Explain please why North Korea should not have nuclear weapons..?

Question

whilst it is ok for others countries to have them? So they are a Communist country.. so what? I doubt very much that North Korea would be so stupid as to start a nuclear war just for the sake of it...
and no I'm not a Communist I'm just a realist... why should super powers be able to dictate who should and should not have nuclear capabilities and how can America speak of breach of by Korea of UN regulations when they did the very same thing by going to war in Iraq?

I really don't want Americans to answer as their repsonses tend to be uniformly done like. north korea bad, USA good. BTW Not everyone feels that it is bad for North korea to have weapons. I study International Law at a top 10 Uni, and most people in my lectures feel the same way as I do including my lecturer who is an expert on International law.

it should have said drone above not done..

Isle of Lucy.. I would have to disagree with you with respect to responsible use of nuclear weapons if the actions of the USA are anything to go by.

also I do believe that if North Korea shouldn't have them neither should the USA, Britain, et al, but that is hardly going to happen...

Kim Il Jung is mad.. and Bush and Blair are... sane????

excuse my grammar I'm really not bothering to check what I'm writing as I type...

please do not tell me that North Korea would create the risk of worldwide annihilation just to prove a point to the West!!!

"yanhammer" who are these "peaceful, free"countries that you speak of...? and why should the USA all of a sudden be so eager to follow the dictates of the UN when it completely disregarded them before????

err. Isle of Lucy.. you are somewhat misguided and not terribly perceptive. I am in fact a 35 year old mother of a 15 year old child studying for a masters degree in International Law.... so hardly following a liberal chic culture...

BoB Kerr- Firstly, the UN did not exactly sanction the USA's decision to unilaterally go to war in Iraq [re: your comments on the UN condemnation of N Korea], Secondly the USA invests billions in arms as well as being instrumental in their distribution to countries such as Zimbabwe and Iraq [ during the Iran-Iraq war] yet the USA were quite incapable of sustaining an infrastructure capable of supporting the thousands who were displaced and possibly killed during the floods in New Orleans??? [re: your comments on North Korea financing arms whilst its people starve, etc].

Basidmb - Here here!!!

Answer 1

You are absolutely correct. There is no reason why North Korea or Iran or any other country should not have nuclear weapons. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons the US would have been too scared to attack them; now look at the mess they have created just cause they wanted to steal their Oil. Where on earth are Saddam Hussien's weapons of mass destruction? I am part of the West, but I am sick and tired of our bullying and double standards on so many fronts. We are ultimately the cause of all the problems around the world, thats why why we need to spend so much trying to protect ourselves, whilst we look on women and children dying all over the world. If Darfur had Oil, we would have used the excuse of the current genocide to evade, but it is clearly not worth the loss of US lives.

Many years ago the US financed Pakistan to creat Islamic schools to destabilise the then communist regime in Afganistan. These schools produced Taliban (which means students), who were able to overthrow the communist regime on behalf of the US, and once their dirty work was done, they were abandoned by the US and we all know what happened next.

We must stop our double standards and start to listen. we are no more civilised than others as we showed at the end of the second world war when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and I am so sure that we are less than 10 years away from doing the same somewhere in the middle East; afterall it is quite clear from Afganistan, Iraq and most recently Lebanon that conventional warfare is not working.

Unless we are prepared to start dismantling our nuclear machinery, I subscribe to the principal that every country that can afford nuclear technology be given a chance to develop the technology to protect themselves from being attacked by us. We really must start being very honest with ourselves on all fronts.

What is a terrorist organisation to one group is a freedom fighter to another and the principal of not talking or negotiating with such organisations even when they have a proven democratic mandate flies in the face of everything else. People do not blow themselves up because they enjoy it. It takes a whole heap of frustration to get people to that stage and yet we pretend not to understand.

Answer 2

While there are many reason why it would be better for everyone (except Kim) if North Korea did not have nuclear weapons, we cannot neglect the possibility, even if it was only a small possibility, that the democratic and responsible USA will not do something harmful with nuclear weapons in the future.

Yes, the world can trust the USA more than North Korea with Nuclear weapons. But, you cannot prove that USA will not do something harmful with its nuclear weapons in the future. Therefore it is at least a little bit hypocritical for USA to condemn North Korea about its nuclear weapons.

I cannot respect some of "Isle of Lucy's" remarks, because they were arrogant and disrespectful towards to questioner.

Answer 3

You know, you're right, there are way too many nuclear weapons on the face of this planet. I won't listen, though, to anyone complaining of the US dropping atomic weapons on Japan. It ended a terrible war and saved many lives in the long run. I think Japan got what it asked for. The stockpiles of nuclear weapons the US and other nations possess are leftover from the Cold War. The threat of a nuclear exchange kept a nuclear war from happening. But now all you hear from the rest of the world is the usual anti-American rhetoric. I will concede that Iraq is and was a mistake, and the US should leave. It was a mistake for the American people to have ever been blinded by someone like Bush. Now I think the US should simply do nothing where Korea is concerned, unless N. Korea directly threatens Japan or S. Korea. You ask, why should N. Korea not have nukes? Well, why not? If it sits so well with you for someone who is obviously an aggressive madman, who starves his own people to build up the military, then yes by all means let them have them. I don't know if you live in the US or another western nation, but let's see how well it sits with you when nuclear technology falls into the wrong hands. When it's in your own back yard. Let the US stay out of it, we have enough problems of our own. China helped install the regime that controls N. Korea, so let them worry about it. Regardless of Bush's mistakes, N. Korea and Iran have made it clear their ambitions regarding S. Korea and Israel, respectively. So when they act upon those ambitions, when Seoul or Tel Aviv are blown to hell, let's see what you say then. Your question, to me, is kind of ignorant in and of itself, as if you haven't followed world events and don't know the threat N. Korea imposes. If you think so-called rogue nations should possess these weapons, I certainly hope you're not in the line of fire when they eventually use them. Also, by the way, it's obvious why you don't want Americans to respond. Well, too bad. We will respond.

Answer 4

I agree with most people on here that North Korea is an unstable country with a dictator in charge, but then America is not much better using there nuclear weapons to bully other countries (mid east oil countries). And when Bush says he is gunning for N Korea next, why can they not defend themselves like anybody in the west.

What ever happened with the UN talking resoluations instead of sideing with the USA.

Answer 5

No one should have them, period. Nuclear weapons grant power unlike known. With one single command, thousands, millions could be killed. North Korea, in a sense, is unstable. I mean, China is a communist country, but I'd trust them having nukes way before N. Korea simply because they are much more diplomatic. But why would someone want something that generates death, anyway?

Answer 6

America
Current Nuclear Weapons Stockpile: 5,735 active, 9,960 total
Maximum Missile Range: 13,000 km/8,100 mi (land)
7,400 km/4,600 mi (sub)

North Korea
Erm 1 test maybe?

Who is the bigger threat? Which is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on another country? Which country is run by a funda"mentalist" with a preemptive strike policy?

I know who I'm more concerned about. Credit where it's due Kim Jong Il is pretty damn crazy but he's only a threat to South Korea, China and Russia. The US could pretty much destroy the whole world with their nuclear capabilities.

No one should have nuclear weapons.

Answer 7

Yes North Korea would start a nuke war for the heck of it.
Also if nothing is done about it then it may lead China to continue its nuclear program then followed by India, Pakastan. Then Iran would wonder how such a small country got away with it and restart their program. North Korea may start it but may be the cause of it.

Answer 8

We were at war with North Korea for years .My Dad spent ayear over there when I was young and I spent time there when I was in the Air Force. North Korea is threatening to give the nuclear power to terrorist countries like Iran. I hope you understand how dangerous it is for a group of people like this who go against the UN to have nuclear weapons and you better believe they would use them. They hate the US and free countries. N.Korea is still a communist country and itching to get something started. This isn't about the US dictating who has nuclear weapons...it's about the peaceful free countries together trying to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists and communists who wish to destroy freedom as we know it. This isn't a Bush decision this is a UN decision...we want to keep our freedoms. This is a very serious thing and a huge threat to free countries around the world.

Answer 9

I'm wondering the same things as you do. And I'm pro-American , usually.
I think my main concern is the feeling I get from N Korea - the uniforms, the marches, the speeches ... remind you of anyone? All we need is a Nazi salute!
Also, the countries surrounding Korea are going ballistic and you have to respect their feelings. I'm not happy about missiles being let off in the earth, either.
Also, why isn't Korea respecting the United Nations. Yes, I know that The USA and UK did, too, but where do you draw the line? And we've made it quite clear to our governments how we feel about it - do Koreans have the same option?

Answer 10

Ok,

north Korea hates Japan,

Iran hates Israel. Iran has announced that israel should be wiped off the map

North Korea would like to wipe Japan off the map

North Korea can hide behind the facade that it believes it is developing nuclear arms to protect itself from USA, and this it states in the reason it has carried out the tests. But, the main reason is the breakdown of the2002 Pyongyang Declaration with Japan, stating the countries must improve their relations.

Due to this, Korea continued the development of its weopons. The US put sanctions on the DPRK, and later this then became a valid reason to continue developing nuclear arms in dispute of this embargo. Now, it blames all of its development on US, which is rubbish. The only reason that the US is being aggressive is because they are developing nuclear arms. Think about it.

So, because there is a very real threat that North Korea could use its Nuclear weopons against Japan, and becasue they continue to develop their weopons, thsi is the reason the us become hostile.

North Korea doesnt care about its own civilians, let alone the civilians of other countries. it hasnt ammased one of th eworlds largest armies for nothing, and it is not just to keep america out, there is no reason what so ever that america would ever want to invade North Korea. It does not have oil or other natural economic incentives, which is the reason the US invaded Iraq.

Communist leaders usually servive after a war, while millions of their own people die, and they are in power becasue they are ruthless. North Korea has thousands of people in detention camps, its own people, because they do not agree with the regime. So comparing Bush and Blair as tyrants, when Kim Jong clearly is, is a little far.

Sure, Blair made a mistake going to war with Iraq, and Bush is not a good fellow, but he can be voted out, and will be soon, Kim Jong is there until he dies.

Whilst we look at america and call it bad, it is nothing compared to the regime in north korea. The whole world is against North Korea developing nuclear weopons, as they are with Iran. These are two states which there is a slight possibility that they could use these or put them into the hands of terrorists whose cause is ridiculous and unattainable, if they werent, then the whole world, not just the US, wouldnt be up in arms, .

The reason that the US is involved, is because they are in South Korea. If they werent there, then the north would quite happily roll over the border and claim its stake to the land it believes it should own. So are the US doing the wrong thing there? Helping protect an ally? I think it should be there

I dont think that yours and a load of law students views really count as being significant, as is not mine, sure there is international law, but laws can be broken on a technicality, but does that mean that these people should be aloud to develop nuclear arms. Im sure that under law, a country with a complete mad man could develop them, so should people stand aside and allow it. I think not

**I would like to ask you elaborate a little in your repsonse to isle of lucy, who i think hit the nail on the head. Explain your 'if america was anything to go by' satatement

****CONSIDERING YOUR A TRAINEE LAWYER, YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VERY WEAK AND ARE IN FACT MERELY OPINIONS. THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS, YOU LOSE :)