Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hicks
I didn't discount the fact that they're only motivation would be to stay in power however if anything testing a nuclear weapon actually makes their position more unstable.
|
All that means is that they were wrong, but it's debateable anyway and doesn't really matter.
The fact remains that if you accept that NK acts from that position there is no way they would launch an aggressive nuclear strike.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hicks
The world was already treating North Korea as if they had a nuclear weapon and as mentioned earlier they already have all the deterrent to stay in power that they need. In addition their proximity to China effectively ruled out any military action. While they're right to feel threatened by the US troops stationed in Korea and Japan and by the overturns of the current administration by testing a nuclear weapon they've given far more of a pretext to those who would want military action against them. If they'd chosen to co-operate they would have been able to maintain adequate deterrent, seen sanctions reduced and aid start again. Then they could have gone to the happy process of siphoning it all off towards the military.Their posistion is no more secure now than yesterday, if anything it's less secure.
|
It's secure because they have nukes so the military losses sustained by anyone enacting a regime change in NK would be huge. It's not complicated. In terms of raw power they took a huge step up today, and power = security. Even if you don't agree with that assessment you can be damn sure that the NK leadership do, otherwise they wouldn't have acted as they did.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hicks
While I've always been one to rail against the idea of Al-Qaeda being a well organised movement, taking a position at the opposite end of the spectrum is equally silly. Honestly both our sources are the mainstream media so I'm not going to make any wild claims about terrorist funding or organisational capacity. Do I think they have the funds to obtain a nuclear weapon, yes, while terrorist funding is one of the few areas where there has been any success post 9/11 I still believe there are more than enough people with more than enough money to buy a bomb or the knowledge to create one. I think the more likely route of proliferation would be from North Korea to another state and then than state to a more nefarious group. Do I think there are organisations capable of delivering a bomb, again I have no idea though I can't imagine it's super hard to do.
|
What makes you think my source is the mainstream media? I was saying that it was the media which was perpetuating the myths.
I don't believe that to be the case basically. Are you saying that the Government and media don't distort the facts here? I don't know from exactly what position you can be arguing from if you don't challenge this assertion:
That we are fed spin about the terrorist threat by the Government and the media so that we are more afraid of it and a more cohesive society as a consequence.
Thats the basic neo-con ideology on the subject as far as im aware and they are currently controlling the Whitehouse which is instrumental in perpetuating said myths.
If you don't challenge this and then argue from a position of vague beliefs while admitting that the mainstream media is your only source, then your argument holds no water.
My views on this have come from the mainstream media, after a fashion. It was a BBC documentary someone linked to from another forum a couple of weeks ago. I admit that I'm forming my opinions* very quickly to be speaking with such confidence now. But all I ask is that if you do challenge this assertion, you watch the video.
It's actually 3 one hour documentaries, this is part of it which relates directly to what I mean about the terrorist threat being smaller than it is though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQJ8x57o9ro
The whole thing is called "The power of nightmares" though, you can search youtube or whatever and find the whole thing if you want. I haven't studied how reliable a source it is in much detail, but it is a BBC documentary. I realise it may seem silly to cite a BBC documentary as part of an argument that the media is systematically misleading the public. If you watch the whole thing I imagine it seems less crackpotty than if you just watch the ten minute segment I linked to.
Anyway, enough of that. The point was, you can't not refute the claim that you are being fed a lie by the media and government, admit you have no other sources, and then put forward your argument as vague beliefs without any actual basis except your own supposition.
*or solidifying really, I always knew there was something very not right going on, this just fleshed out the details for me
edit: just thought id mention that im going to a friends house now so probably won't be able to reply cogently until tomorrow morning at the earliest, and I may not feel like it tomorrow. So bye!