Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government News

North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons 2056

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the we-knew-that-anyway dept.
steelvadi writes "North Korea has now admitted to possessing nuclear weapons. Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington. It was also stated that N. Korea will not be reentering negotiations on disarmament for the foreseeable future. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

Comments Filter:
  • Korea (Score:5, Funny)

    by shreevatsa (845645) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {todhsals.astaveerhs}> on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:16AM (#11629123)
    In Korea, only old people have nuclear weapons.... Uh, nevermind :)
    • Re:Korea (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shreevatsa (845645)
      Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington But did they start making the nuclear weapons only after Washington started turning hostile?
      • Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)

        by grub (11606)

        But did they start making the nuclear weapons only after Washington started turning hostile?

        You don't believe Washington turned hostile in 2001, do you?
        • by Engineer-Poet (795260) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:28AM (#11629310) Homepage Journal
          You don't believe that North Korea was all sweetness and light until Washington got belligerent, do you?
      • Gangs (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ChrisMaple (607946) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @12:12PM (#11630919)
        This reminds me very much of an interview with a violent gang member, about 6 years ago. He claimed gang members had to have guns, to defend themselves against the police.
  • by katsiris (779774) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:16AM (#11629125)
    Iraq was disarmed just in time!
    • by Adrilla (830520)
      Yeah, good thing we raided big bad Iraq, while sweet lil' N. Korea was doing all of this.
      • by Adrilla (830520) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:33AM (#11629389) Homepage
        I don't think Bush is stupid (I won't say he's the smartest president). But his priorities are out of whack. We attack a relatively weak Iraq to draw attention away from the fact that we can't capture Bin Laden, and while on this diversionary mission, not only does much more dangerous N. Korea get nuclear capabilities; next door neighbor Iran gets them too. So he's not a stupid person, but he is a stupid president. (oh! did I mention his Iraq exit strategy? NO? Well maybe that's because he didn't have one going in and still doesn't)
  • Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Adrilla (830520) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:17AM (#11629128) Homepage
    We all knew this already, but I wonder if we should worry more now that they've admitted it.
  • by bigtallmofo (695287) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:17AM (#11629131)
    Replace "admits" with "brags" and then further replace "brags" with "bluffs" and then it might be a little more true.

    This is obviously a serious matter, but we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.
    • by nearlygod (641860) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:19AM (#11629162) Homepage
      By "proof", do you mean "mushroom cloud"?
    • we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.

      While your statement is true overall, I don't think it is true in the context of nuclear weapons. Everyone already knows that North Korea has more than a few nuclear warheads. In this case, by announcing that he has them, Kim Jong Il is playing a deadly game of chicken.

      • Yes, it is a deadly game of chicken, but it could work to keep a certain country from invading.

        Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.

        I can't say I agree with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but perhaps it will keep the US from invading another country.

    • by Enoch Root (57473) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:22AM (#11629219)
      What does it matter if it's true or not? Kim Jong Il admitting to having WMDs is already more proof than was necessary to invade Irak...
    • by ezavada (91752) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:26AM (#11629271)
      Hmm... a government hostile to ours with nuclear weapons is a real threat to us. They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons. We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response. Especially since they have expressed a desire to remake the world in their image, and have used military force to do so in the past -- I'm sure that's what the North Koreans are thinking when they look at the US. And of course that's what the US is thinking as is looks at North Korea. I doubt this will be an easy one to resolve.
      • by JavaLord (680960) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:37AM (#11629443) Journal
        Hmm... a government hostile to ours with nuclear weapons is a real threat to us. They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons. We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response.

        Oh they will negotiate, they want more foreign aid. It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation. That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.
        • by Ironsides (739422) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:56AM (#11629766) Homepage Journal
          Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.

          I'd be more sorry about Guam, American Samoa, Japan and South Korea personally. (among others)
        • by Vaystrem (761) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:59AM (#11630696)
          "Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii"

          Everyone is sort of missing the point. Their missile tech probably isn't good enough to hit the continental United States 'but' is sufficient to damage the American Economy. What about a well placed nuke in Japan? What about Taiwan and destroying most of the world' s chip fabrication capacity? Or Hong Kong? Or South Korea?

          A direct hit upon the United States is not required to damage the United States attacking its interests are 'sufficient'. By those measures - Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (as a global financial centre, etc.) certainly qualify.

          There is a reason why South Korea is attempting to MOVE thier Capital. Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. If NK marches south... Seoul can be leveled before the war even really starts.

          Traditional discussions of territoriality are less important in an (and I hate to use this cliche) increasingly globalized world.
      • Softly, softly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dammital (220641) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:38AM (#11629468)
        We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response.
        Seoul is 40 miles away from the DMZ, and has 10 million people. Rattling swords is a touchy business.
    • by lythander (21981) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:31AM (#11629349)
      Not that we didn't (or shouldn't have) know(n), but it presented a governing coalition with an agenda and a chip on it's collective shoulder an excuse, a mechanism by which to dupe a credulous population.

      I think this particular whack job (Kin Jong Il) wants the sort of respectful, diplomatic (by comparison) treatment Iran is getting, rather than the sabre rattling it gets now. Let's face it, if South Korea weren't completely held hostage and likely to lose 10^6 people in a week should a real war break out, North Korea would have already have been invaded.
    • You need proof? (Score:4, Informative)

      by saha (615847) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:18AM (#11630043)
      Perhaps one should ask Pakistan's military or ISI (Intra Service Intelligence) of how the hell N. Korea, Libya and Iran all got their nuclear weapons. You do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons right? Then traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles or have you not been following the news. The best part of all this is that A.Q. Khan the father of the Pakistan atomic bomb, is consider to be a "hero" in his home country and is shielded from the IAEA or any branch of US intelligence from questioning Khan's activities and motivations. Musharraf has also pardoned Khan for selling nukes to all those countries. It really makes me laugh when the administration calls Pakistan an "ally on the war on terror". Seriously, with allies like Pakistan who needs enemies or terrorists?

      Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly [nytimes.com]December 8, 2001
      Pakistan spy service 'aiding Bin Laden' [bbc.co.uk] 30 December, 2001
      Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead [bbc.co.uk]23 December, 2001
      Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden dead [cnn.com]January 18, 2002
      Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admits [guardian.co.uk]December 6, 2004
      A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin Laden [nytimes.com]December 13, 2004
      Protest at Musharraf's army role [bbc.co.uk]19 December, 2004 So much for us supporting democracy and "freedom"
      Musharraf Scorns Nuclear Probe [latimes.com]

  • by cwford (848987) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:18AM (#11629140) Homepage
    This is par for the course with North Korea. 1. Make ridiculous, aggressive statements in the media. 2. Pull out of talks. 3. Demand concessions. 4. Get concessions. 5. Restart talks. 6. Repeat. yawn. nothing to see here.
  • by Robocrap (652257) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:18AM (#11629150) Homepage
    i saw this post regarding iran's nuclear weapons program yesterday, that is relevant to korea as well: "Ending Iran's WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent. Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world." -James, Newcastle, UK
    • You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.

      The States has proven with their pre-emptive attack that if you don't have WMDs, you are a threat.

      It's such messed up logic. I can see why every single country that poses a threat to the U.S. will try to arm themselves now.

    • by swb (14022) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:43AM (#11629546)
      No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack.

      Rogue states always believed that a mixture of diplomatic stalling (cf. Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlements) and, most importantly, the relatively high cost of ground invasion and the reluctance to do so in a post-Vietnam world, is what protected them.

      I also don't believe that posession of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to any U.S. military action, either, since these states seldom have the means to produce more than a handful of low-yield weapons and lack the ability to deliver them outside their own theater.

      They're not defensive weapons unless they can be delivered against their adversary's homeland. You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg..

      Furthermore these states (with the possible exception of North Korea) are rational actors and realize that the use of any nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies would result in a nucleare retaliation that would end their governments and quite possibly close the book on their nations.
  • by ack154 (591432) * on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:19AM (#11629168)
    "It was inevitibible..."
    "I'm sorry, what?"
    "Inevataball..."
    "One more time?"
    "INEVITABLE! Jesus christ! Why are people so fucking stupid?!"
  • by teiresias (101481) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:20AM (#11629169)
    I'm sure there will be a lot of jokes about WMDs etc but this is a clear and present danger. North Korea, as displayed by their current actions, is unpredictable. While many will say it's common knowledge that North Korea had nuclear weapons, this is a big deal in that they admitted it.

    What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it. The 6 party talks only resumed a few weeks ago I believe. This can't be a good thing that they've stop talks.

    My nervous level has moved up to Red (sorry had to end with a joke).
    • by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:23AM (#11629233)


      > What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it.

      What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.

    • by jxyama (821091)
      thanks for your sentiment... as a japanese, my nervous level is also quite higher. (though i don't live in japan right now.) north korea once fired a missile over japan into the pacific... scary stuff...

      on a lighter note, does this have anything to do with japan bearing north korea yesterday in the 2006 world cup qualifier with a tie-breaking goal 2 min. before the end of the game, winning 2-1? (just joking... i hope it stays a joke, though.)

    • by Enoch Root (57473) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:27AM (#11629294)
      What's EVEN more frightening is that they've wanted to have talks with the US for years, but the US has refused any direct negociations with them.

      I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the boast that Irak's invasion was supposed to make the world safer. One year later, and there's now two hostile countries who armed themselves with nuclear power in DIRECT RELATION to a perceived threat to their sovereignty coming from the US.
  • by detour207 (838058) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:20AM (#11629172) Homepage
    Sorry North Korea but you don't seem to be in the Middle East.. NO WAR FOR YOU! Iran however.... [go.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:21AM (#11629194)
    Don't worry. My toaster was made in North Korea and it sucks.
  • Checklist (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FunWithHeadlines (644929) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:21AM (#11629198) Homepage
    Lesse...

    North Korea:
    Dictator: Check
    Oppressed people: Check
    No legitimate elections: Check
    WMDs: Check
    Threatening to the West: Check

    Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...

    • Re: Checklist (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:27AM (#11629287)


      Lesse...

      North Korea:
      Dictator: Check
      Oppressed people: Check
      No legitimate elections: Check
      WMDs: Check
      Threatening to the West: Check

      Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...


      You neglected the all-important:

      Has major portion of world's oil supply: nope.

  • Raise your hands... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rscrawford (311046) <rscrawford@undavis . e du> on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:23AM (#11629228) Homepage Journal
    ...if you were surprised by this admission. Anyone?

    *crickets*

    Thought not. See, North Korea is a real threat. Probably why Bush is ignoring it. Unlike those massive armed-to-the-teeth maniacs hoarding nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in Iraq. Good thing we went in there. Seems like every man, woman, and child there had a shoulder mounted nuclear missile launcher.
  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:24AM (#11629249) Homepage Journal
    So what if North Korea has nukes? That's a good thing.

    Same thing with Iran. I'm hoping they get nukes within a few years.

    Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).

    I've been saying this for a long time. Despite what the neocons would have you believe having nukes is a great way to make a country get its act together. In the case of North Korea they are protecting themselves from attack since any country that would attack them knows what to expect.

    On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return.

    The same with Iran.

    To those who say that countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes is a bad thing because they could sell/give the info to terrorists, think again. In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.

    On another point, take a look at India and Pakistan. They've had seven major wars since the two countries gained independence from Great Britain. However, as soon as India had their nuclear tests and Pakistan followed close behind, both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another.

    I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.
    • Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Phanatic1a (413374) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:35AM (#11629418)
      This is nonsense.

      Why does it force anyone to not be stupid? Surely you're not talking about MAD, which is not only a grotesque oversimplification of the nuclear strategy pursued during the cold war, but also becomes exponentially less stable a game with each new player at the table.

      Let's say a nuclear bomb explodes in Haifa or Tel Aviv tomorrow.

      Who do you retaliate against? With only two nuclear powers, it's a relatively easy choice to decide who was responsible.

      What about with three? Four? Seven? Some of whom are demonstrably unstable and hostile states?

      The concern isn't that North Korea will do something "stupid" with their bombs in an obvious and overt fashion. The concern is that North Korea will do something with their bombs by proxy, or in an attempt to implicate a third party.

      It forces all sides to not be stupid.

      You'd think the mass starvation of your own citizenry would force a national leader to not be stupid, but that hasn't stopped Kim. Why do you think nukes which can spread that same level of suffering outside his own borders will?
  • don't worry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by e**(i pi)-1 (462311) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:28AM (#11629307) Homepage Journal
    We don't worry about the N. Korea nukes: CNN has
    this morning already moved to a more relevant story:
    "Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles".
  • we already know... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheRealJFM (671978) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:30AM (#11629337) Homepage Journal
    "The North also **repeated** a claim to have built nuclear weapons for self-defence."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/42 52 481.stm

    Also:

    "28 September: North Korea says it has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon said the weapons were needed for "self-defence" against "US nuclear threat". "

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/26 04 437.stm

    This is just a repetition of a bargaining trick they've used before, do not listen to them.

    They want us to be afraid of them as much as our leaders do....
  • by Malor (3658) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:30AM (#11629342) Journal
    You know, a thought occurred to me the other day. Remember that huge explosion in NK last year? Some sources have claimed that it was a failed assassination attempt. Since that time, as far as I know, we haven't seen ANYTHING of KJI. There have been multiple signs of his hold on power weakening, like portraits being taken down for awhile. Further, his 'appearances' have been video-only, wearing clothes that are at least two years old.

    So what if he's dead, killed in that explosion, and they've been covering it up? NK is exactly the kind of place to try to do something like that.

    Just a thought....

    • by madaxe42 (690151) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:54AM (#11629733) Homepage
      Kim Jong-Il has always been dead. We have always been at war with EastAsia....

      In all seriousness, it doesn't matter if KJI is dead or not - the North Korean regime is here to stay - no amount of military force will change that - it is *far* too deeply ingrained in the majority of the populace there. Having visited NK some years ago on a tourist visa (which is like gold dust) I was, I must confess, rather surprised by what I found. Generally, in urban areas, the quality of life was good - party members lived comfortably, others less comfortably, but a lot better than much of what you'll see in the western world. We weren't allowed into the countryside, however, so.....

      Short of a popular revolution, which isn't going to happen, nothing will change the situation there. It's perfectly possible that they have a nuclear capability, but they aren't quite the mad-cap nation the western media seems to wish to portray them as.

      The degree of control held over the populace by the state there is astounding - it would be extraordinarily hard for anyone to organise any kind of dissent - the vast majority are party supporters, and the last thing you want to do is criticise the government in front of someone who can make you disappear.

      Juche is their way of life. They have no real wish to expand, they just want to be left alone. For now, at any rate.
  • Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JessLeah (625838) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:33AM (#11629385)
    Watch the far right go absolutely ape-shit on this one.

    Note to any far-right-wingers reading this (by any odd chance): Please, PLEASE don't start a war with the North Koreans. Kim Jong Il is crazy. Please, PLEASE don't threaten a crazy man.

    Sad thing is, he's right when he claims that they need the weapons as a defense against the US. Our current President thinks he's a cowboy, and treats every encounter with a nation that doesn't agree with us as a showdown in front of the OK Corral. He thinks he's the guy wearing the badge and they're the evil felon in all black... Well, it ain't that simple. North Korea might be evil, but the US is evil too. Just less evil (arguably) and evil in different ways.

    North Korea doesn't, for instance, operate a huge network of sweatshops all around the world to supply its uncaring citizens with cheap clothing. It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV that attempts to turn the whole country into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry. The US (specifically, its businesses, with the tacit approval-- or at least complete lack of viable disapproval-- of its government) does those things, however.

    American businesses are just slightly less corrupt than North Korean politicians. And have a whole boatload more power over the world at large.

    The US vs. North Korea is not white vs. black. It's gray vs. slightly darker gray.
    • Re:Uh oh... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Doug Dante (22218) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:44AM (#11630439)
      merican businesses are just slightly less corrupt than North Korean politicians.

      What the F*** are you talking about?

      America doesn't run penal labor colonies [hrnk.org]

      America doesn't lock you and your whole family up because of what your father did before you were born.

      America doesn't kill people who try to escape.

      Look, you can make all the jokes you want, but North Korea is an Orwellian human rights nightmare. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen in America or worldwide at the behest of her corporations, but we make an effort to police ourselves. We try to be the good guys, and in North Korea they'll pop a cap in your a** for just looking like you're thinking the wrong thing.

      PS: Sometimes swearing is necessary in response to extreme stupidity.

  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:36AM (#11629426) Homepage
    for pulling Gen. MacArthur off the Korean war instead of letting him finish the job with more resources, at risk of War with China.
    • by ThousandStars (556222) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @02:04PM (#11632606) Homepage
      You do realize why MacArthur was pulled, right? His strategy for defeating the Chinese was to drop nuclear weapons up and down the coast until China stopped. I think removing MacArthur was the right thing to do.

      If you're going to blame anyone, blame Clinton, who accepted the 1994 deal in which we gave NK resources to prop up their economy, in turn for them... keeping the nuclear material they already had! And us trusting them not to turn it into weapons! Brilliant!

      Now, in the unlikely but still frighteningly plausible idea that we do have a war with NK, we have the pleasure of dealing with nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen, in addition to the gazillion pieces of artillery that will pound Seoul into dust.

  • by GPLDAN (732269) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:23AM (#11630118)
    Home of the unqualified opinion!

    Well, here's mine. It hasn't been brought up yet, so let's see if anyone considers it insightful...

    The Chinese are not our enemies in this issue. They actually fear a totally destabilized N. Korea as well. That they came to the rescue in the Korean War belies a much more complicated truth about the relationship between Koreans and Chinese. China, on the verge of becoming the 2nd superpower economically, is really not all tha keen on seeing Kim Il Jong do things like test fire intermediate range missiles into the Sea of Japan. They know that quite a few U.S. boomers are riding the coast of Korea, and will have Trident IIs arriving on target in minutes if we think a nuke had been actually launched, at either the West Coast (which we know they cannot yet reach) or Japan. And they know that the Chinese would not respond.

    The worst case scenario really is, that NK's increasing starving and helpless population is thrust under some stupid pretext into an attack on S. Korea and a nuclear weapon is moved to the front and detonated and then denied. Again, I think the U.S. would go nuclear if that happened.

    Prosperity of S. Korea combined with an internal assassination campaign is probably Washington's strategy. It's best to fight this one using spies and satellites, a conventional invasion would be pointless and unlike Iraq, we don't want to assert control over the region.
  • by Drog (114101) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:48AM (#11630513) Homepage
    I just finished posting [theworldforum.org] this same story (but with more detail and more links) on my own site, The World Forum [theworldforum.org]. Here's a blurb from it:
    This probably come as a surprise to Washington, since Bush seemed to deliberately use a softer tone towards North Korea in his State of the Union address, saying only that Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions." That's buch better than three years ago when he branded North Korea part of the "axis of evil".

    Analysts in South Korea had predicted that the absence of harsh words would help restart the nuclear talks, since several weeks earlier North Korea had announced [theworldforum.org] they were willing to return to six-party nuclear talks and would treat the United States as a friend if Washington would stop slandering their leader Kim Jong Il.

    Further evidence that this came as a surprise to Washington came four hours before the official pullout statement, when a top Bush administration official told the New York Times [nytimes.com] that North Korea's return to the nuclear talks was expected by all other participants -- the United States, Japan, South Korea, Russia and China.

    As a shameless self-plug, if you like to discuss stories like this, I urge you to sign up on The World Forum. It's goal is to become a major international forum where people from all walks of life and of all political perspectives can discuss politics and world issues, expressing their different points of view rationally and constructively. It's starting to get a lot of hits due to being prominently displayed in Google News, but it needs a much larger user base of people willing to participate in discussions if it is to succeed.
  • by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @12:55PM (#11631568) Homepage

    Iraq has oil, therefore we invest in invading and occupying.

    North Korea does not, therefore we save money by pursuing diplomacy.

    I don't understand how any of those goddamn Right-wing nut-jobs out there can possibly not see how much bullshit there is in the Bush Administration's policy. We go after the non-threat while the threat is sitting there bragging at us all the while about how they are actively developing WMD.

    I am so sick of these stupid fuckers making big mistakes for which we will all have to pay dearly.

  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @12:57PM (#11631598) Homepage
    Good for them.

    It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

    Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.

    They are busy starving, and not menacing us.

    They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.

    They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.

    Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.

    The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like.
    • Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Catbeller (118204) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @01:49PM (#11632401) Homepage
      " Good for them.

      It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

      Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.

      They are busy starving, and not menacing us.

      They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.

      They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.

      Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.

      The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like."

      Labelled a troll? It's a simple statement of several obvious facts. Deal with it, wingers. Moderation is not meant for political hitmen to use to stifle information.

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...