Celerity Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 The reason I brought up technology was this: ...they are also dastardly enough that they could or would sell the technology/bombs to a rogue state/group.supporter for as long as we have. As for Russia trying to bring Georgia back under control...straight from your article: Gen. Andrei Popov, the commander of Russian military forces in Georgia, said that Russia's obligation to close its two remaining military bases in Georgia by the end of 2008 still stood. Once again, like the article said, Russia is pulling OUT of Georgia. The Russian sphere of influence is SHRINKING, not greatly growing in a massive landgrab. As for bringing things under a state's blanket of control (which is NOT landgrabbing, but instead political puppeteering), every country that CAN do that, does that, everywhere that it can do that (reasonably). US does it. India does it. China does it. Russia does it. UK does it. France does it. Indonesia does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 You can dooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The reason nukes prevent war is because sensible people know what it would mean to drop a bomb. To date the United States is the only country to ever drop a bomb and when we did that we didn't even know if it was going to go off. During the cold war, the only reason Russia didn't pull any **** with us was because we had done it before, and might do it again. Nukes are a good political card, but when people who might actualy use them have them... well it's no bueno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 LMFAO We knew they were going to go off. Maybe a doubt or two, but we knew they were going to be dropped and kill people. We did not, however, anticipate the wide-spread, and the long lasting after affects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 'eh, im not too worried about the after affects of current day nukes. The nuclear fallout from one of ours is somewhere in a week to two weeks at the most, dirty bombs are a whole other story but we don't use those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Celerity is correct in that Western intelligence agencies have been saying for months that North Korea has nuclear warheads. Basic reading of AP and what not is more than enough. There isn't anything 'new' except that this is confirmation, and possibly hints that its stockpile of nuclear material is greater than expected. Oh, and it's a huge **** you to everyone in the world, especially the United States, but probably even more to China. I do strongly disagree with the concept of 'America keeping the DPRK from what it really wants to be.' Even despite the routine indoctrination and brainwashing, very similar to that which was prevalent during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (and which continues even now, to a lesser extent), there is a very large number of refugees, who flee to China! China has attempted to convince the DPRK's leadership to adopt reforms and economic opening in the Chinese way, that would enable the political leadership to remain in power and intact; thus far, they've refused. The problem is not America, the problem is Kim Jong-Il. Elfdude, "The nuclear fallout from one of ours is somewhere in a week to two weeks at the most" is simply wrong. The majority of the fallout is gone within two weeks, yes, meaning that after two weeks, you won't receive a lethal dose of radiation from entering the area. However, enough radioactivity remains that the land becomes unlivable for years to come, unless one doesn't mind birth defects, caused by still-contaminated air, land, etc. There is no such thing as a clean bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Well hay, as long as no wimmens go there its all good rite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Well, aside from the fact that radioactive substances aren't localized; they also can move move. Straight from FEMA.gov, "Fallout from a nuclear explosion may be carried by wind currents for hundreds of miles if the right conditions exist." When volcanos erupt, the things they spray out can be carried on air currents far away; much the same way with nuclear weapons. There are those who say that pollution in China is directly causing problems in the United States with health, because of the strong Pacific current which blows from west to east. Nukes are just bad for business for everyone, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Yeah, when I was in Osaka, the family's car would be covered in yellow industrial 'dust' some mornings, straight from China! "I do strongly disagree with the concept of 'America keeping the DPRK from what it really wants to be.'" Of course I agree with this--all states are ultimately responsible for themselves. "Even despite the routine indoctrination and brainwashing, very similar to that which was prevalent during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (and which continues even now, to a lesser extent), there is a very large number of refugees, who flee to China!" I wouldn't say that it is quite like the cultural revolution...DPRK does its propaganda of course, but the cultural revolution was much more than a propaganda movement (as you know!). DPRK has all sorts of problems--ranging from food to power--this is both the fault of DPRK leadership and other states. "China has attempted to convince the DPRK's leadership to adopt reforms and economic opening in the Chinese way, that would enable the political leadership to remain in power and intact; thus far, they've refused." Mostly refused at least---DPRK does have its model 'special economic zones'. The refugee problem isn't new and has been happening since the Korean conflict. The PRC has never wanted those refugees, and it has always been a source of tension. However, this isn't what is seriously hurting Sino-DPRK relations (right now)...US pressure (+allies) is doing that, and especially so with these underground tests. Despite all of this, -I- feel that it is unlikely that the PRC will simply abandon the DPRK (simply my opinion). "The problem is not America, the problem is Kim Jong-Il." This is a hard statement to justify either way. While the responsibility DOES lie with Kim, that does not mean that hardliners (figurehead--Bush) are not contributing to the problem. Most of the non-governmental aid sent to DPRK is actually sent from Japan. While I was there, I had the opprotunity to study this in detail (as part of an east asian political studies major) with Korean (north and south) zainichi residents of Japan. Kim is a huge problem. However, he is not the only problem and he isn't new. The two Koreas DO want to unite (which may not be a good thing), and in this case, the US is directly responsible for impeding that process. The DPRK wants to be the underdog that defies the 'bully' (US) and so relations do not improve. Also, the US has that vested interest in DRK and won't give that up easily. I feel that for the Korea issue to be solved, the US will have to give up some rights in the South, and allow them to make their own decisions on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 The comment about the Cultural Revolution was more directed to the issue of Mao's huge strengthening of his 'cult of personality', cultivated heavily by Stalin as well in the Soviet Union. Of course the Cultural Revolution had more to it than that The two Koreas do want to unite, yes, but it isn't the United States standing in the way. What is standing in the way is the government of the DPRK. You can't have a united state with two governments. Do you think South Korea wants to be ruled by Kim Jong Il? Alternately, do you think Kim Jong Il wishes to give up power? Unification is impossible without a unified government, and currently, the governments of NK and SK are too mismatched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 I guess it depends which proposal you look at..I think the general idea is to start up economic ties and allow people to move over the border freely, and then eventually work in political unification somewhere way down the road. US doesn't want anything to do with that. I think we are both right here and not debating anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajindaar Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 Just a short word on nukes: in April 1986, a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine, had a major accident. Even though I was barely 10 years old back then, still remember that we weren't allowed to leave our homes unless necessary for weeks due to contaminated rain that got carried over to central Europe. Cases of various types of cancer partially up to tripled, even though we've been hundreds of kilometers away from that plant. The radioactive fallout even reached eastern North America. The wikipedia link I put below shows some nice graphs of the Chernobyl disaster compared to the Hiroshima bomb. Go figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster *(2) a small coin lies here.* -Aj'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.