I'm thinking it's 80-something countries) signed a treaty at the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in which it was agreed that all countries would completely destroy their chemical weapon stockpiles.

While there are no countries that are on pace to meet the target date of 2012 for complete disarmament, progress is being made. The first chemical weapon the U.S. got rid of was napalm, with the last of it being destroyed in 2000, and the last facility capable of producing napalm demolished in 2001. The terms of the CWC state that it is not only necessary to destroy your existing stockpile of chemical weapons, but you must also destroy any facilities that have the potential to make more chemical weapons.

 

Methinks America will pour a bit more funding into counter-nuclear technology now. The past nations with nuclear technology have been nations you could 'trust' to not try anything stupid. Korea, having an almost fanatical population following its facist government is far more concerning than any other government with nuclear weapons.

 

The United States is one of 175 States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons (CW). The CWC does not prohibit production, processing, consumption, or trade of related chemicals for peaceful purposes, but it does establish a verification regime to ensure such activities are consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

Thank you AtFI

 

Thats good to hear AtFI

Old One, I think you were referring to Ulster (N.Ireland) earlier, not Ireland. But yes things are peaceful (except in some Protestant areas).

 

@Cuchulainn: Your right,corrected.

 

Correct. To give an example of a "peaceful purpose" of a potential chemical weapon, you can use chlorine for things like killing bacteria and the like in swimming pools, or you can weaponize it into a poisonous gas. To former is allowed, the latter is not. Things like chlorine are termed "industrial chemicals".

Industrial chemicals can potentially be just as deadly as chemical weapons. The only difference between them is an industrial chemical has some use(s) other than killing people, whereas chemical weapons do not. The nerve gas VX has no industrial use other than killing people, and so it is prohibited.

 

Heh. Yeah, we're not using napalm. Doesn't mean we're not using incendiaries. We do have incendiaries in the arsenal, and we have--at the least--used them in Iraq.

But it's not napalm, because it uses kerosene jet fuel, rather than the traditional mix of gasoline and benzene. So that makes it not napalm.

Not that the effects on those in the impact area are appreciably different...

 

Now that NK has said it will use a nuke on the US and seems happy to be able to do so can everyone bashing my country realize NK's nukes are not for defense and try to think and realize what would happen if the US announced to "your country", we have a nuke and will put it on a rocket and use it if sanctions are contilued against us! talk about restraint! Glad NK is showing some, to bad we don't and are so willing to use nukes. Goodby NK! Oops it's still there!
What do you think will happen if a nuke hits an american city? I don't want to find out. How would your leaders react? Meaning no disrespect to Islam, talk about a holy war. Nk and Iran just want to punch the biggest kid around and it is the US. Hell of a way to take to try to get respect. It works until he gets hurt and strikes back. Droping a nuke on us will get the attention of even the most strident peace advocate amoung us. That might even get Clinton and Kerry mad.

 

when did they do this?
what NK said was that they will consider the continued agressive attitude from the US against them to be an act of war.

i remember at the beginning of this arms race a NK official saying that he believes that NK is on the US's hit list having already invaded iraq and afghanistan, when the US invades NK and when(he seems to think that NK could possibly defeat the US) the US are defeated he worries that the US will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction in retaliation for that loss, and that is why he wants NK to have nuclear arms, to prevent this.

 

when did they do this?
what NK said was that they will consider the continued agressive attitude from the US against them to be an act of war.
-------------------------------------------------
What they said, and I took time off to listen, was that if sanctions were continued-- and that they would mount a nuke on a rocket-- and would consider our attitude an act of war--
Seems plain to me. Boils down to -I don't like what you say or think so i'm goiing to beat you up, with a rocket and a nuke. Take it how you will, I'm not going to argue anymore. Pearl harbor was the last time the military struck the US, go ahead and nuke us.

 

NK can only hit parts of Alaska (and his rockets are not known for being reliable) so I wouldn't be too worried Old One and there has been lots of mis-translations from wee Kim in the past.

As for Iran, they insist they are using nuclear technology for electricty (which is their right to do so BTW).

With the new reports on the massive death toll in Iraq, its ironic that if Sadam did have WMD, the death toll would have been much lower!

 

@Cachulainn: Too bad Nk isn,t still making elect too. It took me a bit (now i'm going to get it from my countrymen) but I think Iran does have a right to peacefull nuke use. If they threw everything, and to an extent they have, open they could prove what they say and laugh at the panic a 500kv+ generator causes. I don't trust Iran, they held our people for over a year. (PLEASE don't bring up Gitmo, it sucks too!) Iran could convince me though, oil doesn't last forever and now is the time for Iran to plan for the future.
On a side note Sadam did have and use WMD (gas and other agents) against the Kurds and I think the people of southern Iraq. I may be wrong on the last because i mentioned that one from old memory. Beatin an old horse, shame on me. You are right in your comment applied to today which is what matters.

 

I don't think the US itself really has anything to fear from North Korean nukes at this stage (and probably not for many decades). Where they could hit though, if they were particularly determined to go after the US, is all those soldiers you guys have stationed over in South Korea and Japan - which in those cases, meaning no disrespect to the soldiers, I'd be more concerned about the local citizens than I would for the soldiers.

 

@Rotku: Point taken but not the idea.
What would any country do if the US said they would mount a nuke on a rocket-- and would consider your attitude an act of war--
You are still pointing out what you don't like about the US and ignoring the fact we have been threatened with an atomic attack for our ATTITUDE. Don't mean caps as a shout but for emphasis. Weather some idiot can carry through is beside the point I was trying to make. No one has even tried to answer this or even seemed to think about it. What would NZ do if a nuke landed on you guys on an open part of say South Island. Not as bad as a North Island city?