http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSec ... eId=203562
Hiroshima - Hiroshima's mayor has lashed out at the United States' nuclear weapons policy.
This happened during a ceremony marking the 58th anniversary of the city's atomic bombing, which caused the deaths of over 230 000 people.
Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba yesterday said the US worshipped nuclear weapons as "God" and blamed it for jeopardising the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.
"The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the central international agreement guiding the elimination of nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse," Akiba said.
"The chief cause is a US nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called 'usable nuclear weapons', appears to worship nuclear weapons as God."
The mayor also slammed as unjust the US-led war on Iraq, which he blamed for killing innocent civilians. "The weapons of mass destruction that served as the excuse for the war have yet to be found," he said.
Akiba urged US President George Bush and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il to personally visit Hiroshima and "confront the reality of nuclear war".
As the clock clicked onto 8.15am, the exact time the US dropped the bomb on August 6 1945, those at the ceremony at Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park bowed their heads for a minute's silence in memory of the victims of the attack.
During the ceremony, officials added 5 050 names to the register of victims who died from the after-effects of radiation exposure in the bombing, bringing the total toll to 231 920, an official said.
---------------
You lost, get over it and go to hell!
Hiroshima mayor hits out at US
I find it singularly ironic that this news item came from a South African newspaper - because South Africa's relinquishing its nuclear weapons program was one of the successes of the non-proliferation treaty and other diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nukes. The non-prolif treaty worked awfully well for over 25 years considering how easy it is for countries to develop nukes. Not only South Africa, but also Argentina (I believe, or another south american country), discontinued nuke development in part because of the non-prolif treaty.
Once W. enters the picture, the U.S. policy becomes military pre-emption. Tell the world that development of nukes brings the risk of crushing U.S. military response. This seems fine, except you have to do this largely by yourself if you are the U.S. and, as we are beginning to figure out, there is just so much U.S. military to spread around. You can't flatten North Korea if you are still stuck in Iraq.
Unfortunately, it also encourages countries to get their own nukes while they can - before the U.S. can strike. So, Iran is working twice as hard now on its nukes. After all, if you need a defense against America, a nuke is a good thing to have.
This mayor is a politician playing up to his audience. Right or wrong, he's certainly outspoken for a Japanese politician.
Too true. To no small extent because of the philosophy and policies of the Bush administration.
We did our best to minimize civilian casualties. Nonetheless, civilians did die. Where are those weapons of mass destruction anyway? Where is the nerve gas, where are the biological weapons, where are the Iraqi nuke facilities?
Here he goes over the top. However, nobody has a nuke program like us. We build the best the world has ever seen. The smallest, lightest, most portable and usable nuclear weapons man can build. If I am not an American, if I am from one of the two places on earth that has actually been touched by the fire from the only use of nukes on human targets, maybe I am entitled to be a little queasy and a little over the top about two policies - pre-emptive use of military force and continued nuke development - that could converge.
Step away from your jingoistic outrage for just a second. We were entirely right to do it, but we are the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon on anybody else. We forget the significance of that because we did it to end a horrifically bloody conflict where neither side took prisoners. People have now forgotten what kind of struggle that was. They do remember that we used nukes, and used them on cities. If the Mayor of Hiroshima is a little nervous about nuclear weapons, I think he is entitled.
If every leader of every country that has nukes, or seeks to have nukes, had to visit Hiroshima, I don't think that is a bad thing.
Help me out here. What exactly does that mean? I get the "go to hell" part but not the rest? Does that mean we can't say anything critical about North Vietnam? Kinda knocks the crap out of the whole "POW/MIA" thing, doesn't it?
Once W. enters the picture, the U.S. policy becomes military pre-emption. Tell the world that development of nukes brings the risk of crushing U.S. military response. This seems fine, except you have to do this largely by yourself if you are the U.S. and, as we are beginning to figure out, there is just so much U.S. military to spread around. You can't flatten North Korea if you are still stuck in Iraq.
Unfortunately, it also encourages countries to get their own nukes while they can - before the U.S. can strike. So, Iran is working twice as hard now on its nukes. After all, if you need a defense against America, a nuke is a good thing to have.
This mayor is a politician playing up to his audience. Right or wrong, he's certainly outspoken for a Japanese politician.
"The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the central international agreement guiding the elimination of nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse," Akiba said.
Too true. To no small extent because of the philosophy and policies of the Bush administration.
The mayor also slammed as unjust the US-led war on Iraq, which he blamed for killing innocent civilians. "The weapons of mass destruction that served as the excuse for the war have yet to be found," he said.
We did our best to minimize civilian casualties. Nonetheless, civilians did die. Where are those weapons of mass destruction anyway? Where is the nerve gas, where are the biological weapons, where are the Iraqi nuke facilities?
"The chief cause is a US nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called 'usable nuclear weapons', appears to worship nuclear weapons as God."
Here he goes over the top. However, nobody has a nuke program like us. We build the best the world has ever seen. The smallest, lightest, most portable and usable nuclear weapons man can build. If I am not an American, if I am from one of the two places on earth that has actually been touched by the fire from the only use of nukes on human targets, maybe I am entitled to be a little queasy and a little over the top about two policies - pre-emptive use of military force and continued nuke development - that could converge.
Step away from your jingoistic outrage for just a second. We were entirely right to do it, but we are the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon on anybody else. We forget the significance of that because we did it to end a horrifically bloody conflict where neither side took prisoners. People have now forgotten what kind of struggle that was. They do remember that we used nukes, and used them on cities. If the Mayor of Hiroshima is a little nervous about nuclear weapons, I think he is entitled.
If every leader of every country that has nukes, or seeks to have nukes, had to visit Hiroshima, I don't think that is a bad thing.
You lost, get over it and go to hell!
Help me out here. What exactly does that mean? I get the "go to hell" part but not the rest? Does that mean we can't say anything critical about North Vietnam? Kinda knocks the crap out of the whole "POW/MIA" thing, doesn't it?
Bush should ask the Mayor if he would like to the the sequel to Hiroshima.
[SARCASM]Yea, thats a good idea. Real diplomatic there[/SARCASM]
[align=center]<img src="http://www.statgfx.com/statgfx/folding/?&username=Billygoat(pcabusers)&border=0,255,0&label=255,0,0&header=0,0,255&stats=0,0,0&bgcolor=255,255,0&trans=no&template=fah_original&.jpg" alt="PCA Folding Rules!" />[/align]
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiap ... .anniv.ap/
"Akiba didn't directly criticize Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions." Of course the dip didn't, its about bashing. Happens every year since its easy for revisionists with an agenda to say it didn't have to be done. And this is a continuation of it.
btw that number is overestimated.
Funny this dip accuses the US of 'Nuclear Worship'. Um hello it is North Korea that is in love with the bomb, thats why they have been pursuing it for many years.
Its sickening how the US is blamed when it is looneytune North Korea regime that ignores the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And now Iran does the same. But hey its Bush’s fault. Whatever.
Um countries are not supposed to be developing or spreading nukes around anyways. So if countries are not supposed to be developing nukes and aren’t, they have nothing to worry about. Especially non-totalitarian countries.
What we are talking about are rogue regimes which are going to go ahead and do whatever they want. And those are the ones the policy is meant for. Its patently ridiculous to blame Bush on bad behavior by Axis of Evil members.
Over 12 years Hussein was screwed around with. Thats not pre-emption, its a snails pace to do nothing!
Its about taking a firm line instead of a head in the sand, thumb up the arse approach to do nothing. Its about not sitting idly by and allowing tyrants regimes to do wantever they want to. Very reminiscent of during the 80’s when Reagan took a firm line on communism. I fondly remember libs and Eurowimps screaming their heads off about that
I think it is high time for tyrannical regimes to fear for their miserable lives, especially those that support terrorists!
Unfortunately others want to try the same old failed mispolicies of the past.
http://washingtontimes.com/world/200308 ... -6491r.htm
Check this crap out: N.Korea Tribunal Demands U.S. Apology, Compensation
Its a bunch of bs by a totally despotic regime desperate to stay in power. The Stalinist jerkoffs come up with unreasonable demands, engage in blackmail to get goodies and still break agreements. But we are supposed to give in to nuclear blackmail er “negotiate” with this regime?
This guy is living in Japan which is close to nutty North Korea. Yet he barely comments on North Korea and is more worried about the US? He bashes the country that helps protect his candy ass from attack. Screw him.
check this out: Iran Says It Won't Give Up Nuke Program
Think about it folks...Iran has large reserves of oil and gas but says its nuclear program will be used for power. Anyone here really believe that?
No one is forcing Iran to have a nuclear program. Furthermore, it is Iran keeping out International Atomic Energy Agency.
Somehow its extremely doubtful head North Korean nutjob Kim Jong Il will visit.
These warnings are of more use towards towards India and Pakistan who almost fought a war not long ago. There are those on both sides there who naively believe a nuke can be used without a full scale exchange.
hame
Sometime in the future we will see a nuke or dirty bomb used. Then people will cry why wasn’t more done to stop it?
"Akiba didn't directly criticize Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions." Of course the dip didn't, its about bashing. Happens every year since its easy for revisionists with an agenda to say it didn't have to be done. And this is a continuation of it.
btw that number is overestimated.
Funny this dip accuses the US of 'Nuclear Worship'. Um hello it is North Korea that is in love with the bomb, thats why they have been pursuing it for many years.
Its sickening how the US is blamed when it is looneytune North Korea regime that ignores the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And now Iran does the same. But hey its Bush’s fault. Whatever.
You may be amused the same exact story was posted on this website: http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20030806094720569Originally posted by Lmandrake
I find it singularly ironic that this news item came from a South African newspaper - because South Africa's relinquishing its nuclear weapons program was one of the successes of the non-proliferation treaty and other diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nukes. The non-prolif treaty worked awfully well for over 25 years considering how easy it is for countries to develop nukes. Not only South Africa, but also Argentina (I believe, or another south american country), discontinued nuke development in part because of the non-prolif treaty.
Once W. enters the picture, the U.S. policy becomes military pre-emption. Tell the world that development of nukes brings the risk of crushing U.S. military response. This seems fine, except you have to do this largely by yourself if you are the U.S. and, as we are beginning to figure out, there is just so much U.S. military to spread around. You can't flatten North Korea if you are still stuck in Iraq.
Unfortunately, it also encourages countries to get their own nukes while they can - before the U.S. can strike. So, Iran is working twice as hard now on its nukes. After all, if you need a defense against America, a nuke is a good thing to have.
Um countries are not supposed to be developing or spreading nukes around anyways. So if countries are not supposed to be developing nukes and aren’t, they have nothing to worry about. Especially non-totalitarian countries.
What we are talking about are rogue regimes which are going to go ahead and do whatever they want. And those are the ones the policy is meant for. Its patently ridiculous to blame Bush on bad behavior by Axis of Evil members.
Over 12 years Hussein was screwed around with. Thats not pre-emption, its a snails pace to do nothing!
Its about taking a firm line instead of a head in the sand, thumb up the arse approach to do nothing. Its about not sitting idly by and allowing tyrants regimes to do wantever they want to. Very reminiscent of during the 80’s when Reagan took a firm line on communism. I fondly remember libs and Eurowimps screaming their heads off about that
I think it is high time for tyrannical regimes to fear for their miserable lives, especially those that support terrorists!
Unfortunately others want to try the same old failed mispolicies of the past.
http://washingtontimes.com/world/200308 ... -6491r.htm
Because everyone knows appeasement works!In another development, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright writes in a memoir to be published next month that President Clinton invited Mr. Kim to visit Washington in late 2000.
Mrs. Albright also chides the Bush administration for not having continued Mr. Clinton's policy of engagement with North Korea.
Check this crap out: N.Korea Tribunal Demands U.S. Apology, Compensation
Its a bunch of bs by a totally despotic regime desperate to stay in power. The Stalinist jerkoffs come up with unreasonable demands, engage in blackmail to get goodies and still break agreements. But we are supposed to give in to nuclear blackmail er “negotiate” with this regime?
You probably already know this but the Japanese don’t like to know about their bad behavior during WWII. That is the audience he appeals to.This mayor is a politician playing up to his audience. Right or wrong, he's certainly outspoken for a Japanese politician.
This guy is living in Japan which is close to nutty North Korea. Yet he barely comments on North Korea and is more worried about the US? He bashes the country that helps protect his candy ass from attack. Screw him.
Nonsense. The nutty North Korea regime has been pursuing nukes for years before this administration. In reality it takes years to develop nukes-it just doesn’t happen overnight.Too true. To no small extent because of the philosophy and policies of the Bush administration.
check this out: Iran Says It Won't Give Up Nuke Program
rotflmao!Khatami said Iran had no desire for nuclear weapons, as the United States maintains, ``because we cannot use such weapons based on our Islamic and moral teachings.''
Iran wants advanced nuclear technology and then it’ll allow inspections. Does that make sense? And of course Iran puts the blame on the US.Iran has always said it would agree to unfettered inspections if it is granted access to advanced nuclear technology as provided for under the non-proliferation treaty. Tehran says Washington is keeping Iran from getting that technology.
Thats Bush’s fault. I stubbed my toe, thats his fault also.It said a three-month investigation found Iran had sought to conceal its weapons efforts from international inspectors.
Well geez just today Iran said its nuclear aims were confined to civilian purposes. And claimed its program was homemade. Sure. And maybe that Canadian journalist wasn’t murdered by the mad mullahs.The newspaper--citing sources ranging from previously secret reports, international officials, independent experts and Iranian exiles--reported that Iran made use of technology and scientists from Russia, North Korea, China and Pakistan to bring it closer to building a bomb than Iraq ever was.
Think about it folks...Iran has large reserves of oil and gas but says its nuclear program will be used for power. Anyone here really believe that?
No one is forcing Iran to have a nuclear program. Furthermore, it is Iran keeping out International Atomic Energy Agency.
It is an an interesting question what the rotten Hussein regime did with its WMD programs and materials. Hopefully it'll be answered.We did our best to minimize civilian casualties. Nonetheless, civilians did die. Where are those weapons of mass destruction anyway? Where is the nerve gas, where are the biological weapons, where are the Iraqi nuke facilities?
The US hasn’t forgotten the horror of nukes-thats why we haven’t used them since. Some people haven’t forgotten that by using nukes many lives were saved, but hey good luck in convincing the America bashers out there. We are always wrong no matter what.Here he goes over the top. However, nobody has a nuke program like us. We build the best the world has ever seen. The smallest, lightest, most portable and usable nuclear weapons man can build. If I am not an American, if I am from one of the two places on earth that has actually been touched by the fire from the only use of nukes on human targets, maybe I am entitled to be a little queasy and a little over the top about two policies - pre-emptive use of military force and continued nuke development - that could converge.
Step away from your jingoistic outrage for just a second. We were entirely right to do it, but we are the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon on anybody else. We forget the significance of that because we did it to end a horrifically bloody conflict where neither side took prisoners. People have now forgotten what kind of struggle that was. They do remember that we used nukes, and used them on cities. If the Mayor of Hiroshima is a little nervous about nuclear weapons, I think he is entitled.
If every leader of every country that has nukes, or seeks to have nukes, had to visit Hiroshima, I don't think that is a bad thing.
Somehow its extremely doubtful head North Korean nutjob Kim Jong Il will visit.
These warnings are of more use towards towards India and Pakistan who almost fought a war not long ago. There are those on both sides there who naively believe a nuke can be used without a full scale exchange.
hameSometime in the future we will see a nuke or dirty bomb used. Then people will cry why wasn’t more done to stop it?
The mayor of Hiroshima seems to forget the number of people the Japanese killed during their occupation of China and the attrocities committed there. He forgets the number of prisoners that died in enforced "death marches" and in their prison camps. He also forgets the number of American dollars that went into Japan after the war to rebuild that country.
MAC
MAC
The non-prolif treaty can only work if the US supports it. We used to. Now we don't.
Nobody is forcing Iran to have a nuke program? Gee, if somebody invaded Canada, wouldn't you notice? What if they invaded Mexico next? Would you feel the need for more powerful weapons then?
The point about the danger of the pre-emption policy is that it encourages states - "rogue" states or not - to work harder to develop nukes and get them before the pre-empting power can strike.
So tell me, since any other policy other than pre-emption is apparently appeasement, where do we go to war next? Korea or Iran? Can we do it? Both at the same time?
Nobody is forcing Iran to have a nuke program? Gee, if somebody invaded Canada, wouldn't you notice? What if they invaded Mexico next? Would you feel the need for more powerful weapons then?
The point about the danger of the pre-emption policy is that it encourages states - "rogue" states or not - to work harder to develop nukes and get them before the pre-empting power can strike.
So tell me, since any other policy other than pre-emption is apparently appeasement, where do we go to war next? Korea or Iran? Can we do it? Both at the same time?
-
TheSovereign
- Posts: 2957
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:03 am
- Location: chicago
- Contact:
mandrake you should know that pre emptive strikes only work if u can deliver your payload
all these countries developing nukes with no delivery system is useless the only one to worry about now is north k.
if i were commander it would work like this
n korea launches one of its test missiles and 2 minutes later half of north korea is vaporized in a brilliant flash of light leaving nothing but blue glass and perma-shadows
our problem is that we let these people walk all over these treaties(whether they sign them or not) with no consequence as the gunny sarge lee ermy says....."once again diplomacy has failed us"
they talk and make threats....their only method of attack, terrorism, for that is the one and only way they can strike us...but if we continue to take out the country's non freindly and harboring terrorists people will think twice
personally i think we should make examples out of the guant. bay prisons by soaking some bullets in pigs blood and putting them out of our misery
all these countries developing nukes with no delivery system is useless the only one to worry about now is north k.
if i were commander it would work like this
n korea launches one of its test missiles and 2 minutes later half of north korea is vaporized in a brilliant flash of light leaving nothing but blue glass and perma-shadows
our problem is that we let these people walk all over these treaties(whether they sign them or not) with no consequence as the gunny sarge lee ermy says....."once again diplomacy has failed us"
they talk and make threats....their only method of attack, terrorism, for that is the one and only way they can strike us...but if we continue to take out the country's non freindly and harboring terrorists people will think twice
personally i think we should make examples out of the guant. bay prisons by soaking some bullets in pigs blood and putting them out of our misery
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rc96joOz8#t=0m58s">YodelRoll!</a>
<a href="http://www.halfinchbullet.com/">Goto HalfInchBullet.com!</a>
<a href="http://www.halfinchbullet.com/">Goto HalfInchBullet.com!</a>
Iran didn’t just start its nuke program in January of 2002. In truth they've been working on it for years-long before GWB got in. And some people thought Iran would be nuclear by now.Originally posted by Lmandrake
The non-prolif treaty can only work if the US supports it. We used to. Now we don't.
Nobody is forcing Iran to have a nuke program? Gee, if somebody invaded Canada, wouldn't you notice? What if they invaded Mexico next? Would you feel the need for more powerful weapons then?
The point about the danger of the pre-emption policy is that it encourages states - "rogue" states or not - to work harder to develop nukes and get them before the pre-empting power can strike.
So tell me, since any other policy other than pre-emption is apparently appeasement, where do we go to war next? Korea or Iran? Can we do it? Both at the same time?
from January 17, 2000 C.I.A. Tells Clinton an Iranian A-Bomb Can't Be Ruled Out
January/February 2000: Russia Reaffirms Nuclear Aid Commitment to Iran
April 2000: Clinton Signs 'Iran Nonproliferation Act'
Iran Nuclear Update, 2000 http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countri ... ke2000.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm
Geez was GWB president then?!? Well was he?Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and Iranians officials generally deny that they are engaged in developing a military nuclear capability. However, in a February 1987 address to Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, President Ali Khamene'i stated:
"Regarding atomic energy, we need it now... Our nation has always been threatened from outside. The least we can do to face this danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your evolution. With this in mind, you should work hard and at great speed."
Weren’t the North Koreans acting up when Clinton was in there? You bet your butt they were!
GWB came in, North Korea got caught continuing its clandestine nuclear program then got outraged cause it wasn’t given more goodies.
Don’t you understand...these rogue regimes want nukes and by Allah they will get nukes! They don’t care about international rules. These two countries, North Korea and Iran, would still be developing nukes even if Gore was president.
Reality is if a never-do-well country wants to have a nuclear program, it will have one. Especially when it get support from other rogue regimes. Axis of Evil indeed. And all this talking won’t accomplish crap because the rotten regimes care little about international pressure.
You tell me what other policy there is sir. Don’t bother mentioning bilateral talks with Norea Korea. That is nothing more than a shakedown by that totally murderous regime.
How about pulling US troops out of South Korea. But then that leaves a power vacuum. So in response South Korea goes nuclear and so does Japan. That is two more countries with nukes. That goes against non-proliferation of nukes and its not comforting to know even more countries are nuclear.
What about Asian powers {Japan, South Korea, US, Russia and China} in that region put a total embargo on North Korea. But that won’t work since some countries like Russia and China will still sell to N. Korea. In particular...China wants to preserve North Korea as a client state and make money by shipping food and oil. Without China shipping supplies, N. Korea would go dark. But noooo, China won't support sanctions. So what are you going to do man?
Do we give them the goodies and they still build nukes? Thats not a policy...thats stupidity!
What are you going to do...lecture them in a stern voice, “Don’t do that.”
Like that works so well with despots. 
You are perfectly correct in saying that finger-wagging doesn't work. You are also perfectly correct in saying that both Iran and N. Korea have been working to get nukes for a long time, including well before W. took office. Finally, its also very true that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major blow to efforts to stem proliferation of nukes. The Soviets didn't want anybody else to have nukes either and took efforts to prevent their "client" states from getting nukes. China has not filled the vacuum left by the Soviets, but don't think for a second that they like the idea of a nuclear armed North Korea. They don't.
Clinton essentially tried to bribe N. Korea out of their nuke program. Shut it down and we will give you x and y. However, Congress didn't like the idea very much and we never delivered much of the "payoff" - which is, I am sure, how you would describe it. The N. Koreans backed off and waited. They didn't feel threatened, so they rested a bit. But not entirely and they probably helped the Pakis get their bomb, or at least their missiles. So Clinton failed. The Clinton administration itself did not do very well at all at non-proliferation.
Here is the point. Non-proliferation through diplomatic means worked not because "bad" states or leaders decided they would obey the treaty and not have programs. It worked because the international community respected the treaty and, for the most part, cut off the flow of technology to potential nuke states. It makes the effort to get a nuke that much harder, because nukes are simple in concept but extremely hard in execution.
So you say W. has no choice but to threaten pre-emption. However, unless we start doing much better in getting out of Iraq, it is kind of an empty threat (unless we go the Sov route and embark on mass murder on a scale that would put both Hitler and Stalin to shame). Bush inherited a bad situation. I think pre-emption as a policy makes it worse unless you can carry it off.
If I were the Japanese, I would be building a weapons program right now. Why, because the U.S. threat to N. Korea is making the North expand their program. And, if Uncle Sugar doesn't pre-empt, I better defend myself. In the end, it just adds up to more nukes all around.
What would I do about N. Korea right now? I guess I would appeal to the Chinese desire to not have a nuke armed North. Failing that, you might just give them everything they think they want. If they are not a "rogue" or sanctioned state, they don't have to trade their nuke technology and missile technology for stuff they need. After that, you wait. Because recent history indicates that unless held together by religion, despotic governments fail when the people get a taste of how the rest of the world functions. Certainly you can call it appeasement, but the carrot may work just as well as the stick. (I am convinced that Castro would evaporate two years after we normalized relations with Cuba. Give half the people in Cuba an internet connection and Castro is toast.)
Clinton essentially tried to bribe N. Korea out of their nuke program. Shut it down and we will give you x and y. However, Congress didn't like the idea very much and we never delivered much of the "payoff" - which is, I am sure, how you would describe it. The N. Koreans backed off and waited. They didn't feel threatened, so they rested a bit. But not entirely and they probably helped the Pakis get their bomb, or at least their missiles. So Clinton failed. The Clinton administration itself did not do very well at all at non-proliferation.
Here is the point. Non-proliferation through diplomatic means worked not because "bad" states or leaders decided they would obey the treaty and not have programs. It worked because the international community respected the treaty and, for the most part, cut off the flow of technology to potential nuke states. It makes the effort to get a nuke that much harder, because nukes are simple in concept but extremely hard in execution.
So you say W. has no choice but to threaten pre-emption. However, unless we start doing much better in getting out of Iraq, it is kind of an empty threat (unless we go the Sov route and embark on mass murder on a scale that would put both Hitler and Stalin to shame). Bush inherited a bad situation. I think pre-emption as a policy makes it worse unless you can carry it off.
If I were the Japanese, I would be building a weapons program right now. Why, because the U.S. threat to N. Korea is making the North expand their program. And, if Uncle Sugar doesn't pre-empt, I better defend myself. In the end, it just adds up to more nukes all around.
What would I do about N. Korea right now? I guess I would appeal to the Chinese desire to not have a nuke armed North. Failing that, you might just give them everything they think they want. If they are not a "rogue" or sanctioned state, they don't have to trade their nuke technology and missile technology for stuff they need. After that, you wait. Because recent history indicates that unless held together by religion, despotic governments fail when the people get a taste of how the rest of the world functions. Certainly you can call it appeasement, but the carrot may work just as well as the stick. (I am convinced that Castro would evaporate two years after we normalized relations with Cuba. Give half the people in Cuba an internet connection and Castro is toast.)
-
TheSovereign
- Posts: 2957
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:03 am
- Location: chicago
- Contact:
Originally posted by Lmandrake
(I am convinced that Castro would evaporate two years after we normalized relations with Cuba. Give half the people in Cuba an internet connection and Castro is toast.)
that i can agree with
but remember china as a communist government is only about half communist
they have a free market society and are only communist in people's social standings
the stop freedom of religion and speech and the rest of what we hold dear
but they allow buisness' to run freely allowing them the capitol to stay alive
with countries like china sapping away from the artery of the world the only thing to do is sanction them to complete death
and unfortunatly it does mean death since food is scarcly grown in china
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rc96joOz8#t=0m58s">YodelRoll!</a>
<a href="http://www.halfinchbullet.com/">Goto HalfInchBullet.com!</a>
<a href="http://www.halfinchbullet.com/">Goto HalfInchBullet.com!</a>