Do you think North Korea has the right to test Nuclear weapons?

Answer 1

We do.

Answer 2

They are an independent country and certainly have the right to do what they want provided they don't harm anyone else. So yes they have the right to test their nuclear weapons.

They do not have the right to conduct water, airborne, or on land experiments though (they did their test underground).

They also do not have the right to use those weapons or to commit nuclear blackmail, which is the only reason for this recent test.

North Korea has had the nuclear bomb for quite a while; this test only confirms that they have it publicly. The Intelligence agencies of several countries have known about their arsenal for quite some time. That's why Japan got so angry when North Korea dropped a missile in the Sea of Japan, and why the US put its antimissile defense force on alert when North Korea tried to test a missile that could reach California.

The famous Scud Missiles of Desert Storm had only the most primitive of guidance systems. They did some harm to their targets, but not much. The warhead was large enough to carry a chemical, biological, or nuclear warhead though. That was a huge threat, since the world thought that Iraq actually had those weapons (they may have had them and destroyed them before the US invaded so that Iraq could claim to be innocent). North Korea supplied the scud missiles to Iraq, and you can bet they did not give up their best technology. It was always debated if a nuclear bomb was included in the sale or not; no one knew. Remember the US did not find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t there. Saddam Hussian would rather send his weapons of mass destruction to Syria or his enemy in Iran rather than leave them for the US to find. If WMDs were found in Iran then the US would be justified in its attacks, Saddam Hussian would love to cheat the US out of that justification. The case still isn’t strong enough to have gone to war, but possibilities will always exist. It is the job of Intelligence Agencies to find out which possibilities are true, and after the Cold War the US Intelligence fields were heavily cut back. The human intelligence operations suffered even more, as the US began to rely on the NSA and its electronic wiretapping and receiving technology. Unfortunately, all that high tech doesn’t work well in nations where the horse is still considered a major source of transportation, and they don’t tap into land lines or human messengers.

Japan isn't worried about a Scud missile or something longer ranged hitting the waters off shore. They are FRANTICALLY worried about a nuclear bomb being delivered into the Sea of Japan. Close enough is very good when using nuclear weapons. A close water strike could create a tsunami that would hit Japan, it would poison the sea, and it would seriously hurt the fishing, which Japan relies on to feed its large population. Most of Japan’s cities are on the coast so a water attack would be especially devastating. Most of Japan is mountainous, and a lot of that has been turned over to raising rice. Fishing is incredibly valuable to Japan, and the population has been forced to live near the sea. The effects of a nuclear attack could replicate Chernobyl, that place will be still radioactive for thousands of years. Then there is the fallout. If the wind is blowing in the right direction then it can pollute large sections of Japan. Remember, Japan is the ONLY nation with first hand experience of what a nuclear attack can do, and that was with only two primitive atomic bombs.

According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_bombing
The attack on Nagasaki had a blast yield equivalent to 21 kilotons of TNT. The blast yeild of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima was only the equivalent of 13 kilotons of TNT (it was a weaker uranimum bomb, while the one over Nagasaki was the new plutionium bomb). The Hiroshima exploded about 600 meters (2,000 ft) over its target killing about 140,000 people in the long run. In Nagasaki the atomic bomb exploded 469 meters (1,540 ft) above the ground, the blast was confined to the Urakami Valley and a major portion of the city was protected by the intervening hills. The total number of residents killed may have been as many as 80,000. These attacks were designed to be limited ones. The US didn’t want to kill a lot of people, still they managed to kill 220,000 people, with only two attacks.

Now imagine a North Korean atomic bomb of say 30 or 40 kilotons. It would be deployed over a populated area, or worse yet a water explosion. The population has grown quickly, and Toyoko has the largest population of any city in the world. The death tolls could easly pass the millions per attack. That is a fear too great for Japan to even consider. After WW2 the Japanese Constitution limited the Japanese Defense Force greatly. In Desert Storm Japan wanted to provide support for the effort, but their Constitution was so limiting that they couldn’t send the troops, even if they were only going to be used in support roles far behind the lines.

The Japanese Defense Force is mainly geared to assist in times of natural disaster. They don’t have anywhere near the force to protect themselves from North Korea. By tradition and treaty that is the job of the US. So an attack by North Korea on Japan would REQUIRE an US intervention, and all of North Korea is trained to believe that the US wants to destroy them and eat their children. One of the advantages of a being a dictator with absolute power is that the people will believe anything you MAKE them believe. Once the bombs start flying it is very hard to stop, and a attack with nuclear weapons on Japan would seriously hurt China, Taiwan, parts of Russian, and South Korea. The fallout would travel around the world.

The North Koreans had the right to test their nuclear capabiltiy, but doing that is only inflaming fears and heightening world tension. That act was NOT one of a reasonable or responsible nation though.

Answer 3

If the US, France, UK, Russia, etc. can all have nuclear weapons, and test them, either in the past or presently, then why not N. Korea? If you do not want N. Korea to use these weapons, then maybe the US and the rest should get rid of their weapons and set an example for the world.

Answer 4

They sure have the right to do that. They are a sovereign nation and can do as they please. The fact that the Bush junta failed completely on that is not North Korea's fault.

Has anyone ever asked if we have the right to possess nuclear weapons? I think we shouldn't, because we are the ones who have used two of those against unprotected civilians already. Although it wasn't necessary because japan tried t surrender since six months prior to that, we bombed them to show the Russians that we have the bomb and that we are not hesitant to use it.

Answer 5

The right? Yes. There is no such thing as 'the right' in politics it's all about might makes right. They have the right to test it and we have the right to invade (or apply economic sanctions).
btw - I am thrilled that they've tested a weapon. it's the most exciting thing that I'll hear about in the next week. I can only hope they use it on someone. That would be more entertaining than a 15 car pileup on NASCAR.

Answer 6

No! Nobody has the right to develop weapons of mass destruction! It's interesting to note though, that the one country in the world that cries loudest about responsibility and morality, is the only country to have actually used the very same technology on another country.
Kinda like a drug dealer preaching about the evils of drug abuse.

Answer 7

No they are a radical nation (atleast the government) with ill intent. There is no realistic invasion being planned by the US as they claim. They should use that money to build infrastructure and feed their people instead of using it to create an arms race in asia.

Answer 8

No because the short dweeb has threaten the us for years just like Iran.We dont threaten foreign countries with our nuclear weapons,we have ours in case we are attacked.We dont starve our own people and torture our own people as n korea and Iran.

Answer 9

In a word, yes. Who annointed the U S to be the world wide arbitter on nuclear technology? Does it de-stabilize the region? Absolutely. But now China may awaken to it's denial and intervene more persuasively in its conversations with its neighbor.

Answer 10

As much right as any other Nation State does - no matter how weird the hair style the leader, or how villified and lampooned by western media

Answer 11

No. The little pot-bellied pig is psychotic. Like a kid on drugs with a gun in his hand.