It seems that one of the primary debates in the international community right now is the issue of who should be allowed to obtain and use nuclear power and/or weapons. Of course the central antagonists (biased?) are the states of Iran and North Korea, which we have been hearing a lot of lately. I want to get your views on the situation.

Keep in mind some of the questions:

- Should a sovereign nation be forced to accept rules and policy from outside forces?
- Should a state that has voiced a desire to destroy another state be allowed into the nuclear club?
- What types of action should be taken if nuclear restriction is to be enforced?
- Hypocrisy plays a role in this discussion?do we need to keep it in mind when forming our opinions and policies?
- Is "self defense" a good enough reason to let a state create a nuclear program?

Also, North Korea recently informed the world that it wishes to test a nuke. It would be interesting to talk about the ramifications of this course of action as well.

Answer one of these questions, all of them, none of them, or just give your opinion.

oh come on.nuclear weapons should all be destroyed.if someone still has them,then someone will always try to have more than him.only if they all rust in peace,will the world really renounce the nuclear weapons
and the nuclear weapons are a waste of human lives,money,and uranium which could be used to power up plants
now i know why enrico fermi went mad after his atomic researches

North Korea is planning a nuclear bomb test to take place. can you say Hiroshima and Nagasaki? yeah, some people are definitely fucked. Even Condaleeza Rice supports IT! Then again, if she made a big deal then an atomic bomb would definitely hit the U.S. Sucks for us. Where is the chivalry?

Condaleeza Rice is a fucking idiot. All nuclear weapons, in my opinion, should be destroyed...but it would never happen. I'm very pro nuclear-energy though. It seems we live in a world that cannot have one without the other...

Remember,an action has a consequence. People who are against nuclear power and what it does for nature around us should think about how it would affect their everyday life. Probably many people would start complaining about the changes in life and technology if governemnts would stop the mass use of nuclear power. I don't belive that's going to happen that easily though...

About nuclear weapons,well...One nuclear bomb could ruin your whole day. May all your nuclear weapons rust in peace.

I appreciate everyone's idealistic proposals for all the nukes in the world to be destroyed. Though it would be a great day for humanity (we might regret it once the Martians attack ), it is not going to happen. We need to accept the fact that these weapons are here to stay and that world policy continues to be shaped by them.

And when did Condi Rice support North Korea's nuke testing? I would find that highly unlikely.

@ DevilofaSaint - The test wouldn't be on a population center. It would most likely be on the open sea or in an underground location. Either way, serious implications would follow.

Written by Guest on 06.10.2006 at 07:35

I appreciate everyone's idealistic proposals for all the nukes in the world to be destroyed. Though it would be a great day for humanity (we might regret it once the Martians attack ), it is not going to happen. We need to accept the fact that these weapons are here to stay and that world policy continues to be shaped by them.

And when did Condi Rice support North Korea's nuke testing? I would find that highly unlikely.

@ DevilofaSaint - The test wouldn't be on a population center. It would most likely be on the open sea or in an underground location. Either way, serious implications would follow.

Definetly. Bush is so sensitive,he might even "invade" North Korea and it's allies if they tested their weapons. But testing a nuclear weapon in open sea or underground locations does some serious damage to the nature around it. I agree though,getting rid of all the nuclear weapons we have is not going to happen that easy.

^^^ I think this is sensitive to even the common man.

Should the world let North Korea go along with this? If the answer is no, then what should be done?

If any of you care, it looks like North Korea is planning an underground test as opposed to a surface test.

We always hear of countries threatening to impose sanctions on North Korea if they do this or do that. I say get it over with and just do it. Less talk, a little more action.

well,it seems it took place,and i saw bush's speech in which he said he defends the ideals of iran and north korea or something...wtf?

I'll voice the standard "nukes are bad, they are there for the sole purpose of enforcing imperialist capitalism" bit to begin with.

Now that that's out of the way, i'm glad for north korea. Not that i support the regime, but i think it far better for it to rot and from the inside than for regime change to be forced on the koreans. They will never use their nukes, and the pressure now applied diplomatically to the regime will speed up it's collapse. Certainly an acknowledged Nuclear North Korea is preferable to a new Korean War, in which hundreds of thousands could die.

I don't seriously think japan is at risk, if anything it will get them to take a more considerate approach towards their continental neighbours, to avoid outright provocation. Kim Jong Il just wants to rule his nation without interference, and as long as he's getting the aid from china and south korea that keeps his regime on it's feet he'll not risk it. However he should be toppled in the not-too-distant future by a population who will become more and more aware of the situation outside the DPRK.


And i think the american persecution of iran is silly. If they truly wanted a nuclear-free (arab) middle east, they would give the iranians a few reactors, and allow them to enrich their own uranium, with checks. They would also NOT have shunned the reformists' approaches in 2003. If (read: when) america goes into a disastrous war with Iran over Nukes (read: oil), and they get sucked into a huge sectarian conflict engulfing the entire middle east; it'll be their own damn fault. They had a chance to deal with iran, they snubbed the reformists. They created the demon that they now pretend to oppose, and they knew exactly what they were doing. Ahmadinejad is just about the best ally the bush administration (note: NOT america. The two have entirely different, and diametrically opposing interests) could have right now.

Of course none of the mentioned terrorist states are any better than each other, any more than they are better than israel, pakistan, india, britain, france, russia or china.

There is no more time for Bush to start any more wars...he is under way to much scrutiny as it is. Not only that, Iraq is worse off than it was under Saddam and a good amount of the American public knows it. No fucking way he attacks Iran. Since American's can't see past the next election, there is no plan after Bush leaves office. It seems now with this Mark Foley scandal, the Republicans will have lost themselves the Senate. I agree that American persecution of Iran is silly. I also think that Iran has some serious problems of their own. As for North Korea...well I don't think they're a threat to any outside country...(but I bet Comrade Frosty knows that I don't believe China is really angry at them...and that this whole thing isn't a big hoax to once again fool America).

So yes Comrade Frosty I just about agree with you as far everything else goes...I just think once Bush is replaced you will no longer see an agressive foreign policy (unless he is succeeded by someone of an equal mindset).

which is precisely my concern. He has created a demon so the republican candidate at the next election can boast of a really tough policy on iran. Besides, the middle east crisis hasn't helped the republicans politically, but it's enriched them beyond their dreams (or rather very much in accordance with them). Lobbying from israelies, fat contracts for reconstruction for corporations owned by bush-cronies, you name it. Which wierdly enough helps them politically (God bless one dollar one vote!).

Either that or they're playing a very long game to set up a political disaster for the possible President Clinton...They may be bastards to a man but they are good at playing devious games.

And i guess the russians joining the chinese in not wanting to impose heavy japano-american-style sanctions is part of the big ole conspiracy? :p

I would go with the former prediction...primarily because I don't think Hillary Clinton will win...needless to say they sure as hell won't be expecting her to. The only thing I can hope for is a Republican Candidate who isn't a Bush (Cheney) chum. I say Cheney because I think he is really the political mastermind behind the entire thing. Bush is just a puppet. I dislike the Republican and Democratic parties as a whole, but there ARE some decent people in both. The problem with the Democrats is that Clinton is their front-runner by a long shot. So the real election might be the Republican Primary...and the front-runners are:

1. Rudy Giuliani
2. John McCain
3. Mitt Romney
4. Newt Gingrich
5. George Patiki

I know this post isn't directly related to the discussion of The Nuclear World...but whoever takes office in two years will be a huge factor in the equation.

It's all a conspiracy

I will disagree that Bush created this demon. Iran, Iraq and North Korea have been western nemisis for some time. It did not start with the Bush Admin.
The North Korean Leader was a Clinton nemisis. He violated pacts before the ink was dry.

Part of me thinks that why care about North Korea at all. It is a Chinese, Japannese, Tiawan, russian issue. But you see the U.S. and others have been using the carrot method.
Also south korea. We give this mental case food and monitary aid not to produce nuclear weapons and he does it anyhow. South Korea says it will discontinue its favorable policy
towards the North. They feel threatened. they also give hundreds of millions to this pron loving midget and all he does is starve millions and build a 1 million man army with
4 to 5 more million reservists. That my friends is a path to war. possibly the largest standing army on the planet or close. Plus today he has stated if the U.S. even applies diplomatic
pressure he will consider that an act of war. All he wants is attention and free money and food.

As for Iran having nukes, comon. You cannot be serious and feel this guy deserves this. He has stated in no uncertain terms he would and will destroy another soviergn nation.
that alone is reason enough to restrain the guy. Frosty tell me? If france suddenly stated they intend to destroy the UK, would you be so complacent and anti U.S.

Western civilization has learned to live in relative peace with one another. The global landscape is set. there is no more land to conquer lest you invade another soveirgn nation.
With that said, it is the aggresive nature of these rogue states that worries the west.

the more I learn about North korea and his polcies of emmigration , where people who live on border towns are slaughtered for have thought to help people leave for china. He
wants to keep his society pure. Evan at gunpoint. Hell most people there dont even know what the rest of the world looks like.

I agree that Bush didn't create the demon, but he did not improve the situation in the least. As far as Iran goes, I could care less if they wanted nukes except for the fact that the leadership has announced that it wouldn't mind seeing Israel destroyed. That causes me to take a step back and question if the international community should step up and somehow deal with this situation. I don't really know. I have become extremely disillusioned with America's Middle East policy (and I suppose our foreign policy in general).

North Korea: It seems that Comrade Frosty may be on to something. I don't know if I am happy for the Koreans, but I do think that they are in a situation where if they used one nuke, a thousand nukes would be used in retaliation. So that really isn't the issue. Possible selling of their technology might be more of a concern. In North Korea's case, I say cut off business ties, throw some sanctions down and let the people become more miserable (is this even possible in this country?) and let the country hopefully take care of itself. I think the moral of the story is that America needs to stop meddling in other peoples business all over the world. I pray to the Gods that change happens soon in this country.

Written by Anthem on 12.10.2006 at 02:44

I will disagree that Bush created this demon. Iran, Iraq and North Korea have been western nemisis for some time. It did not start with the Bush Admin.
The North Korean Leader was a Clinton nemisis. He violated pacts before the ink was dry.

Part of me thinks that why care about North Korea at all. It is a Chinese, Japannese, Tiawan, russian issue. But you see the U.S. and others have been using the carrot method.

Forget about creating demons...the reason why it's been so much more a problem with Bush than it was with Clinton is because Bush opts to focus on it. That is exactly what they want us to do. The more the US focuses on absolute bullshit like North Korea and Iran, the more countries like China (who I believe have been deceiving the US ever since the cold war) can find better ways to fuck us. So yesterday Bush comes out and says "we're not going to war with North Korea"...of course we're not. There is no fucking oil in North Korea.

In regards to your second statement that I quoted, you are right. It IS a Russian, Chinese etc. issue. But...don't think for a second that the US isn't directly involved in that issue. They're playing into the greed of the US by funding countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Our economy and military are getting weaker quite rapidly (not the dow jones...the ENTIRE economy). And then...




I'm ignorant to this carrot method you speak of...can you elaborate?

I just want to say in regard to world politics I would feel no pity if Ahmedajad gets his asskicked in all of this, because he financed terrorrist groups that go against my country with billions of dollars of equipment and support to try and annhilate Israel. In general I dont think America should police every country, but if it where the case, America should let that region deal with its own problems. I dont think all that tax money should go to shit.

Konrad, I dispise your assumption that the only reason we engage in war is for oil. There is a more noble cause i believe this country engages in. It is called freedom. We are not
always right or always swift. But always good intentions.

As far as i know there was no oil in cuba(100 yrs ago), no oil in europe(twice), no oil in Granada, Columbia, Kosovo, Somalia, korea, Vietnam. These wars may have been just or not,
but they were fought with good intentions.

Now back to North Korea. If I remember correctly during the Clinton admin, Kim would ruffle his feathers and our govt woiuld send him money and aid. It worked every time.
It is call appeasement. All the while he was building his program lying before the ink was dry on any negotiations. The one thing that has changed is that Bush has not had a
policy of appeasement. Now you may critisize that, that is fair. My contention is that with or without our appeasement he was bent on nuclear progression. This man probably isnt
going to bomb anyone, China has them in control no doubt. China my friends is the larger issue. They are the sleeping bear for western civ.

anyhow, good nite and good day!!

Hellraizer: Ahmadinejad is a psycho, no doubting that. But American rebuttals of pre-ahmadinejad reformist offers to stop and decomission nuclear production in 2003 were exactly what allowed him to rise to power. The Iranian reformists were dealt that blow ON PURPOSE by the americans, who knew exactly what it would do. Can you think of a reason why? (bearing in mind that iran has lots and lots of oil?)

Bluescappone: Why do you think you invaded iraq then? For Freedom? (the freedom to die by torture perhaps?). If that was the case, america would attack Gabon (no oil), Egypt (US ally), Guinea Bissau, Angola, Equatorial Guniea, Zimbabwe, Cameroon (all african, and no oil). The list just goes on and on. Why are these not on the Axis of Evil? Why is the bush administration ignoring genocide in Darfur if it cares so much about human rights and sets itself up as the global policeman? Could it be that there are no rich people willing to lobby for them? No campaign funds set up to help re-elect them in exchange for their help?

Of course not, what am i thinking. We all know that georgie boy is a good honest christian.

And good intentions. Like selling drugs to raise money for buying AKs for anti-democrats in central america? I can think of nothing as well-meaning as that.

US involvement in the european wars would have been from the beginning if there had been a modicum of good intentions about it. How were american intentions in WWI good? What was better about the Entente's side than the Alliance's?

In the second war, why did the americans wait, if they were such anti-fascists? They were perfectly happy to allow the Nazis to take over europe, but panicked when they realized that hitler's original aim (domination of eastern europe as well as greater germany) had turned into a global war for domination, with the bombing of the harbour. Intervention in southern and central america was purely to ensure they had puppet governments surrounding them.


The DPRK's nuclear programme under the framework agreement was limited entirely to uranium, and the development of a uranium warhead is far more time and resource consuming than a plutonium warhead, and the programme was far from being as serious as the current one.

When Bush denounced North Korea, Iraq and Iran together, and in effect promised to sort them out, and then proceeded to invade one of them while still making noises about the other two, north korea and iran panicked.

There were two options open to iran: Conform to the USA's will, or build a nuclear device. they tried the first option first. The iranian government offered to end all production, decommission, and renounce nuclear weapons in return for a removal from the "axis of evil" and aid. They were rebuffed. What message does that send?!

The North koreans saw this, and made the logical assumption: 'The americans have invaded one, refused to deal with the other, and put us in the same category. We need weapons' Nuclear weapons is the ONLY garuantee for a state in north korea's position that they are safe from invasion. What would you do?

I understand comrade frosty, I frequently review history to where countries during the fall of the soviet empire where used as buffer zones and a common ally by america supplied by financial aid which in turn many countries just turned around and developed into a dictatorship. Even if america declared them as a democracy, many of them just act as bad as the govt before it. It happenned in afghanistan, vietnam, iraq, etc. Thats why I think the middle east is a big mess due to past foreign policies to reform nations. which in theory I have nothing against at all, its just that its not working and things are getting much worse so in turn western nations should just let them deal with their own issues.

Jumping from a third world country to a democracy sometimes isnt the smartest thing to do, in most cases it just makes a huge culture shock.

You seem to be ignoring that iran is already a democracy?

I didnt say that at all, Im saying that many countries evolving into democracies go into turmoil alot of the time.

Written by Anthem on 13.10.2006 at 07:30

Konrad, I dispise your assumption that the only reason we engage in war is for oil. There is a more noble cause i believe this country engages in. It is called freedom. We are not
always right or always swift. But always good intentions.

As far as i know there was no oil in cuba(100 yrs ago), no oil in europe(twice), no oil in Granada, Columbia, Kosovo, Somalia, korea, Vietnam. These wars may have been just or not,
but they were fought with good intentions.

.........Well, we're talking about the CURRENT administration, because OIL is a current issue...and relates more to the people in office than it ever has. So I'm going to completely disregard the second half of your statement. I don't recall ever saying the ONLY reason for going into Iraq was oil...but it was indeed the deciding factor. A noble cause? How about a senseless cause? Even if there wasn't oil in Iraq, it still would have been nothing less than retarded to go in there. I truly believe it was better off with Saddam. I'm not a supporter of his regime, but Iraq is a seriously fucked up country. You can watch FOX news all you want and see how happy the people were when they voted...only to get blown to bits days later for voting. It's a perfect example of a "you break it, you buy it" scenario. Mark my words...America will pull out, the country will go completely to shit, and all of our Soldiers deaths will be for absolutely nothing. The current administration has made America look like a big-retarded infant. Even if the intentions were all good, they still were not INTELLIGENT decisions. Maybe if the government wasn't so greedy it could focus many of it's OWN problems.

"How can you save me, when you can't save yourself"?

indeed, to support this point: the world in general is very sceptical of an administration that cheated its way to its first term (and then kept power by appealing to brute nationalism and racism) preaching about democracy.

Comrade frosty, can you elaborate and your conclusion that Bush is a racist and that he cheated his way into office I hear politically correct people use that against Bush alot and I dont know where it comes from. If you are directing that towards what konrad said, senseless foreign policy doesnt mean you are a racist. Im not involved in American politics and Im only really focused on domestic Israeli politics for that matter. With that said, Bush has my kudos for supporting Israel ;except his support of the disengagement.

But a question for Americans, would you guys rather have clinton, or kerrie as president than Bush?

Well Hellraizer, I think when Comrade Frosty mentioned racism he was talking about the immigration issue. I don't know if I'd quite call him a racist either, but I was definitely against the way he conducted the whole issue. He seemed to be passionately against people speaking other languages in the US...while obviously forgetting that it is incredibly rare for SECOND generation immigrants not to speak English as their first language. He also is forgetting that this country was founded on immigration. A lot of white, "American", looking people like myself are only 2nd or 3rd generation Americans. I, personally, am not offended when people sing our national anthem in another language, I think it's amazing. If my great-grandparents wanted to sing it in Russian and had some politician yelling at them about it, I'd probably call him a racist too. These are few examples, but yes if you followed the immigration issue closely, Bush sounded like quite an ignorant Texan-Hunter. The government is who I primarily blame when it comes to immigration problems. The bottom line is, if Mexicans and other Latin Americans weren't allowed to work here, white and black people would still be too lazy to do those jobs, and you would see a gigantic decline in our economy...however the problem seems to be improving.

(sorry, this isn't about nuclear weaponry)

Ok, I wouldn't say Bush STOLE the election either. (He could have, but it's nothing anyone can prove)...That's just the way electoral college works. If you lose the popular vote, you can still win the election. That's how our Country makes sure no third party will come to power. To answer your final question, it doesn't matter who is president. As long as the two parties maintain complete control of the US, and lobbyists maintain complete control of said parties...it's useless to even speculate what would have happened if someone else was president. Good American presidents I frequently look at are Franklin D. Roosevelt and Teddy Roosevelt.

My kudos go to Bush for supporting Israel and National Security also...but what is the reason for him doing it? Could the fact that the media is controlled by the Jews have anything to do with it?

What are you talking about lol the press which is controlled by the jews have something to do with it? Im sorry but I think thats funny because its almost as funny as people saying that 9-eleven was a conspiracy created by jews. Could you also elaborate on that too, because that seems very out of wack for me.

Politically speaking, Bush is supporting Israel because we are simply a buffer zone and a valuable assett if there was any all out war in the middle east, and this country is one of the closest to any middle eastern country and Europe.

Im half american Italian as well, and its true that America was founded by immigrants, but I think that almost any country with illegal immigrants coming in to their borders would worry them too. I mean Israel has that problem right now and its being dealt with because they come in here with no healthcare, no insurance, and they dont pay taxes either. I have no problems with people starting out any new life, but just as long as they are treated equally to citizens and have to pay tax money as well.

So....second nuke test planed by North Korea...U.N. Sanctions in place...China not helping out...aww fuck it.

Does the UN really DO anything? Do you think a country like North Korea gives a shit about the UN?