Screw the Wii, lets talk nuclear bombs!

[Tuomas]

Maybe it should be easier to be Pacifist if I were Finish? Mmmm...

yeah, you'd only go to prison for that. Or join Jehovas Witnesses...

Anyway, be it, that NK had a NUCELAR weapon, I still don't think it's justified to attack/invade them or Iraq for that matter. In that case you'd have to go to India and Pakistan and Russia and France and so on and so on. Besides, most countries, like NK in this case if they are building a nuclear weapon, are doing it for their own protection. Seriously, there are shitloads of countries that have the ability of blowing them up in the sky with a snap of fingers. Now if NK had that possibility too, the others would probably not be so keen on trying their luck. Kim is no fool. He knows he's not the most liked person in the world, I think he's just trying to save his own ass. There's no reason for him to attack anyone with a nuclear weapon, that'd send 20 equal bomb knocking on his door.

Fight me, I don't give a shit. Sure, chemical weapons are a good enough reason to disarm a country, but nuclear isn't. And it isn't a threat. Actually a nuclear war would be good, refreshing, give us something to think about. It's idiotic that the world "peace" is kept up by this tension where everyone is afraid of each other.

I'd say instead of pointing bombs at each other we could go to Congo or Darfur and try and make them stop the fighting. 100 years of civil war makes no sense.

[Babar]

I am also assuming (may it's wishful thinking, but I don't think so) that nobody is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. Like Tuomas said, it's more of a preventative measure to stop from being attacked. Hence what I said about only a very, very idiotic person attacking N.K. now. In a perfect world there would be complete unilateral disarmament, peace and all that jazz, but we know that is never going to happen. The next a country would do is try to be on level with all the other countries. This way, instead of brotherly love being the reason not to attack someone, it'll be fear of retaliation.

HOWEVER, what I thought is wrong (although my opinion would not have, nor can it now make any difference), was that with so many other things that N.K. needed to fix up, they sent all this money into a hole which (I'm assuming) they never plan to use.

[Nacho]

I am not going to reply. I will just highlight a pearl.

A nuclear war might be good, refreshing...

Some posts portait the person which write them.

EDIT: I am seeing that some poeple are taking the debate into the "North Korea mustn' t be invaded!"... Like if someone said it should!

It must be clear that what I said was "It should have been attacked 10 years ago, now we can' t"

Taking the debate into "Pacifists Vs. Walter Sobchak Fascistswho want to kill poor asian innocent civilians" might be enjotable, as usual, but, unfortunatelly, a complete lie...

What we must discuss is if it should have been correct to attack them 10 years ago. If it should have been correct to stablish a democrat, non beligerant and economically effective government in spite Kim Jong Il, a guy who allows their citizens to die of famine spending 80% of the national budged into something useless with the only objective of increasing his ego, as Babar said. And if something simillar should be done with Iran.

[Tuomas]

Indeed, you immediately spot the ones that understand sarcasm

[Nacho]

I spot some... Some I don' t. What is the meaning of the sentence of me going to jail or joining the Jehova' s witnesses?

[Tuomas]

Well I reckoned by Finish you meant Finnish considering the context. And in Finland they put pacifists in prison unless they are Jehovas witnesses.

[Nacho]

O_o

Eeer... I think I should elaborate the reply more... But I don' t honestly know what to say, or what does the sentence have to see with me...

EDIT: So, back on topic.

[SSH]

Nacho, do you think that maybe China might have objected to an invasion of North Korea 10 years ago? Do you think the US was maybe a little bit wary of China?

[Tuomas]

EDIT: I am seeing that some poeple are taking the debate into the "North Korea mustn' t be invaded!"... Like if someone said it should!

No, I don't think anyone said this, but I think it's still worth discussing. I think it's good to be brought up in any way, since it's bound to come up. And the question is crucial considering how they've been driving their business lately, NK and the other half (agreeably US mostly). If you see my point here.

[Nacho]

Then you' ll have to find someone considering the option of invading NK now... As I don' t consider it can be done, I can' t discuss...Ã, 

And SSH, you mentioned the reason why NK was not invaded... China and also Russia were not happy about Korea. But maybe it should have been reasonable to make a test... I honestly think that the result of a military disembark in South Korea with a real threat of invassion should have ended with China, Russia and the USA convincing Korea to give up for the benefit of all...

Now, the most predictible result is US sending Nukes to Taipei, Taiwan and Japan... Dunno what is better...

[Helm]

What we must discuss is if it should have been correct to attack them 10 years ago. If it should have been correct to stablish a democrat, non beligerant and economically effective government in spite Kim Jong Il,

Are you asking us if one country should have invaded another to change their mode of goverment? Would you be suprized if the answer was 'no'?

[Nacho]

Deppends. if the invassion costs 10,000 lives, and leaving the government costs 100,000 deaths by famine, maybe the answer is not so obvious.

[Helm]

I dunno, it's pretty obvious to me who doesn't subscribe to this bullshit utilitarian sort of ethics.

[Nacho]

It's the eternal discussion if we must do something if we are able to, or leave the nature follow its path, even if the results are worst. Maybe we haven' t done as much as possible, but we can feel happy because everything has ended in a "natural way". You have prooved to be a very ethic guy who can handle the results of an attack in spite of trying to prevent it.

That' s the greatest proof of ethic and valour. But you must understand that not anybody is like that.
I am not, so, all I can say is that I am happy to have such a great friends like you. ^_^.

[Helm]

Thank you, Nacho. Please remember that a country has the sovereign right to self-regulate. Everybody should sort their own shit out without external invasion. "Killing for peace". It's one thing to put diplomatic pressure, cut aid, whatever, and another to invade another country, go into war, to 'liberate' them. Let them sort their own shit out. Multinational cooperation is only that until it's not, it cannot and should not be enforced with the threat of military force. If there's a third world country where a dictator is killing all his people, that is tragic, and we should do well to oppose it via diplomatic means, but in the end, if they don't listen, they just don't listen. Let them sort their own shit out.

And about nuclear weapons. Let's say they do have them. Until they attack someone, they are no different than the US having military weapons. And the US are the only ones so far that have used them. Is it because we put this value judgement that this or that person is a derranged bucher that makes it okay for us to step in and take his nuclear toys away? I happen to think Bush is a derranged butcher, is it ok to go to war with the US over their nuclear arsenal? Of course not. And more importantly could we win that war? Of course not...

There are no ethics behind US invasions. There is the geopolitical powerplay, where influence and control are an end in themselves. It's not about saving lives. It's about playing monopoly.

[Nacho]

Anyway, you are making a slight change of the sense of my post. It derivated into if it' s ethic to invade countries if their governments are corrupt or unnefective... On a second thought, even considering that it' s sad that such governments exist, we can' t do anything aboout it, so, basically you are right. But the casus belli for attacking NK was the possibility of getting nukes.

It' s an important distinction because whereas I don' t agree with you with "let them sort their own shit out" if there are nukes involved (Basically because then, "their shit" can easilly be transformed into "our shit") I agree with you that we can' t interfere if that government does not represent an external threat.

[SSH]

Lets hope if some powerful aliens come along and discover our planet that they don't consider us an external threat.

[Nacho]

If they exterminate us, God would forgive them, as his son was sent here to tell the message that we are all forgiven.

[jetxl]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

[Helm]

(Basically because then, "their shit" can easilly be transformed into "our shit")

Easily yes, but easily doesn't mean it has happened yet.

But I forget, in spain you get tried and jailed for intention.