North Korea pledges to test nuclear bomb (457 hits)
Category: NewsRating: 0 on 33 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Stephen (View user info) at 2006-10-03 13:48:31 EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/03/nkorea.nuclear/index.html ( Article is copied below )
It appears that the DPRK is at again, rattling the international cage. They have pledge apparently to test a nuclear bomb, a date and time for the test was not issued. I can't help but wonder, are they really going to test a bomb? Maybe they are just attempting to revive talks and bring more aid to there country, who knows. I really don't think we need any more nuclear powers in the world, but again who is allowed the police the world? Who can decides what other nations can do? I'm curious what you people think about this subject. I'm curious about...
1. Should DPRK (North Korea) be allowed to have and\or test nuclear weapons?
2. Who should be allowed to decide what nations can do what?
3. Should aid and support be offered to deter DPRK's nuclear ambitions?
4. Do you even think DPRK has the ability to test a nuclear weapon?
5. What actions should be taken if they do test a nuclear weapon?
***** BELOW IS COPIED FOR CNN.COM LINK POSTED ABOVE *****
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- North Korea, citing American belligerence and pressure, said Tuesday it will conduct a nuclear test. The North Korean Foreign Ministry issued the comment in a statement published by the Korean Central News Agency, or KCNA, the communist country's official news agency.
"The field of scientific research of the DPRK (North Korea's official name) will in the future conduct a nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed," the statement said. (Watch why North Korea may want to test a nuclear bomb -- 3:37)
A date and time for the test was not issued.
A U.S. intelligence source said movement of people, vehicles and equipment has been observed around the North's nuclear test site in recent days and weeks. A U.S. State Department spokesman said any North Korea nuclear tests would be "an unacceptable threat to peace and stability in Asia and the world."
"The U.S. will continue to work with its allies and partners to discourage such a reckless action and will respond appropriately," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said he plans to raise the issue before the U.N. Security Council, calling it "a possible test case for the council to engage in preventative diplomacy."
"It is a test of the Security Council. It is a test of how the council responds," Bolton said.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Tuesday that if North Korea proceeded with a nuclear test, "the international community would respond harshly."
"Any form of nuclear testing by North Korea would be unacceptable," he said.
South Korea raised its security level after the announcement, news services reported. South Korean Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Pyongyang has followed through on threats before.
It is the first time North Korea has made an official announcement that it is going to conduct nuclear tests. Previously, it said it had the right to conduct such tests.
"The U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure for defense," the Foreign Ministry said.
Six-party talks on the country's nuclear program have stalled, and North Korea test-fired missiles in July. There have been attempts to get the talks back on track.
North Korea wants bilateral talks with the United States before the six-party talks resume and it wants Washington to ease up on economic pressures.
"The DPRK's nuclear weapons will serve as reliable war deterrent for protecting the supreme interests of the state and the security of the Korean nation from the U.S. threat of aggression and averting a new war and firmly safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula under any circumstances."
At the same time, North Korea said it would back "nuclear non-proliferation as a responsible nuclear weapons state" and do all it can "to realize the denuclearization of the peninsula and give impetus to the world-wide nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons."
"The ultimate goal of the DPRK is not a 'denuclearization' to be followed by its unilateral disarmament but one aimed at settling the hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and removing the very source of all nuclear threats from the Korean Peninsula and its vicinity," the statement said.
The country said it "officially announced that it manufactured up-to-date nuclear weapons after going through transparent legitimate processes to cope with the U.S. escalated threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure. The already declared possession of nuclear weapons presupposes the nuclear test."
The country said it would "never use nuclear weapons first but strictly prohibit any threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear transfer."
***** ABOVE IS COPIED FROM CNN.COM LINK POSTED ABOVE *****
User Reviews
Submitted by rillins (user info) at 2006-10-03 17:35:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This conflict was a long time coming: Muslim's Vs. the 20th century. Most religions have found ways to cope, the way SOME Muslims (extremists) cope is to segregate themselves from the desires of their people and lead a holy war on everyone else.
It took a hard lesson for the US to really listen about terrorism, some countries have been fighting it for years (srilanka etc). Problem is, how do you fight this? I don't know if invading countries is the right way, but the UN needs to step up to the new world problem of terrorism.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-10-03 17:11:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why are you congratulating me? I didnt do anything. I just live here.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 16:54:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-10-03 16:46:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Probably so.
===
not probably, your government jsut unclassified reports that the world is now less safer because of iraq.
congratulations
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-10-03 16:46:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Probably so.
I have a whole mess of things I want to say, but it requires two things: the first is that I check up on this stuff and refresh my memory, and the second is that I cite my sources.
Since this means absolutely nothing to me as a lazy American, I will just say we already gave them their propaganda in Afghanistan, which is what they'd been begging us to do for years and years, and Iraq in that context only put the icing on the cake.
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 16:37:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-10-03 16:32:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:35:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:08:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
i see what you mean.
but if you invalidate the US, it gives carte blanche for countries to do whatever they want.
it was common in the US prior to the Iraq war to call the UN useless. perhaps if you had listened to its inspector, you wouldn't be in this mess right now. or perhaps if the UN was more useful, it would've stopped this illegal invasion.
-----------------------------------------
The only reason I would say the US led war against Iraq was "illegal" was because they never found these so called weapons of mass destruction, but to remove saddam "was" good for the country, it still seemed to turn worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, the objective of the war was regime change. It was unprovoked (you'd have to find the warheads to even begin to declare it provoked) attack and that is a war crime.
Personally I dont give a shit about that. The war was illegal but the fulfilled objective makes the world a better place.
------------------------------------------
Personally I think we made the best terrorist recruitment tool... its called Iraq, we've given them more propaganda then they'll ever need.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-10-03 16:32:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:35:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:08:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
i see what you mean.
but if you invalidate the US, it gives carte blanche for countries to do whatever they want.
it was common in the US prior to the Iraq war to call the UN useless. perhaps if you had listened to its inspector, you wouldn't be in this mess right now. or perhaps if the UN was more useful, it would've stopped this illegal invasion.
-----------------------------------------
The only reason I would say the US led war against Iraq was "illegal" was because they never found these so called weapons of mass destruction, but to remove saddam "was" good for the country, it still seemed to turn worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, the objective of the war was regime change. It was unprovoked (you'd have to find the warheads to even begin to declare it provoked) attack and that is a war crime.
Personally I dont give a shit about that. The war was illegal but the fulfilled objective makes the world a better place.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:56:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Those North Koreans and their shennanigans!
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:36:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:25:10 (#)
Ranking: -2
We're making real progress here, people! We're making the wheels turn!
-----------------------------
just like the good'lo hampster
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:35:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:08:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
i see what you mean.
but if you invalidate the US, it gives carte blanche for countries to do whatever they want.
it was common in the US prior to the Iraq war to call the UN useless. perhaps if you had listened to its inspector, you wouldn't be in this mess right now. or perhaps if the UN was more useful, it would've stopped this illegal invasion.
-----------------------------------------
The only reason I would say the US led war against Iraq was "illegal" was because they never found these so called weapons of mass destruction, but to remove saddam "was" good for the country, it still seemed to turn worse.
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:34:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:09:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul
-google UN success, the only story I could find that talked about a real success in terms of UN helping people was with their huge pensions.
-------------------------------------------
I'm sure they'll take swift action, as in sending them a letter saying they are very very mad.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:29:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dear North Korea,
Welcome to the 1940's.
Love,
The USA
P.S. Go fuck yourself.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:13:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:08:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
i see what you mean.
but if you invalidate the US, it gives carte blanche for countries to do whatever they want.
it was common in the US prior to the Iraq war to call the UN useless. perhaps if you had listened to its inspector, you wouldn't be in this mess right now. or perhaps if the UN was more useful, it would've stopped this illegal invasion.
--------------------------------
You mean UN at the beginning don't you?
Not really the UN doesn't really back up its resolutions, and with veto power on the securrity council there is a lot of shit that can't do anything about. Countries have always been able to do what they want if they were strong enough, it doesn't make it right but can you think of the last time a country didn't do something because of the UN?
If the UN was more useful it would have enforced its own resolutions against Iraq. It wouldn't have been happy with a stalemate that was lining the pockets of some of its members.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:09:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul
-google UN success, the only story I could find that talked about a real success in terms of UN helping people was with their huge pensions.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:08:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i see what you mean.
but if you invalidate the US, it gives carte blanche for countries to do whatever they want.
it was common in the US prior to the Iraq war to call the UN useless. perhaps if you had listened to its inspector, you wouldn't be in this mess right now. or perhaps if the UN was more useful, it would've stopped this illegal invasion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 15:03:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:50:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
do you have a better suggestion? an alternative? should we let everyone do whatever they want and not even try? or i suppose you'd prefer that we all obey to the US, right? yeah, great decisions on Iraq...clearly, you are competent.
the UN has done a list of good things to.
unless you have a better solution which doesn't involve that we declare George Bush emperor of the world, indo, quit saying it's not worth a dime because it's best thing we got right now.
-----------------
That is my point Caul the UN doesn't try. I honestly can't think of the last time they did anything on their own. I am starting to think we should scrap the UN and start over (not sure about it but I think it should be an option we have on the table), and I am not alone in this. The US isn't alone in this there are plenty of disgruntled former UN workers from all over who share those feelings.
Where in this conversation did I say the US was right? Where in this conversation did I say we should all follow the Bush?
Try and get it through your head, I am not a fan of Bush, but that doesn't mean I give UN slack when it comes to its repeated failures and shortcomings.
How is the UN the best we have got? If all the forces and money that countries pledged to the UN actually were used to solve problems I think a lot more shit would get done. The UN is an unweildy and self serving group.
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:57:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:43:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-03 13:58:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
I think we should conduct some nuclear testing...in downtown Pyongyang
-
And Tehran while you're at it.
---------------------------------------
It is gonna be one long list if start that up.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:50:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:38:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul I forgot about Somalia, Liberia, Srebrenica, Congo, I mean the list goes on and on. Aside from all the times they sat on their hands and watched people die there are countless allegations about kickbacks.
===
do you have a better suggestion? an alternative? should we let everyone do whatever they want and not even try? or i suppose you'd prefer that we all obey to the US, right? yeah, great decisions on Iraq...clearly, you are competent.
the UN has done a list of good things to.
unless you have a better solution which doesn't involve that we declare George Bush emperor of the world, indo, quit saying it's not worth a dime because it's best thing we got right now.
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:43:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-03 13:58:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
I think we should conduct some nuclear testing...in downtown Pyongyang
-
And Tehran while you're at it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:40:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah, east Timor was an example of a great job they did, oh wait nevermind they dropped the ball there too.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:38:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul I forgot about Somalia, Liberia, Srebrenica, Congo, I mean the list goes on and on. Aside from all the times they sat on their hands and watched people die there are countless allegations about kickbacks.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/emergency_sex.htm
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:32:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:24:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:12:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Another fine example of how useless the UN is.
===
funny how american right-wingers are the only people on this planet to say so.
i guess we should disband it to accomodate 1% of the world's population.
-------------------------------
Really? You are going to sit there and say that 99% of the world likes the UN? Can you name off the top of your head a single problem they have ever solved?
I can understand all their resolutions being meaningless in the middle east, that has alway s been a mess so I will give them a pss there, but what about Rawanda? Darfur?
Those are prime examples of problems they could solve without polarizing the world but problems they won't solve.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:28:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul...even the most liberal political scientists in academia, re: Michael Doyle and Bruce Russert, think the UN *in its current form* sucks. Thats not to say it COULD be useful, but right now its not.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:25:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We're making real progress here, people! We're making the wheels turn!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:24:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:12:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Another fine example of how useless the UN is.
===
funny how american right-wingers are the only people on this planet to say so.
i guess we should disband it to accomodate 1% of the world's population.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:20:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
well THIS is the greatest meeting of intellects since the last nobel prize committee convened isn't it?
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:15:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:12:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Another fine example of how useless the UN is.
We go through this shit every year. We need to stop fucking coddling Kim.
------------------------------------
If we only could just rub him out.
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:14:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-03 13:58:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
I think we should conduct some nuclear testing...in downtown Pyongyang
-------------------------------
If it was only that easy.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:13:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
meanwhile, Russert would tell the UN to shape the fuck up and quit this shit.
Russert pwns.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:13:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Meirsheimer:
1. Should DPRK (North Korea) be allowed to have and\or test nuclear weapons? No
2. Who should be allowed to decide what nations can do what? US
3. Should aid and support be offered to deter DPRK's nuclear ambitions? Treat of attacking you?
4. Do you even think DPRK has the ability to test a nuclear weapon? Yes
5. What actions should be taken if they do test a nuclear weapon? Attack
Doyle:
1. Should DPRK (North Korea) be allowed to have and\or test nuclear weapons? No
2. Who should be allowed to decide what nations can do what? UN
3. Should aid and support be offered to deter DPRK's nuclear ambitions? Economic liberalization
4. Do you even think DPRK has the ability to test a nuclear weapon? Yes
5. What actions should be taken if they do test a nuclear weapon? Economic sanctions and such.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:12:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Another fine example of how useless the UN is.
We go through this shit every year. We need to stop fucking coddling Kim.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-10-03 14:05:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
1. Should DPRK (North Korea) be allowed to have and\or test nuclear weapons?
No country should
2. Who should be allowed to decide what nations can do what?
Me
3. Should aid and support be offered to deter DPRK's nuclear ambitions?
No, whichever way you cut it thats essentially giving in to blackmail
4. Do you even think DPRK has the ability to test a nuclear weapon?
Possibly though I doubt it
5. What actions should be taken if they do test a nuclear weapon?
Ghey rape
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-03 13:58:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think we should conduct some nuclear testing...in downtown Pyongyang
Submitted by Felony (user info) at 2006-10-03 13:51:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1. Should DPRK (North Korea) be allowed to have and\or test nuclear weapons?
"I really don't think NK should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it isn't in the best interest of the world, but in fact none of the major powers should have them either."
2. Who should be allowed to decide what nations can do what?
"I don't think any nation has the "right" to tell any other nation what to do. Suggestions are always welcomed."
3. Should aid and support be offered to deter DPRK's nuclear ambitions?
"We really should do whatever we can to prevent them from become a nuclear state."
4. Do you even think DPRK has the ability to test a nuclear weapon?
"I'm not sure, but I believe they could detonate a nuclear device, but not the ability to launch it very far
5. What actions should be taken if they do test a nuclear weapon?
"Add another one to the ranks of nuclear powers, not much we can do"