• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea to Restart Nuclear Weapons Plant

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea vowed Tuesday to bolster its nuclear deterrent and boycott six-party talks aimed at its denuclearization in protest of a U.N. Security Council statement condemning the country's recent rocket launch.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it "resolutely condemns" the action by the United Nations, which it said "rampantly" infringes upon the country's sovereignty and "severely debases" the people's dignity.

"We have no choice but to further strengthen our nuclear deterrent to cope with additional military threats by hostile forces," the statement said.
FOXNews.com - North Korea to Restart Nuclear Weapons Plant - North Korea | Map | Government

I guess Obama's strong response to their missile launch had nothing to do with this.
 
So, what are we going to do about these guys?
 
Last edited:
So, what are we going to do about these guys?

That I'd like to see. Especially from the Obama bashers who these days resemble the Democrats of 2004. Offer nothing but criticism and completely unrealistic 'plans.' The GOP's 'budget' plan as Don pointed out was beyond wishful thinking and into the realm of LSD induced dreaming. So instead of just bashing and offering candy land alternatives, how about something realistic for a change?

Or is that simply too much to ask?
 
So, what are we going to do about these guys?

With Obama's track record. He'll open up unilateral talks, bow, hand them iPods & DVD's, then pull a Clinton and give them $10 billion in aid, to deter them from their nuclear ambitions.
 
When has there been a "strong response" to North Korea making sure it's ****ty missiles are still ****ty?

I was more alluding to the fact it took over a week before anyone ya know... did anything at all.

I'm sure that played into their decisions.
 
So, what are we going to do about these guys?

We need to carry out strikes against North Korea's nuclear facilities in and around Punyongyang.

Kim Jong Jackoff has been been given more then enough warning about his nuclear numbnuttery.

Now he can go **** himself.
 
We need to carry out strikes against North Korea's nuclear facilities in and around Punyongyang.

Kim Jong Jackoff has been been given more then enough warning about his nuclear numbnuttery.

Now he can go **** himself.
Nope, we need to let their neighbors do that.
 
Give the Japanese the thumbs up to dump Article 9 of their constitution.

Well, they basically have a choice between revising their constitution to meet the new threat or developing a nuclear deterrent of their own.

Although possession of nuclear weapons is not forbidden in the constitution, Japan, as the only nation to experience the devastation of atomic attack, early expressed its abhorrence of nuclear arms and determined never to acquire them. The Basic Atomic Energy Law of 1956 limits research, development, and utilization of nuclear power to peaceful uses, and, beginning in 1956, national policy has embodied "three non-nuclear principles"--forbidding the nation to possess or manufacture nuclear weapons or to allow them to be introduced into the nation. Prime Minister Eisaku Sato made this pledge - known as the Three Non-Nuclear Principles - on February 5, 1968. The notion was formalized by the Japanese Diet on November 24, 1971. In 1976 Japan ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 1968) and reiterated its intention never to "develop, use, or allow the transportation of nuclear weapons through its territory." However, if Japan believed that "extraordinary events" had jeopardised its "supreme interests", under Article X of the Treaty it could withdraw from the NPT. Such "extraordinary events" could include the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Japan could then legally use its plutonium to build nuclear weapons.

That's Japan's business. The question is "what should we do?" Direct talks are out of the question in my opinion for two reasons

1) Our interests in the region are relatively periphery compared to the other nations in the six-party talks.

2) I can't think of anything I, as the president, would be willing to concede to North Korea unilaterally.

I'd be discussing this matter with the three letter agencies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. I'm sure they've got some time on their hands.
 
We need to carry out strikes against North Korea's nuclear facilities in and around Punyongyang.

Kim Jong Jackoff has been been given more then enough warning about his nuclear numbnuttery.

Now he can go **** himself.

Not really an option right now Vader.

I agree it "should be done" on one hand, but on the other, I'm really not willing to killing 10-15 million people to do so. Are you?

NK has over 50,000 rocket and artillery tubes pointed at Seoul. I've SEEN the war plans, the estimates and all that good stuff. NK's war plans call for pounding Seoul as the opening move. Even if, and this is a big if, the war stays conventional, the casualty rate for the city is est. 50% in the first 30 min of a shooting war. If they use CBR, 70%.

That's why there hasn't been another Korean War. And why attacking NK's nuclear facilities is not really an option.
 
Not really an option right now Vader.

I agree it "should be done" on one hand, but on the other, I'm really not willing to killing 10-15 million people to do so. Are you?

NK has over 50,000 rocket and artillery tubes pointed at Seoul. I've SEEN the war plans, the estimates and all that good stuff. NK's war plans call for pounding Seoul as the opening move. Even if, and this is a big if, the war stays conventional, the casualty rate for the city is est. 50% in the first 30 min of a shooting war. If they use CBR, 70%.

That's why there hasn't been another Korean War. And why attacking NK's nuclear facilities is not really an option.

This war plan doesn't really make sense. I don't see the point in thoroughly destroying something you're trying to capture. Plus, if all that firepower is concentrated on a city, that means it's not being used in support of the ground forces. Allied ground forces would be able to out maneuver their ground forces while they're seeking cover or otherwise being slowed down by allied artillery. Plus, how much ammo do they have? Could they afford to waste all their ammo pounding Seoul?

While it makes a good threat, I doubt their military commanders would be stupid enough to do that. The international community would be outraged and NK would see a massive coalition force come wipe them out.
 
This war plan doesn't really make sense. I don't see the point in thoroughly destroying something you're trying to capture. Plus, if all that firepower is concentrated on a city, that means it's not being used in support of the ground forces. Allied ground forces would be able to out maneuver their ground forces while they're seeking cover or otherwise being slowed down by allied artillery. Plus, how much ammo do they have? Could they afford to waste all their ammo pounding Seoul?

While it makes a good threat, I doubt their military commanders would be stupid enough to do that. The international community would be outraged and NK would see a massive coalition force come wipe them out.

MAD Bulletwound. That's the purpose.

NK believes that by making the cost of fighting them too high, they won't be attacked. They CANNOT win a conventional head to head fight with the South. They have a large, yet outdated military that faces a modern force backed by the USA. Not really a winning equation. Their only defense is to ensure that the cost of war is too high for the South.

It makes perfect sense.
 
Not really an option right now Vader.

I agree it "should be done" on one hand, but on the other, I'm really not willing to killing 10-15 million people to do so. Are you?

NK has over 50,000 rocket and artillery tubes pointed at Seoul. I've SEEN the war plans, the estimates and all that good stuff. NK's war plans call for pounding Seoul as the opening move. Even if, and this is a big if, the war stays conventional, the casualty rate for the city is est. 50% in the first 30 min of a shooting war. If they use CBR, 70%.

That's why there hasn't been another Korean War. And why attacking NK's nuclear facilities is not really an option.

I am not saying that we nuke them -- I am suggesting a conventional strike on NK's facilities BEFORE the become fully active.

There would be casualties; however, not in the millions.

Given the choice --- I would rather not be responsible for an apocolyptic event. --- Casulaties in the millions is unacceptable.

I do not want to wipe out North Korea I only want to wipe out North Korea's nuclear capabilities.

I also want to wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities.
 
MAD Bulletwound. That's the purpose.

NK believes that by making the cost of fighting them too high, they won't be attacked. They CANNOT win a conventional head to head fight with the South. They have a large, yet outdated military that faces a modern force backed by the USA. Not really a winning equation. Their only defense is to ensure that the cost of war is too high for the South.

It makes perfect sense.

But would they follow through in light of the fact that it would result in their certain death? Would they launch this all-out assault in response to the loss of their nuclear facilities? That seems like it would be a poor decision to me. Of course they've been making poor decisions for 50 years, so go figure.

We must weigh the cost of war now versus a war with North Korea where they are armed with nuclear weapons. There is the possibility now that they could be defeated without having to withstand a nuclear attack. We can prevent the possibility of real MAD, and a situation where an aggressive North Korea attacks the South backed up by fully developed nuclear weapons.
 
I am not saying that we nuke them -- I am suggesting a conventional strike on NK's facilities BEFORE the become fully active.

There would be casualties; however, not in the millions.

Given the choice --- I would rather not be responsible for an apocolyptic event. --- Casulaties in the millions is unacceptable.

I do not want to wipe out North Korea I only want to wipe out North Korea's nuclear capabilities.

I also want to wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities.
You miss the point my friend, if we attack their nuclear facilities, there is a very good chance they will attack South Korea. And THAT will kill millions.
 
MAD Bulletwound. That's the purpose.



But would they follow through in light of the fact that it would result in their certain death? Would they launch this all-out assault in response to the loss of their nuclear facilities? That seems like it would be a poor decision to me. Of course they've been making poor decisions for 50 years, so go figure.

We must weigh the cost of war now versus a war with North Korea where they are armed with nuclear weapons. There is the possibility now that they could be defeated without having to withstand a nuclear attack. We can prevent the possibility of real MAD, and a situation where an aggressive North Korea attacks the South backed up by fully developed nuclear weapons.

It's not all our choice, the SK have to agree to it. The current belief is that the NK govt' will eventually implode and that will least bloody way out of this mess. There is some merit to that line of thinking.
 
It's not all our choice, the SK have to agree to it. The current belief is that the NK govt' will eventually implode and that will least bloody way out of this mess. There is some merit to that line of thinking.

That's a possibility, and I recommend sending in the three letter agencies to expedite this process. However, there is also the possibility that it will not, at least not in the near future. How long can we afford to wait? One thing is clear, we need to increase our intelligence operations in NK and we're going to have to find a way to get good HUMINT, instead of relying on all the other methods.

Also, who will fill in the vacuum? It's possible that the Chinese will move in to fill it. In which case, SK can kiss a unified peninsula good bye.
 
That's a possibility, and I recommend sending in the three letter agencies to expedite this process. However, there is also the possibility that it will not, at least not in the near future. How long can we afford to wait? One thing is clear, we need to increase our intelligence operations in NK and we're going to have to find a way to get good HUMINT, instead of relying on all the other methods.

Also, who will fill in the vacuum? It's possible that the Chinese will move in to fill it. In which case, SK can kiss a unified peninsula good bye.

How much reading on NK do you do? I spend some of my weekend down time at work to read up on it, scary stuff.
 
I am not saying that we nuke them -- I am suggesting a conventional strike on NK's facilities BEFORE the become fully active.

There would be casualties; however, not in the millions.

Given the choice --- I would rather not be responsible for an apocolyptic event. --- Casulaties in the millions is unacceptable.

I do not want to wipe out North Korea I only want to wipe out North Korea's nuclear capabilities.

I also want to wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Here's the problem: destroying NK's nuclear facilities is an act of war and would almost definitely result in a counterattack. It would become a full-scale war and they would have to be defeated just as thoroughly as Iraq and Afghanistan. Limited conflict has proven to be a failure over and over and over again. Had it not been for the disobedient General MacAthur in the last war on the peninsula, all of Korea would likely be unified under the despots in the North.
 
Seoul to announce PSI membership

Seoul will today announce its decision to become a fully operating member of the Proliferation Security Initiative, officials said yesterday.

"The announcement will come today following the security policy meeting where it was decided that, as had been proposed, Seoul would fully take part in the program," said a Foreign Ministry official.

[...]

Fears are now escalating of possible military provocation from Pyongyang in areas such as the Northern Limit Line - the de facto inter-Korean maritime border the North refuses to acknowledge - since the North earlier said it would consider it a declaration of war if Seoul joins PSI as a full member.

[...]

The Korea Herald : The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper

Fingers crossed fellas. Hope for the best.
 
Top DPRK legislator warns of punishment against America, South Korea

PYONGYANG, April 14 (Xinhua) -- Kim Yong Nam, top legislator of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), warned on Tuesday that his country would mete out "unmerciful punishment" if the United States and South Korea "start a war."

Kim was speaking at a meeting held to commemorate the 97th anniversary of the birth of late president Kim Il Sung in Pyongyang, according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

"Grave obstacles are lying in the way of the country's reunification due to the reckless moves of the conservative authorities in America and South Korea for a war of aggression against the DPRK," Kim said.

He warned that if the United States and South Korea ignite a war, all the DPRK people would display the invincible spirit and powerful war deterrent for self-defense and mete out "merciless punishment."

[...]

Top DPRK legislator warns of punishment against America, South Korea_English_Xinhua

God help us all. The last thing anybody needs right now is a major conflict.
 
Not really an option right now Vader.

I agree it "should be done" on one hand, but on the other, I'm really not willing to killing 10-15 million people to do so. Are you?

NK has over 50,000 rocket and artillery tubes pointed at Seoul. I've SEEN the war plans, the estimates and all that good stuff. NK's war plans call for pounding Seoul as the opening move. Even if, and this is a big if, the war stays conventional, the casualty rate for the city is est. 50% in the first 30 min of a shooting war. If they use CBR, 70%.

That's why there hasn't been another Korean War. And why attacking NK's nuclear facilities is not really an option.

It's like the world's longest, and most dangerous hostage situation.
 
It's like the world's longest, and most dangerous hostage situation.

That's a very apt description. The NK's can't win a war, they know it. So they base everything on inflicting the most damage they can in hopes that prevents them from being attacked.
 
Back
Top Bottom