http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

not good, this time, we need to get serious.

And the UN security council unanimously voting to impose some of the strictest economic sanctions ever handed down isn't considered "serious?" What alternative proposal do you suggest then? You have to understand the global community's options are limited in this situation--we can't afford to have Kim Jong Il or any of the other members in the ruling tripartite pushed too strongly; I have no doubt that if they possess (and all indications indicate that they do) nuclear warheads they won't hesitate to use them if backed into a corner.


As is that ridiculous image you posted: does it add any content to the discussion in the least bit? Or are you trying (and failing quite miserably) to be funny?

I guess, but I was thinking more along the lines of something that is not on paper, as it isn't working.

Oh of course! You want to invade!
That's a brilliant idea: tell me, would you volunteer to be leading the first charge that will be annihilated by a nuclear attack? I didn't think so.

I didn't say invade either, but North Korea isn't taking us seriously, we need to do something that would wake them up.

All I can say is that this is an extremely bad situation for the UN, and it seems to me that some sort of war can't be too far off.

Theoretically an invasion could be done; since we actually have support from other nations, it wouldn't be just US troops going into North Korea, and the North Koreans would be defeated before they'd be able to make a nuke small enough for them to use against us. (even though we have the majority of US troops in Iraq, if the situation were dire enough we could pull them out...which we would have to do anyways if we decided to invade)

Pardon me for being the only one that seems to be backgroundless; I try to stay out of politics...
How come we get nukes and they don't?
Doesn't size matter? (They were 1/3 the size of the ones we used...)
Why can't we just put a nice system into place to stop the nukes from being used? Or does such a system not exist?

BTW, my brother says not to annoy him 'cause he knows how to make a nuke ( Then again, so does anyone who pays attention in chemistry and physics...)

Well, we do have a system that detects when and where missiles are launched...

OK, at the end of the Cold War, most nuke-capable countries signed something called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Basically it says that we won't make or launch any of our existing nukes, while we will take steps towards dismantling existing nukes. The two main players in the Cold War, the US and Soviet Russia, have so far stuck to the treaty, as have the other more minor signers. However, North Korea never signed the treaty, and the only leverage we have over them is the economic control of the UN.

How do you propose to stop nukes from being used? If a country is crazy enough to start a war, do you REALLY think they are going to not use nukes because the UN says not to? Lets be serious here, if they want to launch a nuke, they will. Nothing the UN, US, or anyone else says will stop them, aside from raw force.

What we need is a UN with balls that will actually take a firm stand on things and not just keep giving out second chances (or third, or forth, or fifth, etc...). Even if North Korea signs a treaty that says they won't use nukes, who will hold them to that? The UN doesn't seem to want to do anything but talk, and that ain't gonna cut it. So no, allynfolksjr, the UN security council unanimously voting to impose some of the strictest economic sanctions ever is not at all serious, as the UN doesn't exactly have a track record that suggests that they will enforce it (at least not recently)

Oh, and just because you know HOW to make a nuke, doesn't mean you CAN, even if you obtain all the needed pieces.