Page 6 of 6

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:20 pm
by lastone
So when the U.S. Conducted these Nuclear tests who were they trying to piss off?


It seems their is an attitude of do what I say not as I do?
Between 16 July 1945 and 23 September 1992 the United States of America conducted (by official count) 1054 nuclear tests, and two nuclear attacks. The number of actual nuclear devices (aka "bombs") tested, and nuclear explosions is larger than this, but harder to establish precisely. Some devices that were tested failed to produce any noticeable explosion (some by design, some not), other "tests" (by official definition) were actually multiple device detonations. It is not clear whether all multiple device tests have yet been identified, and enumerated. ... ndex.shtml

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:04 am
by MrB
And then, of course, you have the wonderful set of missile launches that North Korea made in was appears very strongly to be an attempt to provoke the US and Japan...

First, launching more than one on the same day is not really test-launching, in that with test-launching, you will launch one, then run a myriad of tests to see what worked as it should have and what did not, and then find out why the stuff that didn't, did not work properly. Second, did you note the fact that they were launched at a time when in the United States, they'd be celebrating their Independence Day? Third, they launched them toward the island of Hokkaido, Japan.

That's not all, I'm sure, but those are the points at which I'd like to point for now.
I have a theory on this, not really based on any factual evidence, other than what is generally known, so here me out, then you can tell me what you think...

North Korea is a fairly poor country, there is evidence that starvation exists on a fairly extensive scale (bare with me, all will become clear). The US and UK and other supporters, seem to have turned their attention away from NK's attempts at Nuclear weapons development, more in favour of Iran and the fear of Terror groups obtaining Radioactive material that can be turned into the "dirty bomb". I have a feeling that the NK government have seen an opportunity to end the state of war that exists between it and South Korea/USA after all, the Korean war never really ended, they just instigated a cessation of hostilities... they stopped shooting at each other ! :wink:

Now we all know that communism doesn't really work, we have seen evidence of this with the USSR, i.e. the birth and death of a whole ideology (for that country and it's satellites) within a century and the communism practiced in China isn't really Communism, it's more of a watered down version.

In North Korea there exists this so called communism, whereby everyone is equal, everyone is worth the same, yada yada yada, the problem is, as I have said the Korean general public are starving, there is limited resources to go around, I can't imagine people being overjoyed with that, so much so that News reports, when they have been leaked have intimated of food riots directed at the government.

Now here's where I think my theory may (or may not) have credence. The Korean Government fearing that a break down of law and order, of further food riots, mass starvation, disease and any other number of catastrophic problems, may push them out of that cushy little number they've got going, need to appease the masses, how better to do this than to end the state of war that exists, and start communicating with the rest of the world, and ultimately to trade with the west, however, at the moment what they need is aid, food supplies, I would imagine drugs and medical supplies and probably a whole host of other things to get them out of the s**t. But how do you ask for aid from a country that you've spent the last 50-60 years describing as the enemy ? How do you save face in front of your own people when you've spent years telling them how bad the Western World is ?

I personally think that NK has no interest in Nuclear proliferation, what I do think is this is a cry for help, they want to bring the richer countries back to the diplomatic table in order to save their country at the same time as saving face.

Just a theory...

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:30 am
by aldan
That is possible regarding the reason they think they are doing this. However, the leader of that wonderful land has always seemed rather, um, emotionally childish in many ways, and so while he may think he's doing it for one reason, the true reason may be completely different...

As an example, if a bully beats up a geeky kid, and then the school's director asks him why he did it, chances are the bully will NOT say that he beat the kid up because he's a geek, but that would probably be WHY he thinks he did it. He probably won't even realize that the psychological reason for it, be it to act like his brutal father, to try to make up for some weakness in himself, or whatever, is the actual reason it was done.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:43 am
by Qray
Merle wrote:
MrB wrote:Condeleezza has come out and said that the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan (and I would add the UK, there are British troops there after all) would defeat "ruthless, determined enemies" in Afghanistan.

I wonder what makes her think this when Soviet troops spent ten years in that country and they couldn't manage it, in fact I remember reading somewhere they were "soundly beaten"...

comments anyone ?
I think there is a difference here, as opposed to the Soviet situation. The Soviets basically conquered Afghanistan, and the Afghans could unite to repulse the common enemy. In the current situation, Afghans are fighting alongside the Coalition troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants. So the country is not united against a foreign invader this time.
To add to what Merle said, the 1978-92 Afghanistan War also had a few other marked differences. The Mujahidin, the anti-Communist Afghan guerrillas that fought the Soviets had Superpower backing. Namely the United States (and also to a somewhat smaller extent, aid from China and Saudi Arabia.)

Nothing against the bravery, determination, and skill of the Mujahidin, but without such medical, monetary, and weapons aid, the war may have ended up very differently. I think that the Mujahidin's use of U.S. antiaircraft missiles to take out Soviet Hinds in itself a major difference.

In the current war in Afghanistan, the opposition guerrillas and the radical Muslims have no Superpower backing. They have no worldwide support. All they have is the support of other radical Muslims.

Not to say that it's not a valid question or worth discussing, but IMO it's just another example of comparing apples to oranges. Just like saying "Iraq is just like Vietnam" while it doesn't compare at all to Vietnam, but rather post war Germany in the mid to late 40's.

Would one say "if the U.S. went to war with Canada it would be just like it was in 1812?" Not that I'm advocating any hostilities to our neighbor to the North. Just using that as an example.

Author's Note : By using the term radical Muslims Q does not mean to imply all (or even the majority) of those of the Islamic faith are radical. The term radical being garnered from how Muslims in the U.S. view the actions of such.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:08 pm
by Qray
aldan wrote:...However, the leader of that wonderful land has always seemed rather, um, emotionally childish in many ways...
You mean Kim Jong II, the winner of that countries "Elvis Impersonators Contest?" (Thanks to Lewis Black.)

Ok, ok...that was kinda of childish of me...but I don't run a country, so I'm allowed ;-])

I agree with both Aldan and Mr. B. There doesn't seem to be much testing going on. Though they did fire their Taepodong missile and could have tested the results of that firing amongst the obvious message of the rest of the missile firings.

Kim Jong II wants to meet with just the U.S. at the bargaining table, but the U.S. still refuses. Instead being part of six-party talks with North and South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.

IMO this situation reminds me very much of a bully or a protection racket...give me what I want, or this is what I'll do.

Only on a global scale.

Lastone there is a marked difference between firing off a bunch of Soviet era short range scuds and one long range missile in the direction of Japan and the nuclear testing conducted under controlled circumstances in isolated areas by not only the U.S., but the former Soviet Union, and China.