North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

One of these days I believe one of these mad little dictators in N. Korea, Iran or somewhere else, is going to launch or detonate a nuke against some perceived enemy somewhere. And I think that day is rapidly approaching. I'd lay near even odds that if Isreal launches a pre-emptive strike and tries to wipe out some of Iran's nuke fuel making facilities, we could see this very soon.
 
In my limited understanding, I suppose it's better to separate Iran and North Korea in these discussions. Iran is actually a big state, with relatively powerful military and serious technological capability, which apparently seeks to consolidate itself as a regional power and has means of restricting sailing routes, regulating oil prices and thus affecting the world in a economic scale. I honestly believe they're sufficiently intelligent to see that a nuclear strike is useless in warfare, since the response to that would be vastly devastating and could very well mean the dissolution of the state itself.

North Korea on the other hand is a fantasy regime on which sheer ignorance is used to retain the state of extreme absolutism, they have nothing to lose and could very well use weapons of mass-destruction if their overweight leaders decide to do so. They way I see it, is that N.Korea wants nuclear dissuasion in order to bargain concessions from the other countries, and they plan to do it with direct threats to the US. :rolleyes:

On the subject of other countries and their ability to possess nuclear weapons, I would link a video of a Ron Paul's interview back at the start of 2012 to make my point, but I don't want to get into politic meanders of a country that I don't know enough about. I'll limit myself to saying that Paul's rationale to the US politics on the middle-east is pure common-sense and worth a look at. Shame on your election system USA.
 
So glad my contract with the Marines ended on the 3rd; little stressful seeing things like this in the news while you're trying to get an education. But, if something ever does pop off now I can volunteer instead of being involuntarily recalled. Is it immoral hoping for (non-nuclear) war....

Your move, fatty. Better make it a good one.
 
I thought former Marines would be one of the first guys that the Government will force to "volunteer" if it really hits the fan.

I'm going off that selective service thingy they make you sign before you can apply for FAFSA.
 
That's selective service which is a draft. If you're 18-25 you must register but I am not sure of the current age/education requirements if a draft were to take place.

I had an 8 year contract with the government including active and individual ready reserve time which expired this month. So, I cannot be "re-called;" meaning they just send me a letter in the mail saying I have been activated and to report for duty. I am probably too old for the draft.

There is active reserve, inactive reserve, and individual ready reserve (probably more; not sure because I didn't train in the reserves). Active reserve means you have been activated for duty; inactive reserve is a tampon (train one weekend a month, and a couple weeks during summer I believe); individual ready reserve is those who were active duty and served their active duty contract length, now they chillax at home and do whatever, might go to a paid briefing every other year or voluntarily train Marines for a month or so.
 
PeterJB
I'm guessing you mean Kim Yong-Un, since Kim Il-Sung has been dead for 19 years, and yet he still runs the place.

Yeah you're right, saw the thread title and had a brain cramp.
 
In my limited understanding, I suppose it's better to separate Iran and North Korea in these discussions. Iran is actually a big state, with relatively powerful military and serious technological capability, which apparently seeks to consolidate itself as a regional power and has means of restricting sailing routes, regulating oil prices and thus affecting the world in a economic scale. I honestly believe they're sufficiently intelligent to see that a nuclear strike is useless in warfare, since the response to that would be vastly devastating and could very well mean the dissolution of the state itself.
etc....

As a rational human being I agree with what you say, I'm not so sure some of these megolomaniacal dictators think the same way you and I do. If you convince yourself that God is on your side, and it's somehow it's your holy duty to nuke someone else, then rationality is out the window. Remember Germany was "a big state, with relatively powerful military and serious technological capability etc. " and one would have assumed German leadership in the 30's was intelligent enough to see that there was no way they could ever take over Europe and hold onto it, and yet they still tried and failed.

In hindsight, it's easy to see Hitler as a lunatic, but I'm pretty sure in the 30's he was perceived in much the same way as Achmadingypants is now. Are we going to look back after it happens, and the world invades Iran and 5 years from now be saying, "Well crap that was obvious wasn't it?"
 
I find North Korea very interesting, it's so strange and it's so mythical, know one knows what goes on in the country! I have watched a few documentrys, you should check them out on YouTube, it's like going from 2012/13, landing in the NORTH and going back to 1970.
 
As a rational human being I agree with what you say, I'm not so sure some of these megolomaniacal dictators think the same way you and I do. If you convince yourself that God is on your side, and it's somehow it's your holy duty to nuke someone else, then rationality is out the window. Remember Germany was "a big state, with relatively powerful military and serious technological capability etc. " and one would have assumed German leadership in the 30's was intelligent enough to see that there was no way they could ever take over Europe and hold onto it, and yet they still tried and failed.

In hindsight, it's easy to see Hitler as a lunatic, but I'm pretty sure in the 30's he was perceived in much the same way as Achmadingypants is now. Are we going to look back after it happens, and the world invades Iran and 5 years from now be saying, "Well crap that was obvious wasn't it?"

Good analogy, but I'd say there is the factor of how information permeates through society nowadays and that makes people a force to be reckoned with when a "great leader" is to decide on a impacting move such as a nuclear strike. After all, when confronting the single superpower in the world, the last thing you'd want is a bunch of insurgent groups trying to overthrow your dictatorship. I'm not saying they would not in any stance, use nuclear warfare, but I'd affirm it's highly improbable.

If you convince yourself that God is on your side, and it's somehow it's your holy duty to nuke someone else, then rationality is out the window.

This is where I respectfully disagree, Iran does not hate the US for it's prosperity or Christian majority. Islam is not absolutely contrary to the US as a state or it's people, take Pakistan for example, is one of the big islamic republics and yet it has been a US partner since the late 40's. Religion does not imply politic stance, is the american foreign policy that is to blame for the antiamericanism that lies not only in Islamic countries, but also in the majority of Latin America and Russia. The US projects too much military power over the world, nobody likes to have someone else's weapons in their backyard. Not to mention it costs a lot too, and they are going straight to the fiscal cliff...
 
Last edited:
The difference with the 3rd reich vs. Iran comparison to me is military strength. The German military in 1939 was both objectively and subjectively the best in Europe (really the best in the World), and there was no Israel equivalent (a military that is arguably better) in Europe. I think the Iranian leaders are smart enough to realize a war with Isreal would be devastating to both countries, and Iran would likely cease to exist.
 
rHr5e98.jpg

I don't know why that caption makes me laugh so much. :lol:
 
This is where I respectfully disagree, Iran does not hate the US for it's prosperity or Christian majority. Islam is not absolutely contrary to the US as a state or it's people, take Pakistan for example, is one of the big islamic republics and yet it has been a US partner since the late 40's. Religion does not imply politic stance, is the american foreign policy that is to blame for the antiamericanism that lies not only in Islamic countries, but also in the majority of Latin America and Russia. The US projects too much military power over the world, nobody likes to have someone else's weapons in their backyard. Not to mention it costs a lot too, and they are going straight to the fiscal cliff...

True, not all Islamic based countries are equal, just as all Christianity based countries are equal. But I think in the Middle East in particular, they have a couple of conditions that are different from the rest of the world.

First, they have oil. Oil=free money. Money=power. Hard to snub your nose and rattle your sword at the U.S. if you are a Third World African dictatorship, you have nothing to gain and no power to do anything. And they are surrounded by other nations/regimes that think similarly to them so they probably feel safe and secure from attack and that some of their Arab brothers would come to their aid if necessary.

Second, I think many of these tinpot dictators have realized that by both stirring up hatred to the West and keeping their citizens as in the dark as possible, it aids them in keeping the people where they want them. Why Islam?...well look at the decadence of the West. Why keep women covered up?...well don't you know that Western women are raped and sodomized and abused on a daily basis? If they didn't have the phantom enemy of the big bad Americans, who would they be mad at?

Anti-Americanism may have been the launching point for some of this attitude in the Middle East but it pivoted quite quickly into the same thing we have here. Savvy politicians, capitalizing on the mood of the public at the time and spinning the conditions for their own benefit and political power.

The difference with the 3rd reich vs. Iran comparison to me is military strength. The German military in 1939 was both objectively and subjectively the best in Europe (really the best in the World), and there was no Israel equivalent (a military that is arguably better) in Europe. I think the Iranian leaders are smart enough to realize a war with Isreal would be devastating to both countries, and Iran would likely cease to exist.

You're operating on the assumption that we're dealing with completely rational people. Completely rational people don't gain power and say, "Oh yeah, I want to wipe Isreal off the face of the map". Nukes make military power almost irrelevant. If you truly hated Jews and thought that with the press of a few buttons you could wipe them off the face of the earth forever, which is possible, you might think you'd gain immortality within Islam. Pretty powerful drug that immortality.
 
Immortality as in being remembered forever?

I'm pretty sure any person that launches a nuke will be remembered forever.

I know he may hate Jews, but I don't think he hates them enough to put the safety of his nation's peoples and of the rest of the world to do it.
 
Immortality as in being remembered forever?

I'm pretty sure any person that launches a nuke will be remembered forever.

I know he may hate Jews, but I don't think he hates them enough to put the safety of his nation's peoples and of the rest of the world to do it.

Do you think when Hitler was gearing up for WW2, drawing up plans to kill 10 million Jews, gypsy's, homosexuals, artists etc. that he sat down and thought to himself, "Hmmm...I wonder if I'm putting the safety of my people at risk?" You have to stop thinking of these guys as rational beings like you and I and most other people. Their motivations are different, they see the world differently than the rest of us. Sure most of them never actually pull the trigger, but some do and as the technology to build and deliver nukes becomes more and more available to every puffed up little dictator with a grudge, it's just a matter of time before someone does pull the trigger.
 
It's easy to laugh at the North Korean Government because they don't seem to really know what they're doing with this whole Dictatorship mambo jumbo. Hitler knew what he was doing, he brought Germany to the very top in all virtually departments of life (before dragging it back down to the very bottom again). Even so, they should still be feared because they could quite easily do something stupid like a nuclear blast against the US without really thinking it through, or being prepared for the fatal consequences.
 
It's easy to laugh at the North Korean Government because they don't seem to really know what they're doing with this whole Dictatorship mambo jumbo. Hitler knew what he was doing, he brought Germany to the very top in all virtually departments of life (before dragging it back down to the very bottom again). Even so, they should still be feared because they could quite easily do something stupid like a nuclear blast against the US without really thinking it through, or being prepared for the fatal consequences.

That seems to be the bigger problem with both North Korea and Iran. While Hitler was arguably a brilliant strategist, these people are armed to go off without warning or reason to prove something and detonate a nuclear weapon, which is looking more and more likely in the case of North Korea. It should be repeated that these are certainly not reasonable people, letting their people starve while they go on a nuclear "power trip". If the test does happen though, grab your helmets because it is doubtful the U.S will let it go peacefully.
 
One hypothesis that I have heard is that North Korea is threatening this nuclear test because they want to be taken seriously by the West. They don't want to be influencing events in the region by actively participating in events like OPEC, but rather want to be seen as a military presences so that anyone - like China, Russia or America - who does try to influence the region will do so in such a way that they automatically make decisions that benefit North Korea lest they be met with a display of military might. So they will probably back down once they believe everyone will take them seriously - but because they don't realise that they're basically a third-grader trash-talking a group of eighth-graders in the schoolyard, they're probably willing to launch a nuclear device just to prove a point, and will expect everyone to back down afterwards from the shock of it.
 
One hypothesis that I have heard is that North Korea is threatening this nuclear test because they want to be taken seriously by the West. They don't want to be influencing events in the region by actively participating in events like OPEC, but rather want to be seen as a military presences so that anyone - like China, Russia or America - who does try to influence the region will do so in such a way that they automatically make decisions that benefit North Korea lest they be met with a display of military might. So they will probably back down once they believe everyone will take them seriously - but because they don't realise that they're basically a third-grader trash-talking a group of eighth-graders in the schoolyard, they're probably willing to launch a nuclear device just to prove a point, and will expect everyone to back down afterwards from the shock of it.

That's a great analogy, and one that shows how backward thinking they are, military displays have greatly fallen out of favor in the past 100 years or so because people are trying to well get along more. There reasoning is way off to because even though the U.N more than likely wont act as they always do, as long as America doesn't receive too much backlash from China, that third grader is going to get told off by the 8th grader again. If they detonate then they go from trash talking to a serious threat like they want, but the results will most likely be very different then the res of the world just backing down.
 
as long as America doesn't receive too much backlash from China, that third grader is going to get told off by the 8th grader again.
China is not allied with North Korea the way Russia is allied with Syria.

Russia is allied with Syria so that they can have some presence in the Middle East. They can help mould and shape the future of the region, and decisions and policies that affect the Middle East can benefit Russia's interests.

China, on the other hand, already has a presence in the Asia-Pacific region. They allied themselves with North Korea because the saw an opportunity to keep the situation under control. The North is still technically at war with the South, and vehemently opposes and defies anything and everything America does. Russia shares a border with the North, but is governed from Moscow, and as there are no two capital cities further apart from one another than Moscow and Pyongyang, Russia's ability to influence the North is limited. But China rose to power after the Korean War reached a cease-fire, has historically had close relations to the Korean peninsula, and the North has no strategic or economic value. Their thinking is that because they are the North's only trading partner, Pyongyang will listen to them if and when they have something to say because deep down, the North knows it needs China. And that's really been the way things have been run in the region: China has offered a carrot where America has offered a stick. They can play off each other and use whichever tactic is needed to keep the North on the straight and narrow.

So if ever Pyongyang decides to do something stupid, it is very unlikely that China will oppose America. They may offer some counter-points on what an appropriate response might be, but they won't block anything outright.
 
Do you think when Hitler was gearing up for WW2, drawing up plans to kill 10 million Jews, gypsy's, homosexuals, artists etc. that he sat down and thought to himself, "Hmmm...I wonder if I'm putting the safety of my people at risk?" You have to stop thinking of these guys as rational beings like you and I and most other people. Their motivations are different, they see the world differently than the rest of us. Sure most of them never actually pull the trigger, but some do and as the technology to build and deliver nukes becomes more and more available to every puffed up little dictator with a grudge, it's just a matter of time before someone does pull the trigger.

But Ahmedinijad is not Hitler. He has not invaded any land, he has not gassed this or that person, nor has he suggested a "People's Car" to a famed designer.

Yes, he does have nukes, but he's not as crazy like Hitler was. All he is doing right now is sitting tight while issuing strong words to Israel, and Israel doing the same right back.

Dictators like being dictators for long periods of time. I doubt Ahmedinijad is so enthusiastic to launch one like you're suggesting.
 
Plus, it's not like Ahmedinijad is technically subordinate to the Grand Ayatollah anyway...
 
Even then, the Ayatollah himself has stayed mum on the matter since everyone in the world knows he's in charge. I think they are busy with Call of Duty.:ill:

But he has been falling behind on his anti-israel rhetoric.

Edit: This topic is really helping me out with my ethics class I'm taking.:lol:
 
Last edited:
But Ahmedinijad is not Hitler. He has not invaded any land, he has not gassed this or that person, nor has he suggested a "People's Car" to a famed designer.

Yes, he does have nukes, but he's not as crazy like Hitler was. All he is doing right now is sitting tight while issuing strong words to Israel, and Israel doing the same right back.

Dictators like being dictators for long periods of time. I doubt Ahmedinijad is so enthusiastic to launch one like you're suggesting.

Hitler in 1935 was a hero to the German people, revitalizing a struggling nation, putting people to work, beginning huge public works projects, thumbing his nose at the Treaty of Versailles. No one thought he was a lunatic back then either. It's only in hindsight we can see what he really was, and hindsight is not your friend when it comes to nukes. That's a horse of a different colour.
 
It's not just a horse in different color, it's an entirely different species all together.

Call this dark or not, but I personally think that either very nation has nukes, or no one has nukes. The Mexican standoff. Who has the guts to launch first. Me personally I prefer the latter.

The Iranians are not just pursuing nukes just so they can bring about the end of the world because they are apparently nefarious, they are doing it because they have now just made Israel think long and hard before even actually going to war with them. They just made sure Israel knows that she too will go down with the sinking ship called civilization. And America hates it because it makes us look mortal.
 
Dear Leader must be a Yahoo man then...
No, they just don't want people having access to the outside world because that might challenge their indoctrination. Accessing it is illegal, and only about a thousand people - at most - have the ability to use it; all of them are senior party members.

They do, however, have their own internal internet, called Kwangmyong.
 
No, they just don't want people having access to the outside world because that might challenge their indoctrination. Accessing it is illegal, and only about a thousand people - at most - have the ability to use it; all of them are senior party members.

They do, however, have their own internal internet, called Kwangmyong.

Sort of sounds like the Amish or the Ultra Orthodox Jewish enclaves here.
 
Back