Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Why can America be armed to the teeth with nukes, but North Korea can't have any?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 61 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 12 Feb 2013 19:32:24 GMT
If the nuclear deterrent is a good thing why can't the North Koreans have their own nukes?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 19:59:06 GMT
Spin says:
Simon: For once I agree with you. Why should the "West" be the only nations with nuclear capabilities? Iran and N korea are condemned for producing nuclear weapons. Why? Afraid your next move results in a check-mate?

Posted on 12 Feb 2013 22:36:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Feb 2013 22:39:31 GMT
Possibly because the fear of retaliation is a concern to Western leaders and China's leaders or not daft either so it does act a s a deterrant. The sort of extremist nutters that get to be in charge of Iran and North Korea are likely to shoot first ans ask questions later. Not quite the sort to really think it through i9n that regard.
Quite how the West thinks it can get off with it's do as I say attitude is a bit of a mystery though. Don't think "they" have quite thought that through

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 05:08:34 GMT
Peter...why do you think the leader of NK is a "nutter"?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 09:07:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Feb 2013 09:08:18 GMT
Dan Fante says:
What do you think of him? Given his country is developing nuclear weapons whilst at the same time foreign food aid is the only thing stopping a large proportion of its population from starving.

Posted on 13 Feb 2013 09:16:03 GMT
easytiger says:
Developed countries have had nuclear weapons for decades and haven't used them. Reckon the world would look a lot different if that family of lunatics in N.Korea had had them for so long.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 09:16:05 GMT
While i admittedly haven't put in hours of research on him the little I do know strongly suggests he is one of these "I can piss hiher up the wall than you types" and also doesn't really care too much how much his own people suffer orr die painful deaths just so long as he can maintain the position and privileges he reckons his birthrigh

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 09:37:09 GMT
wrt the starving - I read an article the other day that there's such famine and the people are so poor, that they have resorted to cannibalism in desperation.

But hey, as long as they have missiles that don't even fire straight lolol

Posted on 13 Feb 2013 10:52:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Feb 2013 10:53:16 GMT
You don't need to fire a nuke straight, the area of effect is enormous. See Hiroshima for an example of a very old version of the bomb, imagine the capabilities of one launched today... you bearly even need to get it near your target to cause devastation

Why the USA, the only country who has used one of these monstrocities, think's it has any right to tell others that they can't be trusted to have one is beyond me. I do know that giving something this powerful and destructive to egotistic fools is a bad idea

Posted on 13 Feb 2013 11:08:19 GMT
Dan Fante says:
It's not only the USA that has a problem with the North Koreans having nuclear weapons though. It's also a bit daft, in my view, citing the USA's use of atomic weapons in the past, given when they used them, the alternatives they were faced with, not to mention that their enemies would've used them first if they could have. It was the Second World War, not some random, unprovoked attack on an innocent Japanese nation.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 11:12:27 GMT
I wasn't talking about the nukes.
It was in relation to the people starving and yet they still pump money into missiles. Anyhoo, I thought NK was pretty well known for their inability to fire a missile that doesn't: spiral into the ocean / jungle / random target, rather than hitting the intended target.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 12:59:24 GMT
george scott says:
Missiles are not the only way to deliver a nuclear warhead. A small fishing boat would be more than large enough, let alone an oil tanker.

Posted on 13 Feb 2013 13:24:07 GMT
Spin says:
I do not think the issue concerns Burmas "right" to possess nuclear weapons. Rather, it concerns the fact that Burma is in the stranglehold of a militaristic, isolationist regime and that it seems to be prepared to use those weapons offensively. One might argue for the right to bear arms, but one would not allow the violently disturbed access to firearms...

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 13:32:13 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Feb 2013 13:32:58 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I don't think the issue concerns Burma's rights at all ;-) I agree with your points though.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2013 14:55:20 GMT
....unless you live in the USA at which point it would be mandatory.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2013 20:49:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Feb 2013 22:17:47 GMT
They can and they have...well they're trying to have them but their technology is such crap it's a struggle.

Total waste of resources for the ordinary Kim ll Blow Joe, helping to keep him at starvation level, but great for the Dear Boy Leader and his military puppet masters to keep up the pretence that the DPRK is under threat from running capitalist dogs who want to wipe out their pathetic apology for country, (who could give a toss about that God forsaken ****e hole) its people and their idyllic way of life.

Having nukes is also a great bargaining tool to get more aid out of the rest of the neurotic World.

Nuclear warheads on top of ICBM's look cool at those stunning military parades in Kim ll Jung Square amidst a million formation marchers.

The best way, imo, to deal with NK is to ignore them, they would soon stop trying to make nukes.

NK's policy of 'military first' allocates 35% of GDP to the armed forces, this in an agricultural country that can't get its act together to feed itself, where fields lie barren and millions starve

The best judges of what threat the PDRK poses are the good folk of S Korea who treat the regime up North with the disdain it deserves.

The reports in UKeydonkeyland and other Western media about the burgeoning NK threat are a load of B*****ks to get us donkeys all fretful just like the citizens of the DPRK are made fretful by Kim Wrong-Un and his military bosses. NK is run for the sole benefit of its self serving ruling military mafia.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2013 20:53:52 GMT

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2013 22:16:28 GMT
Simone says<<Whoops!.....>>

Did you blow a wet one dearest?

Posted on 14 Feb 2013 22:40:23 GMT
In the USA folk seem to have a thing about being <<armed to the teeth>>. I read that there are at least 300m guns held in the teeth of ordinary citizens. And their gov accounts for over 40% of World military spending, pointless as this is it accounts for under 5% of Yankee GDP but in the PDRK the poor peasants have over 30% of GDP taken off them to satisfy their enlightened govs 'military first' policy. By comparison their cousins south of the border lose only about 2.5% of their income to military spending and they've got the World's fastest broadband whahooooo!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2013 22:45:12 GMT

Why do you say NK leaders are <<extremist nutters>>. They seem to me to be acting in their own best interests. They all live a good life. Do you think they would fire nuclear weapons at SK, Japan or the USA?

Posted on 15 Feb 2013 11:33:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Feb 2013 11:39:48 GMT
Are you aware that the Japanese had already made a petition of surrender to the US when the US dropped the Atom bombs? But, the US didn't think the terms of surrender were submissive enough (the Japanese asked only to retain the sovereignty of their Emperor, while the Americans insisted the Japanese Emperor should capitulate to a US General), and this was used as the excuse to justify targeting the civilian populations (itself an act in direct violation of every treaty/convention in effect at that time - but no surprises there!) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to receive the typically pathological, inhumane and thuggish US "techniques of persuasion" AKA unmitigated acts of genocide and crime against humanity, in its deployment of atomic weapons, as I say, upon civilian non-military targets, whilst being petitioned for surrender. Naturally, this type of mind-set is just the type of arrogant bully which doesn't want any nation it doesn't like, or doesn't control, to be able to defend themselves, should the arrogant bully decide it wants to control or, failing that, invade a nation that wont be bullied by the IMF etc., e.g. Nations like Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and very soon Iran, perhaps eventually North Korea (unless of course those nations develop nuclear capabilities first; then we'll probably see a ramping down of the US sabre-rattling, and the commencement of strenuous efforts to form diplomatic relations).

In trying to gain an insight to the overall scheme of world politics, I have found it useful, as it always is, to "follow the money". It used to be that the practice of "usury" (the lending of money at a charge of interest) was prohibited in a great majority of countries that followed Christian or Islamic principles, because usury is forbidden by those faiths. Since the ascendancy over the past couple of centuries of the Rothschild, and allied, banking families to the point where almost every Western nation's economy has been brought, solely by the progressive use of contracts of usury between those banking families and those nations governments, under the control of those banking families, usury has become the workaday practice by which every man, and is every woman, is drawn into a life of bondage throught the lending of money at interest, so those banking families (and their appointed lackeys) may essentially do nothing other than expand their near-global regime of exploitation of the human race through the decidedly immoral practice of usury. I say near-global regime, since there remains one main area of the planet in which usury is still forbidden - and it is among nations where the practice of Islam is predominant, because Islam is the only faith that still preaches against the immoral practice of usury, because it is a form of enslavement, albeit voluntarily entered, but which can be used to steal the property of one so enslaved, by the one lending the money, even though the lender, in today's near-global fiat currency system, has not actually lent or risked anything of substance.

You may draw your own conclusions from the implications of this scenario, and how these global forces of influence operate upon the characteristics of the world we must live in today.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2013 11:39:06 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:42:44 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2013 11:50:02 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:42:45 BDT]

Posted on 15 Feb 2013 13:57:13 GMT
Spin says:
If you borrow a grand from a mate, you pay him back a grand. IOf I lend someone a tenner, all I expect is a tenner back. Borrow a tenner or a grand from the moneylenders and usurers we call "Banks" and you will pay back them back with interest. The banks own your car, your house and your business. It you cannot pay your mortgage due to the banks corruption, the bank will throw you out on the street while it takes yourv taxes to keep it afloat and allow it to kick you into the gutter.

Posted on 15 Feb 2013 14:01:05 GMT
J. Forbes says:
If you hire a car, do you not expect to pay for it?

Nobody is being forced to borrow, but if they do, why should they have the use of somebody else's money for nothing?

Economics is another subject on which you hold very primitive views, Spin.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  61
Initial post:  12 Feb 2013
Latest post:  16 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions