North Korea saying "Fuck you" to the world once again....state media reports uranium in final processing stages.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8237204.stm

http://www.newsweek.com/id/214248

A growing and compelling body of research suggests that nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous, as Obama and most people assume. The bomb may actually make us safer. In this era of rogue states and transnational terrorists, that idea sounds so obviously wrongheaded that few politicians or policymakers are willing to entertain it. But that's a mistake. Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy. Obama's idealistic campaign, so out of character for a pragmatic administration, may be unlikely to get far (past presidents have tried and failed). But it's not even clear he should make the effort. There are more important measures the U.S. government can and should take to make the real world safer, and these mustn't be ignored in the name of a dreamy ideal (a nuke-free planet) that's both unrealistic and possibly undesirable.

The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Second, there's never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a second and think about that: it's hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states."

...

Nuclear weapons change all that by making the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable. Suddenly, when both sides have the ability to turn the other to ashes with the push of a button—and everybody knows it—the basic math shifts. Even the craziest tin-pot dictator is forced to accept that war with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth the effort. As Waltz puts it, "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?"

...

Why indeed? The iron logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction is so compelling, it's led to what's known as the nuclear peace: the virtually unprecedented stretch since the end of World War II in which all the world's major powers have avoided coming to blows.

...

But are Kim and Ahmadinejad really scarier and crazier than were Stalin and Mao? It might look that way from Seoul or Tel Aviv, but history says otherwise. Khrushchev, remember, threatened to "bury" the United States, and in 1957, Mao blithely declared that a nuclear war with America wouldn't be so bad because even "if half of mankind died … the whole world would become socialist." Pyongyang and Tehran support terrorism—but so did Moscow and Beijing. And as for seeming suicidal, Michael Desch of the University of Notre Dame points out that Stalin and Mao are the real record holders here: both were responsible for the deaths of some 20 million of their own citizens.

Yet when push came to shove, their regimes balked at nuclear suicide, and so would today's international bogeymen. For all of Ahmadinejad's antics, his power is limited, and the clerical regime has always proved rational and pragmatic when its life is on the line. Revolutionary Iran has never started a war, has done deals with both Washington and Jerusalem, and sued for peace in its war with Iraq (which Saddam started) once it realized it couldn't win. North Korea, meanwhile, is a tiny, impoverished, family-run country with a history of being invaded; its overwhelming preoccupation is survival, and every time it becomes more belligerent it reverses itself a few months later (witness last week, when Pyongyang told Seoul and Washington it was ready to return to the bargaining table). These countries may be brutally oppressive, but nothing in their behavior suggests they have a death wish.

Still, even if Iran or North Korea are deterrable, nuclear pessimists fear they'll give or sell their deadly toys to terrorists, who aren't—for it's hard to bomb a group with no return address. Yet look closely, and the risk of a WMD handoff starts to seem overblown. For one thing, assuming Iran is able to actually build a nuke, Desch explains that "it doesn't make sense that they'd then give something they regard as central to their survival to groups like Hizbullah, over which they have limited control. As for Al Qaeda, they don't even share common interests. Why would the mullahs give Osama bin Laden the crown jewels?" To do so would be fatal, for Washington has made it very clear that it would regard any terrorist use of a WMD as an attack by the country that supplied it—and would respond accordingly.


...

Put this all together and nuclear weapons start to seem a lot less frightening. So why have so few people in Washington recognized this? Most of us suffer from what Desch calls a nuclear phobia, an irrational fear that's grounded in good evidence—nuclear weapons are terrifying—but that keeps us from making clear, coldblooded calculations about just how dangerous possessing them actually is. The logic of nuclear peace rests on a scary bargain: you accept a small chance that something extremely bad will happen in exchange for a much bigger chance that something very bad—conventional war—won't happen. This may well be a rational bet to take, especially if that first risk is very small indeed. But it's a tough case to make to the public.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2009 03:44AM by Thurston Moore.

Yeah, all that sounds like wonderful pie in the sky thinking. Until you end up with religious fanatics at the button seeing their moment of "Allah Akbar!!!" come true.

Maybe North Korea wouldn't be so nutty, but Pakistan or Iran should be a bit more worrisome.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I pledj all eejence tew deer Leederrr

There is nothing the US can do to N Korea to stop them from these antics. We already embargo all their goods (whatever that may be) and very little flows in. We cannot attack them as it's not feasible the repercussions are much too dire.

NK is trying to blackmail the western powers - 'we'll stop enriching, if you come to the table and talk (give us aid)'. As soon as we stop the aid or the talking they go back to enriching. It's been going on for the last several years it's their only card they can play that is even slightly effective.

Hopefully when Kim Jung il dies, things in North Korea settle down. I just hope his son/successor isn't as insane and unstable as his father.

One could always hope but they revere their leader as a god there - I'd take that job!

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, all that sounds like wonderful pie in the
> sky thinking. Until you end up with religious
> fanatics at the button seeing their moment of
> "Allah Akbar!!!" come true.

+1


> Maybe North Korea wouldn't be so nutty, but
> Pakistan or Iran should be a bit more worrisome.

the pakistani government and army isnt radical and aggressive as some make it out to be, only some outlying tribes are. though, blasphemy will get you executed in a heartbeat. iran on the other hand seems to enjoy the idea of wiping out israel. north korea is just full of shit.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2009 02:04PM by Gravis.

Gravis Wrote:
>
> the pakistani government and army isnt radical and
> aggressive as some make it out to be, only some
> outlying tribes are. though, blasphemy will get
> you executed in a heartbeat. iran on the other
> hand seems to enjoy the idea of wiping out israel.
> north korea is just full of shit.

Interesting comment..care to provide a web site justifying such an opinion?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Why should he, you never provide one for your stupid ass opinions.

oh nooooooozzzzeeee!!! We've been italicized!
.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2009 02:01PM by Registered Voter.
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should he, you never provide one for your
> stupid ass opinions.


Are you protecting your male lover again?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Um - don't have one, remember, you were the one criticizing my wife the other day? How'd that go by the way?

What's the matter, your undies too tight today? You seem to be bouncing off your chair today.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting comment..care to provide a web site
> justifying such an opinion?

You really are dumb enough to think that a website constitutes a reliable source. Impressive.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um - don't have one, remember, you were the one
> criticizing my wife the other day? How'd that go
> by the way?
>
> What's the matter, your undies too tight today?
> You seem to be bouncing off your chair today.


LOL Vince criticizing your wife? Just what was your Wife doing to Vince that you cant?

Come on, don't they know Bush and Cheney are gone now? Why would we be making this up? Lol

AP NewsBreak: Iran says US nuke documents 'forged'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_mi_ea/eu_nuclear_agency_iran

Quote

...
The eight-page letter — written by Iran's chief envoy to the U.N. nuclear agency in Vienna — denounces Washington's allegations against the Islamic Republic as "fabricated, baseless and false." The letter does not specify what documents Iran is alleging were forged.
...

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, all that sounds like wonderful pie in the
> sky thinking. Until you end up with religious
> fanatics at the button seeing their moment of
> "Allah Akbar!!!" come true.
>
> Maybe North Korea wouldn't be so nutty, but
> Pakistan or Iran should be a bit more worrisome.


If you read the article, it addresses the fear of religious fanatics (or any ideologically fanatical group.)

The US and other western powers don't want other countries to obtain nukes because they know that once they do, they have to deal with them on equal terms and the threat of force is no longer viable.

Fortunately for governments, people fear them because they are "dangerous weapons", and they can stoke fear in people. Religious bogeymen are the best way to cause people to react emotionally rather than think about it logically.

Pakistan has nukes, and they have the proper controls in place that would make it impossible for a religious nutcase to infiltrate their nuclear forces and fire one off all rogue style, and just like soviet and american nuclear weapons, if one were to be stolen, it would be all but useless to whoever had it.

Nations that have nukes are less likely to enter into war with each other. Nations that do not have nukes are more and more likely to be attacked by neighbors or powers that disagree with policy or trade or whatever.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Religious bogeymen are the
> best way to cause people to react emotionally
> rather than think about it logically.
>

Now imagine that! Who would do such a thing?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2009 10:25PM by Vince(1).

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you read the article, it addresses the fear of
> religious fanatics (or any ideologically fanatical
> group.)

I read the entire article - that doesn't mean the premise it presents is "correct". It is the critical thinking of some people, but that does not make it a definitive answer to the issue.

> Pakistan has nukes, and they have the proper
> controls in place that would make it impossible
> for a religious nutcase to infiltrate their
> nuclear forces and fire one off all rogue style,
> and just like soviet and american nuclear weapons,
> if one were to be stolen, it would be all but
> useless to whoever had it.
>

And yet, I still don't feel persuaded that Pakistan is the most stable government in the world that will fully control their weapons. I am sure India feels the same way.

> Nations that have nukes are less likely to enter
> into war with each other. Nations that do not
> have nukes are more and more likely to be attacked
> by neighbors or powers that disagree with policy
> or trade or whatever.

Sure, so in the long term, lets just give everyone nukes. That is the premise the article is promoting. Hmm, think that will deter economic wars? Holding the rest of the world hostage with oil, or other valuable resources like China is doing right now? You think it will deter "proxy" wars (which we had on and off for years during the Cold War) in nations that don't have weapons? Their argument is flawed, but hey, you go ahead and believe it if it gives you comfort.

Vince, you think they like black or hispanic people in Russia? They barely can stand their own ethnic diversity (see Chechnya).

Trump is fixing it.