NK Admitts to Having Nukes

Operation Ivy

Newbie
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
N. Korea Admits to Nukes, Backs Out of Talks
Thursday, February 10, 2005

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea publicly admitted Thursday for the first time that it has nuclear weapons, and said it wouldn't return to six-nation talks aimed at getting it to abandon its nuclear ambitions

Diplomats have said that North Korea has acknowledged having nuclear arms in private talks, but this is the first time the communist government has said so directly to the public.

"We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) and have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever-more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

DPRK refers to the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

North Korea's "nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances," the ministry said. "The present reality proves that only powerful strength can protect justice and truth."

Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks in Beijing aimed at persuading the North to abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards. But no significant progress has been made.

A fourth round scheduled for September was canceled when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.

Thursday's statement came after President Bush started his second term last month by refraining from direct criticism of North Korea — raising hopes that the North would return to the stalled nuclear talks. But North Korea said it had little hope for improved ties during Bush's second term office.

"We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks," the North said Thursday.

North Korea said it came to its decision because "the U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick."

Still, North Korea said it retained its "principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged.

sorry no link, but turn your TV on ,its on the news
 
Yea, but thats in offtopic....when it should clearly be in politics.
 
Yeah, who saw that coming? :|

I'm sure Bush has more though, so that's ok.

/sarcasm
 
When are the nuclear tests? I'm trying to book my tickets to go watch...
 
I've never understood the whole "US shouldn't have nukes when NK can't have any" type arguments.

If we give a gun to a cop, does that mean we should also supply them to serial killers? Conversely, if we take away guns from serial killers, does that mean we should take them from cops too?

I don't get the logic.
 
Hmm.... I'm gonna be pissed if we choose Iran over NK (if we *had* to invade someone else).

Why? It would be saying "Get nuclear weapons! and get them quickly! If you openly admit that you have them, the US won't mess with you...but make sure you don't leave a moment when you "might" have them.... because that's when you'll be attacked."

We've made our point in Iraq, and we can use that as a bargining chip... we don't actually *have* to invade other countries... :/
 
GhostFox said:
I've never understood the whole "US shouldn't have nukes when NK can't have any" type arguments.

If we give a gun to a cop, does that mean we should also supply them to serial killers? Conversely, if we take away guns from serial killers, does that mean we should take them from cops too?

I don't get the logic.

Who the **** is the United States to assume the role of global cop and impose its own brand of justice on other nations?

Any way, I think it's great that Bush has completely skirted around the issue of NK and instead set his aim on nations that don't pose an actual threat.
 
SidewinderX said:
Hmm.... I'm gonna be pissed if we choose Iran over NK (if we *had* to invade someone else).

Why? It would be saying "Get nuclear weapons! and get them quickly! If you openly admit that you have them, the US won't mess with you...but make sure you don't leave a moment when you "might" have them.... because that's when you'll be attacked."

We've made our point in Iraq, and we can use that as a bargining chip... we don't actually *have* to invade other countries... :/

But the longer you leave NK, the longer they have to arm themselves. And a NK war would be far more difficult than Iraq.

And the army wouldn't surrender readily like a lot of the Iraqi army, you'd probably get swarms of trained sucide soldiers, far more than the occasional one you'd get in Iraq, athetists who are faithful to their beloved leader suddenly seem a lot more threatening than muslim extremists (that's my judgement based on traits inherited from wartime Japan, and vietnam's behaviour in the vietnam war).
And I bet with all the state propaganda, the citizens are going to resist just as much as the army, much more than the case in Iraq now.
Just my thoughts, on analysis of the Far-Eastern mindset. They are highly devote and nationalistic.

And NK would probably get logistical support from China, if nothing else, seeing as they are allies.
 
Who the **** is the United States to assume the role of global cop and impose its own brand of justice on other nations?

Not saying that the US should be the global cop. Only that it is logical for respecting coutries not run by crazed dictators to have nukes, and not want the crazy countries to have them.
 
GhostFox said:
I've never understood the whole "US shouldn't have nukes when NK can't have any" type arguments.

If we give a gun to a cop, does that mean we should also supply them to serial killers? Conversely, if we take away guns from serial killers, does that mean we should take them from cops too?

I don't get the logic.

its more like saying to your neigbour he can't have a gun to protect himself and you can
 
^^ The problem comes when you assume morality. Anyone arrogant enough to assume the US' superior morality after reading up needs to get a grip.
 
its more like saying to your neigbour he can't have a gun to protect himself and you can

If my neighbour was a crazy psycho killer, of course I am going to tell him he can't have a gun. Who wouldn't?
 
GhostFox said:
Not saying that the US should be the global cop. Only that it is logical for respecting coutries not run by crazed dictators to have nukes, and not want the crazy countries to have them.

Crazed people who invade countries on false pretenses, resulting in thousands of dead innocents?
Countries that sell chemical weapons, and other types of WMD to politically unstable countries, and ones with appalling human rights records?
Countries with a very large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Countries that break internatinal law.

I'm being dramatic, but just demonstrating how there's never a black and white. The US cannot go around doing what its doing, possess nuclear weapons, then say NK can't have them.

And NK are not likely to use them. As soon as they did they'd be obliterated, I doubt they want that.
 
burner69 said:
Crazed people who invade countries on false pretenses, resulting in thousands of dead innocents?
Countries that sell chemical weapons, and other types of WMD to politically unstable countries, and ones with appalling human rights records?
Countries with a very large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Countries that break internatinal law.

I'm being dramatic, but just demonstrating how there's never a black and white. The US cannot go around doing what its doing, possess nuclear weapons, then say NK can't have them.

And NK are not likely to use them. As soon as they did they'd be obliterated, I doubt they want that.
QFT.

It's been proven thousands of times on this board america has done all those things.
 
And NK are not likely to use them. As soon as they did they'd be obliterated, I doubt they want that.

Yes they will, and no they will not care about being obliterated. Even if you think the absolute worst about the US, to try to equate it at all to NK is so asinine it actually makes my brain hurt.

You honestly know that the US isn't going to go around nuking everyone.

NK is run by an insane madman who probably thinks it would be great if his people could all die with him in a gigantic fireball.
 
Bush would be F*cked if he decided to invade NK, not only do they have a nuclear arsenal but they have the chinese to back them up, World War ensures.

I guess I just realised why Bush decided to have a go ahead with the revamped Star Wars program, because he knew he was going to invade NK.

Guys, I think it is time to put on your HasMaz suits, I think this is going to be the big deal.
 
GhostFox said:
NK is run by an insane madman who probably thinks it would be great if his people could all die with him in a gigantic fireball.

He probably would. That crazed dictator, think of all the burnt bodies he'd have power over. He'd be so powerful.... hold on... oh, you say he wants to die too? Ah yes, he probably does. He's soooo crazy he wants to blow himself and his country up.
Better take those nukes off him before he does himself a mischief.


You were joking, right?
 
burner69 said:
He probably would. That crazed dictator, think of all the burnt bodies he'd have power over. He'd be so powerful.... hold on... oh, you say he wants to die too? Ah yes, he probably does. He's soooo crazy he wants to blow himself and his country up.
Better take those nukes off him before he does himself a mischief.


You were joking, right?
He wasn't.

We might as well invade NK anyways...we already screwed ourselves.
 
I think this just shows how some people need to polarize things in order to make sense of the world.

America: Courageous! Benevolent! Noble! Valiant! Upstanding!

North Korea: Crazy! Amoral! Warmongering! Brutal! Suicidal!
 
Wait...are you serious that you actually believe that Kim Jong isn't some nut who would let his country be nuked into oblivion if he thought he could take out say SK/Japan at the same time?
 
GhostFox said:
Wait...are you serious that you actually believe that Kim Jong isn't some nut who would let his country be nuked into oblivion if he thought he could take out say SK/Japan at the same time?
Uhh yes I think they are, and how in the world could you possibly believe that a POWERMONGER such as kim jong would want to lose his power?
 
Depends if the title "Lord Of The Ashes" is one he has a liking to.
 
Kommie said:
Uhh yes I think they are, and how in the world could you possibly believe that a POWERMONGER such as kim jong would want to lose his power?
Well he is gonna lose his power one way or another.
 
Uhh yes I think they are, and how in the world could you possibly believe that a POWERMONGER such as kim jong would want to lose his power?

1) He thinks he is a God, so he probably thinks it will just give him more souls to control in the afterlife or something.

2) He is old. What happens when he is dying and decides that he wants to go out with a bang?

3) He may think the sacrifice of NK is nessicary. What part of completely bonkers don't you understand.

You act like you expect him to make rational decisions.
 
Im not worried about Iran or NK because they know if they do anything to us or the western world they will gone in a matter of minutes.
NK though should be spending some $$ to help its people instead of spending it all on these nukes...heres an example

nklights.jpg
 
GhostFox said:
1) He thinks he is a God, so he probably thinks it will just give him more souls to control in the afterlife or something.

2) He is old. What happens when he is dying and decides that he wants to go out with a bang?

3) He may think the sacrifice of NK is nessicary. What part of completely bonkers don't you understand.

You act like you expect him to make rational decisions.
...and you act like you're his shrink or something.

You must be good friends with him.
 
GhostFox said:
1) He thinks he is a God, so he probably thinks it will just give him more souls to control in the afterlife or something.

Okay, now it's my turn.

*Ahem*

Are you serious?

2) He is old. What happens when he is dying and decides that he wants to go out with a bang?

Are you really serious?

3) He may think the sacrifice of NK is nessicary. What part of completely bonkers don't you understand.

He "may". He "could". He "might". Etc...

You really aren't laying out a convincing argument.

You act like you expect him to make rational decisions.

I think he understands that trying any shit would result in him getting his ass pounded back into the stone age.
 
*Ahem*

Are you serious?

Yes, his teachings state that he is a living god. Why are you so uninformed?

Are you really serious?

Are you denying he is old? The man is in his 60's, and never has had great health. He could easily go in the next 10 years.

I think he understands that trying any shit would result in him getting his ass pounded back into the stone age.

What has he ever done to give you that impression? All his lunitical ravings have convinced you that the man is sane?
 
Absinthe said:
Who the **** is the United States to assume the role of global cop and impose its own brand of justice on other nations?

Any way, I think it's great that Bush has completely skirted around the issue of NK and instead set his aim on nations that don't pose an actual threat.
The US isn't saying this, the UN is. Yes, the UN is the global police.
 
GhostFox said:
What has he ever done to give you that impression? All his lunitical ravings have convinced you that the man is sane?

Could you show me a reliable source for that?
 
Could you show me a reliable source for that?

Please tell me you are kidding. Go to google and type in "Kim Jong Il, Insane" You will get 14,200 hits all about how nuts the guy is. This is common knowladge people. It should not be a surprise to you.
 
GhostFox said:
Please tell me you are kidding. Go to google and type in "Kim Jong Il, Insane" You will get 14,200 hits all about how nuts the guy is. This is common knowladge people. It should not be a surprise to you.

No mention of a desire for nuclear oblivion.
No mention of God.
He did change the month of April and word for bread to honour his dead mother though.
 
Israel will take care of Iran. Israel will bomb Iran's reactors, just like they did Iraq's.

NK will collapse and the people will revolt, that or we will do something in retaliation.

The UN is going to do nothing. They don't give a damn about humanitarian violations. They might pass a resolution, but what does that mean? Others can ignore resolutions for entire decades and nothing happnes.

I bet the UN would be interested in NK if some of its members were bribed under the guise of humanitarian effort, though.
 
Back
Top