north korea launches missile test (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

Fuck some of you people must be boring.

Why does every NCAP thread turn into a huge arguement with long winded pointless posts contradicting every other statement the other raises?

Ah, this may just be me, but I think that it has something to do with the fact that such debates are to be expected (and welcomed, by and large) within a sub-forum dedicated to discussions concerned with current affairs and politics.

 

[Jiga]

Fuck some of you people must be boring.

Why does every NCAP thread turn into a huge arguement with long winded pointless posts contradicting every other statement the other raises?

Yeah, Id rather post in the non-school forum, thats not pointless at all

North Korea fired the missiles to:
Put themselves back in the news.
Provide a bargaining chip in talks.
Boost military morale, in essence - to show the US who's boss.

Exactly. All these arguments about them trying to defend themselves are ridiculous, the above are the exact reasons I would imagine.

Isolating how? For starters the DPRK was very friendly with the USSR, and the Eastern Bloc pre 1991. It still has a good relationship with China and Cuba, and i would guess also with Vietnam and Laos. So for a time the DPRK were not isolated from the "other world".

They have isolated themselves from the vast majority..... its a well known fact that they are well behind the world in many areas such as technology due to this.

The USA demands for all but offers none, they are not trying to cooperate with nations that differ in economy. So there is no reason why the DPRK should take the USA seriously.

Well Im not sure exactly what you meant by offering nothing, but in the Nth Korea case Im quite sure trade agreements would be one thing they are offering in their meetings with Nth Korea to open them up to international trade, along with other agreements with China, Japan and Russia.

 

[supercharged]

Since North Korea is far too poor to compete with Japan militarily with conventional weapons, it is pooling all its defence funds into 2nd rate strategic missiles as a nuclear deterrent against Japan.

Japan cannot attack another country.

Cannot? The constitution can be changed at anytime (which right wing members of Japan's government are currently looking at) and Japan has by far the strongest navy in East Asia making even former king of the hill Russia's rusting Pacific fleet look like trash.

Japan strike threat to Korea
By Shane Green, Herald Correspondent in Tokyo
February 15 2003

Japan is prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike on North Korea if it believes the communist state is preparing a missile attack against it.

In Tokyo's toughest military stand since the end of World War II, the Defence Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, said Japan would make the strike if it detected that North Korea was fuelling missiles for an attack.

"It is too late if [a missile] flies towards Japan," he said in an interview with Reuters. "Our nation will use military force as a self-defence measure if [North Korea] starts to resort to arms against Japan."

Mr Ishiba, a hawk who was appointed defence chief last September, was at pains to portray such a strike as an act of self-defence, in line with Japan's postwar constitution, which forbids military aggression.

He also made it clear that Japan was not on the verge of launching a strike, saying: "We have no confirmation that there is an imminent danger of a missile launch [from North Korea]. The situation is very tense in North Korea, but Japan is not making any special preparations in response to that."

But Mr Ishiba's warning pushes the constitutional restraint to the limit, and sends a clear message to North Korea that Japan does not intend to be a passive target.

As the crisis over North Korea's nuclear program worsens, Pyongyang has issued increasingly strident warnings that it is prepared to strike against United States forces, and Washington's allies, in the region. Japan, a chief ally, is well within missile range.

It was not clear exactly what form a Japanese strike would take. Tokyo has substantial and well-equipped forces, including Aegis destroyers, but is geared towards self-defence.

In recent weeks, as the threat from North Korea has intensified, there have been suggestions that Tokyo might call on the US to make a first strike should it be threatened.

Mr Ishiba's warning increases tension over North Korea's nuclear program, which was this week referred to the United Nations Security Council. The US reaffirmed yesterday that it will not immediately push for UN sanctions, instead pursuing a diplomatic solution.

Mr Ishiba also gave his strong support to the development with the US of a missile defence shield, part of Washington's push for a national missile defence system for its forces and allies in Asia.

Japan is very vulnerable to missile attack. In 1998, North Korea test-fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan which landed in the Pacific. Since then, Tokyo and Washington have been conducting research on a missile defence system.

Mr Ishiba said such a system was a "major option", adding: "Our nation should pursue this." He also foreshadowed a boost to Japan's forces to reduce its reliance on US forces based in the country.

Washington's forces in Japan include 45,000 troops and sections of the Seventh Fleet. Mr Ishiba said there was no such thing as "a free ride in the post-Cold War era".

The North Korean crisis is also certain to help push emergency legislation through the parliament to prepare Japan for an attack. The legislation got bogged down last year, but the Koizumi administration is making a renewed effort to have it passed in the current session.

Mr Ishiba's comments came as the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs, James Kelly, said he believed the North Korean crisis could prompt Japan to rethink its position as a non-nuclear weapons state.

"Certainly this is a problem that is of a very serious impact on Japan and will cause Japan to rethink all of its positions," he told a House of Representatives committee.

But Mr Kelly - to whom North Korea confessed last September to having a nuclear arms program - said he believed Japan would remain non-nuclear as long as the "US provides a nuclear umbrella".

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927803788.html

 

[Mc_Meaney]

Wake me up for ww3

 

[turtleface]

I've realised recently the incredible consumption of the planet's resources by the world.

We're told to save water, save petrol, save plastic, save metal, save all sorts of resources, recycle, save energy, use less plastic bags etc. to slow the rate of resource usuage and help save the environment. And so we should.

Unfortunately total idiots continue to waste the world's resources as well as lives on military operations and military spending.

No point in the State Gov's ads promoting the saving of energy, when military operations like this, the Iraq war, Palestein/Israel conflict etc. use up probably a trillion times more than anything we save.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

well i personally feel that these missile tests, although nth korea technically has a right to do as it wishes the same as anywhere else, are a little disturbing. as a few other people have said, the difference between nth korea and the US is that nth korea is an authoritarian communist dictatorship, run by one person, whereas america (all Bush-bashing aside) is a democratic republic where major decisions such as the testing of a nuclear weapon need public support and depend on the influence of more than one individual. therefore, although in a perfectly fair world we would probably see america disarming as well, nth korea's nuclear tests pose more of a threat to the world at large because the weapons could be used more readily for more dubious purposes, ie kim jong il can just go and fire missiles at the drop of a hat if he wants. thats what makes it risky and there's been an uproar about it, because the security of a democratic system isnt there. people have said that democracy is no better than communism, both are valid, bla bla bla, but the reality is that communism only works in theory; it sounds like a good idea in principle but it goes against the grain of human nature. we are quite selfish beings by default and that is why capitalism/democracy works because everyone technically has the freedom to get what they want, and has a say in who is going to give them that freedom. okay im going off on a tangent so i will stop before i get flamed.

 

[Comrade nathan]

well i personally feel that these missile tests, although nth korea technically has a right to do as it wishes the same as anywhere else, are a little disturbing. as a few other people have said, the difference between nth korea and the US is that nth korea is an authoritarian communist dictatorship, run by one person, whereas america (all Bush-bashing aside) is a democratic republic where major decisions such as the testing of a nuclear weapon need public support and depend on the influence of more than one individual. therefore, although in a perfectly fair world we would probably see america disarming as well, nth korea's nuclear tests pose more of a threat to the world at large because the weapons could be used more readily for more dubious purposes, ie kim jong il can just go and fire missiles at the drop of a hat if he wants. thats what makes it risky and there's been an uproar about it, because the security of a democratic system isnt there. people have said that democracy is no better than communism, both are valid, bla bla bla, but the reality is that communism only works in theory; it sounds like a good idea in principle but it goes against the grain of human nature. we are quite selfish beings by default and that is why capitalism/democracy works because everyone technically has the freedom to get what they want, and has a say in who is going to give them that freedom. okay im going off on a tangent so i will stop before i get flamed.

Notice that whenever the US does something, most of the world condems the US. When North Korea ever does something that makes Western news headlines, the majority of the world does not care.

The reason being is because the majority of the world has faced some form of US oppression. If no US oppression, then European oppresion. They do not fear North korean bombs, the fear US bombs that they have seen many times. North Korea has never invaded another nations, so there is no fear of a well armed DPRK. Though the USA has invaded many nations in some form ofr covert or overt action against the condemnation of the majority of the world's population.

The fear of a armed and well defended DPRK is the fear of a colonialist/imperialist that the DPRK will be well out of the influence of Western nations. You talk about the DPRK being run by a dictatorship (with little proof), but in the world context the USA is a dictator, it has no real opposition and any opposition that arises is eliminated.

The DPRK has no intention of using these missiles for anything other then defense. The USA on the other hand uses all it can can to eliminate independence movements. The DPRK being armed and well defended will create a safer world, a world were not one country who has little interest in the well being of the nations under it's influence, can not dominate at it's own will.

 

[Riewe]

Unfortunately if the americans kept on going in the korean war, all this mess may have been avoided, but thats another debate for another day.

The only option i see is that NK will not do anything, as they are all talk and no action. They know rightfully so that they are too small to make any militaristic quest (at least i hope for their sake that's true), because really, they don't have much friends around. There is China that, but if NK started sending these missles across to the US, i don't think China would really be right behind NK.

The sooner the US and co can clean up that mess in NK, the sooner the world will become a safer place

 

[Snaykew]

Communism was a major problem, leaders would abuse human rights and use military force to gain control. This was a threat to every country in the region. You just have to look at communist countries today and see that the system doesnt work in its practical use.

And the military dictatorships the US backed were any better when they invade and annex small nations, and commit genocide in those taken territories? Cough, Indonesia cough.

Yes but the North can match that through numbers.

Dude, North Korea has some of the highest amounts of tank and artillery pieces in the region, if not the world. South Korea doesn't have that great a technological advantage over the north.

North Korea have 1 million soldiers, whereas South Korea have about 600,000 whom I assume are much better armed than the North's army.

South Korea may not have indigenous military technology, but most nations don't, like North Korea. South Korea however, do have access to purchase American military units like aircraft, armoured units and warships.

Besides, the Americans would aid South Korea if the North attacked anyway. I doubt North Korea would last long when the skies, seas and land are dominated by their enemies.

It's best not to underestimate the South Korean defence force.

North Korea may have numbers in soldiers and vehicles, but how long do you suppose they can keep them supplied without Chinese and South Korean aid that they have been receiving? How do you suppose they feed their army with no food? Morale would drop fast and needless to say troops would probaby start surrendering pretty soon into any conflict.

So who has the edge between South Korea and North Korea again?