The United States don't give up their nuclear power. Israel doesn't give up its nuclear power . Why should North Korea give up it? If North Korea gives up its nucleat power, it will lose his security and will be attacked by the Western States. In these days I note in the the Russian people quite a lot of masochism and I don't understan the reason. This is a world of wolves where the sheep is doomed to be killed. Be careful.
North Korea is a country with probably the worst criminal criminal regime of any country at the moment. There is a great deal of evidence of the absence of basic human rights and even death camps. Just as it was morally and ethically necessary to liberate people from regimes like Hitler's, it's the duty of all humankind to learn from past criminals like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung. All support to North Korean regime must be stopped because their recognised army-first-policy makes all humanitarian aid go to the hands of the military and ruling elite that starves its own people. The fact that such a regime exists in the 21th century without serious intervention from the international community, including Russia, makes me feel ashamed.
I think by having friends like China back them up. China is a nuclear power, this will make N Korea feal safe. I think Russia should just be total at ease and peaceful. I don't think Russia should try and control the world, just policing when their interests are at stake. Trying to be puppet master of the world is too much. Succeeding in the world by being smart, or like have a domination in terms of wealth or/and power is fine, but definately not doing things which would be percieved as doing wrong to someone or people. You can either win or lose in life, steal to survive or steal for greed, only one can be condoned, same for all the other options we face, only one per option can be condoned. I think Russian people have shown so much quality over time and now. If I were Russian I would be so so happy about their Government.
I dont see any reason why North Korea should give up its nuclear amibitions. I dont see the United States giving up its ambitions to expand Nato in Eastern Europe. That is a far bigger threat than North Koreas nuclear amibitions. Does the employment of missile shields in Europe not consitute military advancement for exchange of money. You can not exspect one country to dis-arm yet you continue to advance with your military forces.
This will not begin to summarize the issue, however:
Initially, it appears the provocations of North Korea or otherwise retaliation efforts are mere "sabre-rattling" efforts made to support the efforts of securing Kim's son as his successor.
How much a need exists to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons is a matter of discussion itself. Any means for delivering a nuclear warhead to the U.S, South Korea or it's neighbors remains largely ineffective.
Nuclear proliferation, or non-proliferation suffers the plague that summarized the Cold War. The luxuries, resources and authorities of a globalized world are finite, and often mutually exclusive. One has while another does without. This fact escapes no one, and silently justifies the hypocrisy of 'we get to have nukes, but you don't' 'therefore, you have to do what we say' Essentially, one becomes subservient to the other.
Furthermore, all that is needed to force North Korea to relinquish it's program is Moscow and China's full support-politically, economically and if necessary, militarily with North Korea and it's clients: Iran, Syria etc. This is very unlikely for a countless number of reasons impossible to mention here.
It has nothing to do with NATO; the U.S. alone could remove North Korea from the face of the globe within minutes several hundred times over. Regardless of any and every intervention possible from every country in the world including Russia and China.
Likewise, currently that capacity exists for Russia as well. Currently.
This brings into question the missile defense shield proposed by Washington, etc.
Russia will never concede it's place in the modern world again. As such it will likely never fully aid with reducing North Korea's arsenal, as they represent a potential ally against NATO, less Washington concedes the Caucus and Missile Defense or similar.
Washington is unlikely ever to do, as this could only bolster a re sergeant Russia. Obviously.
Even a democratic, Capitalist Russia would represent an equal or greater threat than it did while Communist. Duh.
Of course, both sides have predicted and prepared for this quibble. As is the expansion of NATO and Russia's Monopoly on energy resources to most OF NATO.
We all want the same things. We can't all have them. We can't force North Korea to give up it's arsenal without Russia's FULL cooperation, and Russia will never give it unless concessions are made that equal the playing field.
That essentially defeats the purpose of neutralizing North Korea.
North Korea is going to develop Nuclear Weapons, we have to live with that. The only way for the U.S. to entirely prevent this is to eliminate North Korea.
The U.S. could preemptively strike North Korea WITH nuclear weapons, but essentially proves North Korea justified in it's actions, and will certainly spark more of an arm's race from many more countries organically than North Korea could ever supply alone.
Oh yea, that would make the U.S. the enemy of the world. Love to see that play out well.
The western capitalist world is in a dither about the DPRK's latest nuclear bomb and missile tests. U.S. President Obama is "gravely concerned" while the ranting and raving is picking up steam in the U.N.
Personally, among other things, I'm alot more concerned with U.S. missiles being deployed in Poland, Israel's U.S. backed naked aggression against the people of occupied Palestine, and the U.S. arming of its stooge, Mikhail Saakashvili, so he can ignite another war in the Caucasus.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if a nation professes that it is against nuclear arms proliferation, then I would assume that that nation would be making plans to trash its own nuclear arsenal. Somehow, I don't see Washington making that move!
Non-nuclear arms proliferation in western imperialist polit-speak simply means that YOU can't develop nuclear weapons, but WE get to keep ours and build more so that WE can have a threat of mass destruction hanging over YOUR head if YOU don't kow-tow to OUR demands.
In reality, the DPRK is not a threat to anyone even with a limited nuclear arsenal. Even if they developed a number of nuclear weapons, they do not have the means to deliver them. And, even if one accepts the wild notion that the DPRK will develop ICBM capability in the next decade or two, what kind of threat would they pose? Any missile launched at the West Coast of the U.S. would be intercepted and nullified. That would be followed by the DPRK being obliterated by U.S. ICBMs with nuclear warheads!!!
If Washington doesn't want proliferation of nuclear weapons, why did they give them to Israel? - Mikhail
The expansion of Nato, and some threat from other forces make them to develop nuclear weapon. Otherwise ther is no other reason. So what can make them to stop, or give up nuclear ambitions, is nothing but stoping Nato. They can get recognition by developing other equipment.
The present dictater in North Korea wants his Country to become a Nuclear power and nothing s will keep him from it. Lets just hope that he has the wisdom to keep from pulling the trigger, and his replacement will have the wisdom as well.
Ambitions? They are but means to an end. The end seems to be security and acknowledgement of their power, which is all they apparently want. It may be time to play the open hand here, instead of the closed fist. You know they just want recognition. Simple as that!
08 October, 2009, 12:59
The United States don't give up their nuclear power. Israel doesn't give up its nuclear power . Why should North Korea give up it?
If North Korea gives up its nucleat power, it will lose his security and will be attacked by the Western States.
In these days I note in the the Russian people quite a lot of masochism and I don't understan the reason. This is a world of wolves where the sheep is doomed to be killed.
Be careful.
04 August, 2009, 12:37
North Korea is a country with probably the worst criminal criminal regime of any country at the moment. There is a great deal of evidence of the absence of basic human rights and even death camps. Just as it was morally and ethically necessary to liberate people from regimes like Hitler's, it's the duty of all humankind to learn from past criminals like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung. All support to North Korean regime must be stopped because their recognised army-first-policy makes all humanitarian aid go to the hands of the military and ruling elite that starves its own people. The fact that such a regime exists in the 21th century without serious intervention from the international community, including Russia, makes me feel ashamed.
23 July, 2009, 07:53
By nuclear programs leaders of north Korea solve her own internal problems
30 June, 2009, 23:12
I think by having friends like China back them up. China is a nuclear power, this will make N Korea feal safe. I think Russia should just be total at ease and peaceful. I don't think Russia should try and control the world, just policing when their interests are at stake. Trying to be puppet master of the world is too much. Succeeding in the world by being smart, or like have a domination in terms of wealth or/and power is fine, but definately not doing things which would be percieved as doing wrong to someone or people. You can either win or lose in life, steal to survive or steal for greed, only one can be condoned, same for all the other options we face, only one per option can be condoned. I think Russian people have shown so much quality over time and now. If I were Russian I would be so so happy about their Government.
27 June, 2009, 13:32
I dont see any reason why North Korea should give up its nuclear amibitions. I dont see the United States giving up its ambitions to expand Nato in Eastern Europe. That is a far bigger threat than North Koreas nuclear amibitions. Does the employment of missile shields in Europe not consitute military advancement for exchange of money. You can not exspect one country to dis-arm yet you continue to advance with your military forces.
26 June, 2009, 02:21
This will not begin to summarize the issue, however:
Initially, it appears the provocations of North Korea or otherwise retaliation efforts are mere "sabre-rattling" efforts made to support the efforts of securing Kim's son as his successor.
How much a need exists to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons is a matter of discussion itself. Any means for delivering a nuclear warhead to the U.S, South Korea or it's neighbors remains largely ineffective.
Nuclear proliferation, or non-proliferation suffers the plague that summarized the Cold War. The luxuries, resources and authorities of a globalized world are finite, and often mutually exclusive. One has while another does without. This fact escapes no one, and silently justifies the hypocrisy of 'we get to have nukes, but you don't' 'therefore, you have to do what we say' Essentially, one becomes subservient to the other.
Furthermore, all that is needed to force North Korea to relinquish it's program is Moscow and China's full support-politically, economically and if necessary, militarily with North Korea and it's clients: Iran, Syria etc. This is very unlikely for a countless number of reasons impossible to mention here.
It has nothing to do with NATO; the U.S. alone could remove North Korea from the face of the globe within minutes several hundred times over. Regardless of any and every intervention possible from every country in the world including Russia and China.
Likewise, currently that capacity exists for Russia as well. Currently.
This brings into question the missile defense shield proposed by Washington, etc.
Russia will never concede it's place in the modern world again. As such it will likely never fully aid with reducing North Korea's arsenal, as they represent a potential ally against NATO, less Washington concedes the Caucus and Missile Defense or similar.
Washington is unlikely ever to do, as this could only bolster a re sergeant Russia. Obviously.
Even a democratic, Capitalist Russia would represent an equal or greater threat than it did while Communist. Duh.
Of course, both sides have predicted and prepared for this quibble. As is the expansion of NATO and Russia's Monopoly on energy resources to most OF NATO.
We all want the same things. We can't all have them. We can't force North Korea to give up it's arsenal without Russia's FULL cooperation, and Russia will never give it unless concessions are made that equal the playing field.
That essentially defeats the purpose of neutralizing North Korea.
North Korea is going to develop Nuclear Weapons, we have to live with that. The only way for the U.S. to entirely prevent this is to eliminate North Korea.
The U.S. could preemptively strike North Korea WITH nuclear weapons, but essentially proves North Korea justified in it's actions, and will certainly spark more of an arm's race from many more countries organically than North Korea could ever supply alone.
Oh yea, that would make the U.S. the enemy of the world. Love to see that play out well.
03 June, 2009, 02:33
The western capitalist world is in a dither about the DPRK's latest nuclear bomb and missile tests. U.S. President Obama is "gravely concerned" while the ranting and raving is picking up steam in the U.N.
Personally, among other things, I'm alot more concerned with U.S. missiles being deployed in Poland, Israel's U.S. backed naked aggression against the people of occupied Palestine, and the U.S. arming of its stooge, Mikhail Saakashvili, so he can ignite another war in the Caucasus.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if a nation professes that it is against
nuclear arms proliferation, then I would assume that that nation would be making plans to trash its own nuclear arsenal. Somehow, I don't see Washington making that move!
Non-nuclear arms proliferation in western imperialist polit-speak simply means that YOU can't develop nuclear weapons, but WE get to keep ours and build more so that WE can have a threat of mass destruction hanging over YOUR head if YOU don't kow-tow to OUR demands.
In reality, the DPRK is not a threat to anyone even with a limited nuclear
arsenal. Even if they developed a number of nuclear weapons, they do not have the means to deliver them. And, even if one accepts the wild notion that the DPRK will develop ICBM capability in the next decade or two, what kind of threat would they pose? Any missile launched at the West Coast of the U.S. would be intercepted and nullified. That would be followed by the DPRK being obliterated by U.S. ICBMs with nuclear warheads!!!
If Washington doesn't want proliferation of nuclear weapons, why did they give them to Israel? - Mikhail
02 June, 2009, 08:04
The expansion of Nato, and some threat from other forces make them to develop nuclear weapon. Otherwise ther is no other reason. So what can make them to stop, or give up nuclear ambitions, is nothing but stoping Nato. They can get
recognition by developing other equipment.
02 June, 2009, 03:24
The present dictater in North Korea wants his Country to become
a Nuclear power and nothing s will
keep him from it. Lets just hope that he has the wisdom to keep from pulling
the trigger, and his replacement will have the wisdom as well.
01 June, 2009, 20:58
Ambitions? They are but means to an end. The end seems to be security and acknowledgement of their power, which is all they apparently want. It may be time to play the open hand here, instead of the closed fist. You know they just want recognition. Simple as that!
Post comment