What should the rest of the world do about North Korea's nuke testing?

Question

This is a response to Robespierre, maybe you should be the one to get clued in to the fact that, no new intercontinental missiles have been made since the treaty has been signed and the are in the process of dismantling their nuke stock pile same as Russia, France and Britain, the fear is not what they are going to do with the nukes but who they are going to sell weapons grade uranium to.

Answer 1

Assassinate their leader.

Answer 2

what's there to freak out approximately? tale a million - ""North Korea vowed Tuesday to restart a nuclear reactor....." Yup - that's authentic. That reactor became the single that made the plutonium for his or her first 2 attempt instruments. the two that have been evident fizzles. those teat instruments fizzled because of the fact the plutonium they made became no sturdy. It had too intense a share of PU240, which led to the fizzle. so as that they till at last do no longer understand a thank you to make sturdy plutonium. yet another factor is that the reactor is a exceptionally previous layout (stolen from the ny project to be appropriate) I doubt the NK's are as sturdy because of the fact the Russians, who gave them the tech interior the 1st place. And the Russians melted down quite a few of those, which contain Chernobyl. So optimistically, those nutcases will do themselves in tale 2 - "SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea is vowing a pre-emptive nuclear strike...." confident they have pronounced that, greater suitable than as quickly as as a rely of actuality. they have purely this tiny little concern they have not got the rockets, or the warheads, to decrease back up their threats ultimately, if the reactor does artwork, and the rockets get outfitted, then they might build one warhead a 300 and sixty 5 days (in accordance to tale a million) At that fee, it is going to take them over one thousand years to construct sufficient warheads to have outfitted as much as twenty% of the U. S. warhead count extensive style (5,113 in 2009) on the top of the chilly conflict, america had 31,225 warheads. So there is not any assessment If the NK's attempt some thing, there might properly be yet one consequence The creation of a sparkling Island interior the Pacific. because of the fact North Korea would be long previous

Answer 3

Nothing. Sanctions don't work. They can be a royal pain but not really do much of anything else. Name one time that sanctions have worked. We have embargoed Cuba for years. Castro still rules and he is still a fruit cake.

Use of force is not politically correct and would upset a lot of people. No one has the spine to go against the grain so let him have them till he uses one on some one. Then nuke him right back. Unless that is politically incorrect as well and then it looks like he gets away with it.

The UN security counsel has voted for sanctions. Translation, nothing changes. So nothing of any consequence has happened so far. I expect that to continue to be the case. Even after he uses one against any one, we will need endless debate before taking action.

It seems we are willing to sacrifice endless numbers of civilians of our own rather than any of the north Korean peasants. In the end however we will reach a limit where we suddenly become willing to risk civilian lives. I'm not sure however how many "other" civilian lives will be flushed down the toilet first.

In the end, every war is about civilians. If Kim Jong Ill loses enough of his own civilian population he will be unable to continue as leader of anything. He will be unable to mount an offence or even a defence. In war this has always been the case. Kill enough of them and break enough of the infrastructure and heap hardship upon them till they lose the will to fight. The Talaban knows it and so does al Qaeda. They keep pecking at us and already we have many political leaders who want out of Iraq. They have lost the will to fight. We would have to do the same thing to the enemy. We won't.

North Korea wins. He will have to piss off a lot of people and kill a lot of people before we would be willing as a nation to move against him. We lost about 3000 people before lunch on september 11 and already we are willing to throw in the towle in Iraq. We have anti war protesters. We have political leaders who want to quit. How many would have to die at the hands of North Korea before we really did anything of substance. It would appear that 3,000 is not enough to get us to commit to anything long term. So with a nuke if we lost 10,000 would that be enough? 50,000? 100,000?

We have done nothing so far and untill a lot of people start falling over dead and getting vaporized, I doubt we will start anytime soon.

Answer 4

Hopefully, show very little aggression. Having nuclear weapons is not a reason to go to war with them. Attacking North Korea would be unwise; as they have shown little indication that they actually intend to use them to destroy the world.

I think it would be best to withhold hostilities until a great majority of the globe is united against North Korea. If we continue to pre-emptively strike "potential" terrorists, we stand only to convince the rest of the world that we are the real terrorists. If we alienate the global community through such pre-emptive strikes and terrorists convince other countries, through fear, to not help us fight terrorism, then the terrorists win.

Answer 5

The very same thing we are doing about America's testing. Doesn't your brain think about entire situations. Is it only narrowed to little patches of government induced thinking. I bet you don't know that America has the biggest collection of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The typical brainwashed response is, "That's different" Oh please, if you want to talk about these things, get clued up.

Answer 6

Hopefully, the next test will take place in Pyong Yang. Right on top of kewpiedollhead Kim Il Jong

Answer 7

wait till they get more bold and mess with a neighboring
country.
given their past track record,
it won't be long.
also sanctions will help to soften the population
to prepare for regime change.
winter is coming and with a blockade in place,
the north korean government will have to soften if
they expect to remain in power.

Answer 8

Use airstrikes to take out their missle launchers. Force is the only option. This would have never been an issue 40 years ago.

Answer 9

nothing, thier fearless leader just wants attention. the focus for awhile has been on IRAN
north korea's fearless leader won't do anything,
he just wants to hang with the big boys...USA,CHINA,RUSSIA etc...etc....

Answer 10

Hurt them economicly. If they can build a nuke let them live on their own... Then we use force if they start getting greedy. =)

Answer 11

Nuke them - we won't have to worry about them anymore. Problem solved.