Printable View
from one of linlovers links:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/kn.html
Economy - overview:
Massive international food aid deliveries have allowed the people of North Korea to escape mass starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions. Large-scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian consumption.
You talk about giving Japan the bomb, but AFAIK Japan has had a deliberate policy of not pursuing nuclear weapons because of the fact that they've seen the destruction they cause first hand. So really it's not a question of giving Japan the bomb because no-one's been withholding it from them.Quote:
Originally posted here by dmorgan
I would _almost_ say let mutually assured destuction work and give Japan and South Korea the Bomb.
THAT would be a mess indead.
ac
On the point of japan having the bomb it is true that Japan has a non-nuclear policy but it is also the US who do not want a nuclear Japan.
Hmmm the fact that Japan is opposed to having a bomb, doesn't mean they don't have access to one, I am sure there are nukes at the American Base Yokosuka, or on any of the Subs which visit Japan or sail out of Guam. So in a crunch, Japan can be used as a launching pad,if it needs to protect itself.
The population of Japan can be kept in the dark, much like we (Canada) were when telling the locals there are no nukes (Diefenbaker lied ).
Have to disagree with that, Japan is America's staunchest Ally in the Pacific, if the **** hits the fan in that area, the US are gonna want a friend, and they are the closest to NK and best strategically.Quote:
On the point of japan having the bomb it is true that Japan has a non-nuclear policy but it is also the US who do not want a nuclear Japan.
Japan is the US's staunchest ally because they need the US for protection. It doesn't mean that the US wants Japan to become militarialy independant which is what it would be if it had an independant nuclear arsenal. It is similar to the situtation in europe. Germany is now a stauch ally of the rest of western europe. still there is no way the US or nato would accept a German nuclear arms program.
I wouldn't be too sure about that in today's scheme of things, Germany may have been hesitant to flex itself 20yrs ago, but not so today, who would stop them if they wanted to start up a nuclear program, the Soviets....with what? their military power is in the dustbin, I would be frightened to death if I was a Russian Officer and received the orders to fire a missile for fear it would blow up in the silo or worse, hit one of their own cities, or actually find out that the warhead had been sold on the blackmarket a couple of years earlier...Quote:
Originally posted here by MURACU
Japan is the US's staunchest ally because they need the US for protection. It doesn't mean that the US wants Japan to become militarialy independant which is what it would be if it had an independant nuclear arsenal. It is similar to the situtation in europe. Germany is now a stauch ally of the rest of western europe. still there is no way the US or nato would accept a German nuclear arms program.
Same with Japan, I would be willing to bet that the US would rather have a nuclear capable Japan then a nuclear capable NK/Vietnam/Thailand/Indonesia/Burma/etc.... the club is getting bigger as long as China and Russia undermine the efforts of the US to reign in these Nuclear Wannabees it's going to happen...
Japan doesn't have to be militarily independant to act in the best interests of itself or the US, they have access to US assets, pretty much anytime they want them, your right the only reason Japan is still around is because of the US, but I wouldn't put it past the US to have certain agreements in place with Japan in case of a Pacific Rim outbreak of war, same with Australia and NZ and a few of the islands between the Phillipines and Indonesia.
What benefits Japan/Taiwan, benefits the US interests....
I honestly don't care what happens to that corrupt gov. But what I don't get is all the talks about "Omfg NK got nukes, we all dooomed". Let's get a few things straight, the only war NK has had is a civil war against SK. The people are poor, the leaders are rich but even they do have some leftism left in their bones and actully want to improove the conditions for their people. They are not interested in a war only in having something to bargain with (excuse my english). They perhaps want civil nuclear energy or end of sanctions...
The main country opposed to this new nuclear nation is the US. They are saying that a brutal and aggressive dictatorship - member of the axis of evil - should not have nuclear weapons.
What if we scroll back the film a bit? Which country in the world has had more wars in the last 50 years than any other nation? - The US.
Which country is the only one to ever had used nukes - The US.
Which country supports even more dictatorial regimes (not more brutal but more dictatorial) than NK - The US, which supports Saudi Arabia, has supported pinochet and I could make an even bigger list but these are the two most known.
I could also make my "point to point" list larger but I hope that's not needed.
So my argument comes down to this: It's bad that NK has the Gov that it has.
It's not positive but neither negative that NK has nuclear weapons. It's much worse that any nation besides France has nuclear weapons since all the other (The US, Israel, China, Russia, Pakistan, India and UK) are already in some sort of war compared to the NK's.
It's really sad that the US is talking about this as something Kim brought on himself after the fact that the US forbids NK to import Oil, Medicine and fuel and thus is killing more people through it's sanctions in NK than Kim ever could.
the korean leadership are killing their own people
NOT america
they have told the populace that the grand celebrations they have for the dear leaders birthday are repeated throughout the world :eek:
uprisings only happen if the local populace know of a 'better' way
NK believe that their way is the ONLY way
after this leaderships demise there will be another
and they will be even worse
because now, if they were to tell the population that, yes, there IS food aplenty, they would all be killed in th euprising that would ensue
as it is, NK is THE most secretive country on earth
where everything is one at the behest of the dear leader
where freedom of thought is banned and all follow party doctrine or die
NK sent a football team to the 66 world cup [soccer] in the UK, even then, they were like fish out of water, and TOTALLY unprepared for the world then
imagine the culture shock that IS coming one day
let em die
it will make NO difference to the world, as NK does not DO anything for the world
when they are dead, THEN walk in and bury the last
shake hands with the chinese as they too walk in
then turn around and walk away
there is NOTHING there
just dead men walking :(
Hehe...
Perhaps the people aren't as "free" in the positive freedom sense as in the US and UK but they are much more free than any of us in West in the negative sense.
I'm not sure this is the right way to formulate it but there are two sorts of freedom.
Marx wanted everyone to be able to have a job, house and food on their table.
The NK is doing everything it can to provide these basic needs, the freedom to live.
The US is undermining the NK republic to do so by using sanctions on it. Now I am not saying that the gov is doing everything it can to provide this but it is at least doing more than the US is for the homeless and very poor. The difference is that it has alot less resources. So it evens out probably. Never the less you are correct ni saying that the NK is the most secretive country (I'd like to say state) in the world. It's also the most conservative when it comes to what is right and what is wrong and the hypochrisy of KIM's speaches about American culture being bad is obvious when the man himself owns over 2000 Hollywood movies.
But even with all of this, the republic of North Korea still hasn't done anything to have so hard sanctions on it (already - before the NUKE thing) and to be so discriminated when it comes to developing nuclear weapons and nuclear power. While other countries such as India are almost endorsed by the US to do the same thing. In what way - please tell me - has the US more of a right to have a nuclear weapon than NK?
Yep, the soviets kept the troops happy and fed, just like Kim is doing now, while the peasants die.Quote:
Marx wanted everyone to be able to have a job, house and food on their table.
The NK is doing everything it can to provide these basic needs, the freedom to live.
Those bad Americans, how dare they try to keep a downtrodden mass of humanity alive....oh right Kim makes sure all of that food donated goes to his troops... (or the black market):rolleyes:Quote:
The US supplied 50,000 tonnes of food aid to North Korea last year and 100,000 tonnes the year before, making it one of the largest single providers of aid to the country.
Quote:
But even with all of this, the republic of North Korea still hasn't done anything to have so hard sanctions on it (already - before the NUKE thing) and to be so discriminated when it comes to developing nuclear weapons and nuclear power. While other countries such as India are almost endorsed by the US to do the same thing. In what way - please tell me - has the US more of a right to have a nuclear weapon than NK?
India, is a "Democracy", North Korea is "Communist", India has controls on it's military, North Korea has no controls over it's military,it is the military... capiche..... ;)