Sounds to me like the DPRK prefer war to peace however should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons like the UK, USA, GERMANY etc. If not why not?
2006-10-17 00:29:50 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Sure no one should have Nukes but they are there and they are a fact very unfortunately so decisions have to be made about them.
2006-10-17 00:35:12 · update #1
OK Tuksie but the question is about N Korea!
2006-10-17 01:03:22 · update #2
I'm not defending the loons in power in Pyongyang, but if you think about it you can only negotiate for peace on your terms if you have a position of strength.
You could gain a peace by submitting totally to your adversary (capitulating) or you could negotiate a peace by threatening them with a violent alternative.
They should not be allowed nuclear weapons under these circumstances, but if I was the North Korean leader I would probably have done much the same thing.
2006-10-17 00:36:03 · answer #1 · answered by Thomas V 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think where everyones worried about this is the Korean war or the forgotten war as it is called a war that the USA UK and many other countries fought and got whipped by the north so don't think for one minute they are a walkover and with our forces now spread between Iraq and Afghanistan and the UN never weaker than it is now the north koreans know now is the best time to cause bravado because we cant deal with them even if we wanted to because the British army has been reduced that much that if someone invaded the UK we could not stop them so that's why they can call the shots
2006-10-18 08:18:24 · answer #2 · answered by tonyinspain 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All Middle East countries should be very afraid and think twice about developing nuclear weapons, Israel has the biggest arsenal of nuke weapons in the world and if they think a country poses a threat to them they will not hesitate to take action against them.
Remember they took out Iraqis nuclear capability by bombing them out of existence.
The problem with Mid East people is they are a volatile breed and so unpredictable, their presidents may just have well painted a target on their heads because that where the first bomb will land. It seems the hot sun addles their brains.
Remember also the pasting Israel gave to Lebanon and Palestine, remember the six day war when the opposing sides of six nations ran away so fast they left their boots behind.
Israel will take care of the problem if they think it's necessary and will not draw back from it.
A bigger problem is we have given them carte blanche to settle in our country thanks to Bliars initiative, can we really trust them when we know they hate us and our way of life ?????
2006-10-17 00:53:32 · answer #3 · answered by tucksie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
definite and no. If the warfare ends, Iraq may well be a large number and each and all of the notice performed via troops may well be wasted. i think like it would be disrespecting each and all of the warriors that have died. Waste of life. So subsequently, the warfare shouldn't end. The Iraq human beings needs to start to preserve themselves. it is why the troops could come abode. What I advise is to end the warfare yet additionally have some troops to proceed to be interior the rustic just to maintain the peace whilst the Iraqis combat.
2016-12-26 21:23:12 · answer #4 · answered by guillotte 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that they want war and if "negotiations" don't end up with their wishes, they will threaten their new found nuclear power to get it. Jury is still out on whether they actually know how to use it.
2006-10-17 01:18:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
as my opinion, DPRK is on right way. she wants piece but does not want to compromise about her existency.
2006-10-17 02:01:29 · answer #6 · answered by Difi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
noone should have nukes
2006-10-17 00:34:03 · answer #7 · answered by David . 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋