Technjunkie is now the president...

[Guest JMT]

the simple answer is that the countries that have them now are stable and feel that they can be trusted with them, and also sign treaties for such. while the countries trying to develop them now are run by aggressive dictators who hate their neighbors and have usually tried to take them over recently.

[all4tribal1414779019]

the simple answer is that the countries that have them now are stable and feel that they can be trusted with them, and also sign treaties for such. while the countries trying to develop them now are run by aggressive dictators who hate their neighbors and have usually tried to take them over recently.

i gotcha, can the countries that are testing the nukes now still sign a treaty if they are confronted with one? if so, how can we know for sure after they do sign it that they won't use it?

[Guest JMT]

i gotcha, can the countries that are testing the nukes now still sign a treaty if they are confronted with one? if so, how can we know for sure after they do sign it that they won't use it?

doubtful. nobody wants to find out the hard way if they can be trusted or not.

[Guest endymion]

i gotcha, can the countries that are testing the nukes now still sign a treaty if they are confronted with one? if so, how can we know for sure after they do sign it that they won't use it?

Won't necessarily help. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The same treaty that specifically reserves their right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology. When Iranians talk about their "right" to pursue nuclear technology, the NPT treaty is what they're talking about.

[Guest xmuzik]

i have a question ? where does n. korea get all this money to make nukes, planes , trains, guns, propaganda outlets such a tv, radio , internet, etc. etc.

i mean where do they get the money for their infrastructure ?

i know its nothing compared to the west but were still talking about billions and billions of dollars at the least every year.

and on to another point , what is propping up these peoples currency ?

what resources do they actually have in the whole scheme of things that actually makes their chunk of their earth worth something to the bottom line of the corporate world, much less humanity ?

[Guest xmuzik]

you don't just create something out of thin air, you still need the resources and materials to make it happen and if its not native to your country then you have to look for outside support and help.

the Cuban/Russian partnership of the middle 20th century is a perfect example of this

[Guest endymion]

you don't just create something out of thin air, you still need the resources and materials to make it happen and if its not native to your country then you have to look for outside support and help.

the Cuban/Russian partnership of the middle 20th century is a perfect example of this

The answer to the question you're asking is: "China"

The Soviets also helped them to fight us off in the Korean War.

[all4tribal1414779019]

i gotcha, can the countries that are testing the nukes now still sign a treaty if they are confronted with one? if so, how can we know for sure after they do sign it that they won't use it?

doubtful. nobody wants to find out the hard way if they can be trusted or not.

i understand your point...but try to look at it if you were on the other side.

why do most countries despises the US?

from a global point of view, looking from the outside, what makes you think the US can be trusted?

[Guest JMT]

you don't just create something out of thin air, you still need the resources and materials to make it happen and if its not native to your country then you have to look for outside support and help.

the Cuban/Russian partnership of the middle 20th century is a perfect example of this

when you control your own army, you make something out of nothing.

"oh, i need a ditch dug?" go pick 5 guys and make them dig it. "oh, i need a highway?" go pick 500 guys and make them build it.

the way to get something from outside is you trade for it.

[all4tribal1414779019]

i have a question ? where does n. korea get all this money to make nukes, planes , trains, guns, propaganda outlets such a tv, radio , internet, etc. etc.

since this is not the only industrialized country with highways, planes, infrastructure, alarm clocks, bicycles, cell phones, guns, trains, tv, radio, clothes, internet, ect ect ect...

i see why you make such an educated post.

[Guest endymion]

from a global point of view, looking from the outside, what makes you think the US can be trusted?

Trust the US to do what?

Not to build more warheads? We proudly affirm that we are, there's no trust issue there.

Not to use them? The US is actively discussing military options, including nuclear options, against both Iran and North Korea.

So what's there to "trust"? Our firm position is "SCREW YOU GUYS, WE HAVE THE BOMB". No big surprise that other countries would want it too since we don't listen to anything else. Everybody can see that we're powerless against Iran and North Korea. Obtaining a nuke is a simple way to get the US to show up at the negotiating table and there's really no other way.

[240turbo]

When we used the Nukes we actually saved lives.. Look it up, you'll see I'm right

Saved lives? Ok buddy put the beer down. When have we ever saved lives with nukes? They are weapons of mass destruction. Are you smoking crack?

You act as if we have not terrorized several other countries that we had no business going into in the first place. Do you have any idea of all the atrocities we have caused little countries like Cambodia? We are not as innocent as you think we are. The American media will never tell you the truth. It will only show you their point of view to brainwash everybody like you currently are.

[Guest endymion]

Saved lives? Ok buddy put the beer down. When have we ever saved lives with nukes? They are weapons of mass destruction. Are you smoking crack?

His underlying presumptions behind that statement are telling. He's saying that it saved AMERICAN lives. Non-American lives don't matter to a certain type of American.

My wife almost never existed because of those two bombs on Japan. The Nagasaki bomb was intended for my mother-in-law's home town of Kyushu but the cloudy weather that day forced the American bomber crew to destroy their secondary target instead: Nagasaki.

My mother in law is dying of thyroid cancer now and no it isn't a coincidence. Chauvinistic warmonger Americans who have been spoon-fed American superiority myths since birth remind her of the brainwashed Japanese during WWII who were incapable of facing the reality of the fact that they were losing.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

this might sound like an uneducated question as im not familiar with this but why isn't the world concerned if the united states of america is making any nukes or had/has any nuclear underground top secret somewhere like area 51 for say?

because it would be pointless since everyone knows we already have enough to nuke the entire planet.

so what you are saying is that the US wants to be the one to take over the globe whenever they feel like it?

who is to say that north korea doesnt feel threathen about us having weapons of mass destruction?

That's the thing. North Korea is threatened by the U.S. Kim Jong Il believes that being a nuclear power will give him more leverage when seeking a non aggression treaty from the U.S.

Kim Jong Il wants to be left alone by the rest of the world yet his ambitions and turning his country into a secret state has drawn more attention to him..

[Guest endymion]

Okay so if you're an Iranian who supports the Islamic Republic, and you're pondering how many people might be killed in a direct war with the United States, then you might calculate that it would be an awful lot. About a million were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, and US forces are estimated to have killed over 40,000 civilians in Iraq.

Aren't you saving lives by detonating a nuclear device in, say, Washington DC? If you attack DC and kill all 600,000 people living there, then aren't you saving lives compared to what would happen if Iran went to war with the United States.

Are we the only ones allowed to use that rationalization?

[Guest xmuzik]

yeah i'm just wondering aloud with so many people putting the squueze on this country and so many people supposed to be in talks where does a isolated power get all its jack from especially when common sense will tell you no matter how bad ass you are you can't go it alone as a nation and expect to survive.......you can learn this lesson real quick just walking down the isle of any store and seeing how everything under the sun comes from the 4 corners of the world and pretty much has since the beginning of recorded history

everything from iron, bronze, steel, gold , spices , lumber, livestock etc. as flowed from 1 point of the earth to another for 1000's of years and i can't help but wonder how a country like N. Korea that is supposedly on its last legs like germany before WW2 has all this extra loot to invest in all the madness and infrastructure it wants to invest in.

Now you can say it's china and russia but that just seems like to easy a answer to me.... i'm probably wrong, hell i'm no international scholar, but it just seems like to easy a cop out to actually be the truth

Strange things my friends are afoot at the Circle K

i have a question ? where does n. korea get all this money to make nukes, planes , trains, guns, propaganda outlets such a tv, radio , internet, etc. etc.

since this is not the only industrialized country with highways, planes, infrastructure, alarm clocks, bicycles, cell phones, guns, trains, tv, radio, clothes, internet, ect ect ect...

i see why you make such an educated post.

[Guest xmuzik]

nou doubt , no doubt but my question is who are they trading with on such a mass scale and it seems to me if you know the for real answer , not just some straw man made for the media then you can cut out the root of the problem.

i.e. north korea is not the real problem , its the people that supply people like north korea thats the problem

otherwise if you get rid of a north korea or iran if the same people are still in the supply chain then your gonna have more north koreas and irans with different names pop up somewhere else......

you don't just create something out of thin air, you still need the resources and materials to make it happen and if its not native to your country then you have to look for outside support and help.

the Cuban/Russian partnership of the middle 20th century is a perfect example of this

when you control your own army, you make something out of nothing.

"oh, i need a ditch dug?" go pick 5 guys and make them dig it. "oh, i need a highway?" go pick 500 guys and make them build it.

the way to get something from outside is you trade for it.

[Guest endymion]

i.e. north korea is not the real problem , its the people that supply people like north korea thats the problem

Right on, which is why the "LET'S BOMB THEM!!" talk is idiotic. We're not going to get into it with China after we're already tied up in Iraq and stalemated against Iran. We're not going to attack China by bombing North Korea unilaterally. There is an end to what bombs can accomplish, people should see where it is by now.

People who think we can bomb North Korea aren't putting any thought into what will happen after the military action is over, and we should know where that will lead us.

[Guest jamu]

You know the weapons this guy has is going to one place, and one place only, to the highest bidder (with Anti US setiments). Which means either a terrorist organization or a country like Syria. Lovely idea huh?

We can thank our idiot republican friends for letting this happen. Because hey..... why negotiate (I mean that is what negotiation is all about.... right... The only way you can have negotiation is if both countries already agree on an issue?!) when we call call them a part of the Axis of Evil, and look away like nothing will happen (best course of action is no action, just look at Katrina.... oops did I say that?).

Brilliant..... oh by the way why don't we remove constitutional rights like Writ of Habeas Corpus...... I mean hey if we are going to set an example for the world we should act like the very terrorists and extremist organizations that believe in a faith run government as opposed to a Democracy right (shhhh that's a liberal ideology..... democracy.... Don't speak that word to loudly, you would be called a coward and immoral by our covservative right)? But I am sure that it makes us look, act, and feel more like a Democratic leader and example to the rest of the world when we can't even up hold our own traditions, ideas, virtues, and morals.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

nou doubt , no doubt but my question is who are they trading with on such a mass scale and it seems to me if you know the for real answer , not just some straw man made for the media then you can cut out the root of the problem.

i.e. north korea is not the real problem , its the people that supply people like north korea thats the problem

otherwise if you get rid of a north korea or iran if the same people are still in the supply chain then your gonna have more north koreas and irans with different names pop up somewhere else......

you don't just create something out of thin air, you still need the resources and materials to make it happen and if its not native to your country then you have to look for outside support and help.

the Cuban/Russian partnership of the middle 20th century is a perfect example of this

when you control your own army, you make something out of nothing.

"oh, i need a ditch dug?" go pick 5 guys and make them dig it. "oh, i need a highway?" go pick 500 guys and make them build it.

the way to get something from outside is you trade for it.

China trades about $2 Billion dollars worth of goods with North Korea each year..

That's a lot of grains of rice!!!

[Guest xmuzik]

your right that is alot of rice ;D but its still only a drop in the bucket

your gonna need alot more than 2 billion dollars in trade to run a country , especially one that likes to buy lots of weapons and dress up lots of soldiers

[Guest michael^heaven]

When we used the Nukes we actually saved lives.. Look it up, you'll see I'm right and in fact the dumb slant eyes didn't give up after the 1st one, we had to drop a second one for them to give in. Imgaine if we had to fight them without nukes, we would have to turn every city in japan into a parking lot, which was going to happen since we were crusing across the pacific, we were unstoppable.

BTW...we did not use nuclear weapons in WWII. Those were atomic weapons.

All arguments aside, this would be a good time for the current administration to cease this 'old west' mantality & get together with the rest of the world for an act of diplomacy. Instead of acting like the 'big boy' on the block & doing what-the-eff it wants...at the world's expense, IMO.

[Guest endymion]

All arguments aside, this would be a good time for the current administration to cease this 'old west' mantality & get together with the rest of the world for an act of diplomacy. Instead of acting like the 'big boy' on the block & doing what-the-eff it wants...at the world's expense, IMO.

Why? Bush firmly believes that his two narrow presidential election wins give him a "mandate" to continue doing what he's doing. He failed in Iraq, he's powerless against Iran and North Korea, but that "mandate" keeps him going on his mission to go it alone, to not use diplomacy, and to spend as much money as possible on the military. We are very fully committed, after six years, to a losing strategy.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

your right that is alot of rice ;D but its still only a drop in the bucket

your gonna need alot more than 2 billion dollars in trade to run a country , especially one that likes to buy lots of weapons and dress up lots of soldiers

yep...it's called Opium trade....

[Guest JMT]

Saved lives? Ok buddy put the beer down. When have we ever saved lives with nukes? They are weapons of mass destruction. Are you smoking crack?

His underlying presumptions behind that statement are telling. He's saying that it saved AMERICAN lives. Non-American lives don't matter to a certain type of American.

it saved human lives, period. you cannot argue that it killed more than it saved. there is simply no data to support that. the casualties it would have taken to force the japanese to surrender were incalculable (500,000 is the number most widely used). the imperial army already had orders to fight until the last man. not to mention they also held hundreds of thousands of war prisoners, and had already killed 300,000 chinese civilians in the the "Nanking Massacre" alone.