World War III

[Sylar]

Anyone else a tad worried by the growing tension in North Korea?

For anyone who's not been following it, North Korea conducted a subterranean nuclear test last week. The UN security council condemned the act and North Korea responded by launching 2 short range missiles from 2 offshore bases.

The United States have today said that North Korea will pay "a heavy price" for the actions, with North Korea stating that they are ready for battle and will punish the US for any pre-emptive or responsive strikes.

Kim Jong Il has a history of sabre rattling with the West, but these most recent actions are those of a reckless madman. I'm not necessarily a fan of war, and I don't suggest it as a primary response, but something NEEDS to be done to this lunatic government, before they endanger the rest of the planet! That perhaps sounds a little "Western arrogance" in tone, I'm aware, but I'm genuinely concerned about the intentions of the N.Korean state and their current nuclear proliferation plan!

Korea goad the West (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8068619.stm)

[Darth Hibbie]

Anyone else a tad worried by the growing tension in North Korea?

For anyone who's not been following it, North Korea conducted a subterranean nuclear test last week. The UN security council condemned the act and North Korea responded by launching 2 short range missiles from 2 offshore bases.

The United States have today said that North Korea will pay "a heavy price" for the actions, with North Korea stating that they are ready for battle and will punish the US for any pre-emptive or responsive strikes.

Kim Jong Il has a history of sabre rattling with the West, but these most recent actions are those of a reckless madman. I'm not necessarily a fan of war, and I don't suggest it as a primary response, but something NEEDS to be done to this lunatic government, before they endanger the rest of the planet! That perhaps sounds a little "Western arrogance" in tone, I'm aware, but I'm genuinely concerned about the intentions of the N.Korean state and their current nuclear proliferation plan!

Korea goad the West (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8068619.stm)

The States have already said that they will send troops out to South Korea to help with "defence." What happens after that will depend on the stance that China take on the situation. Think I heard on the News that they had already decided not to withdraw their Veto on sanctions.

Think it must be a worrying time for the people in that area of the world.:boo hoo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8067613.stm

[Mibbes Aye]

Anyone else a tad worried by the growing tension in North Korea?

For anyone who's not been following it, North Korea conducted a subterranean nuclear test last week. The UN security council condemned the act and North Korea responded by launching 2 short range missiles from 2 offshore bases.

The United States have today said that North Korea will pay "a heavy price" for the actions, with North Korea stating that they are ready for battle and will punish the US for any pre-emptive or responsive strikes.

Kim Jong Il has a history of sabre rattling with the West, but these most recent actions are those of a reckless madman. I'm not necessarily a fan of war, and I don't suggest it as a primary response, but something NEEDS to be done to this lunatic government, before they endanger the rest of the planet! That perhaps sounds a little "Western arrogance" in tone, I'm aware, but I'm genuinely concerned about the intentions of the N.Korean state and their current nuclear proliferation plan!

Korea goad the West (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8068619.stm)

What do you think they'll do, if they do have nuclear weapons?

[majorhibs]

The States have already said that they will send troops out to South Korea to help with "defence." What happens after that will depend on the stance that China take on the situation. Think I heard on the News that they had already decided not to withdraw their Veto on sanctions.

Think it must be a worrying time for the people in that area of the world.:boo hoo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8067613.stm

Working out in Asia the now you´d be amazed at how blase´ (sp) the locals all are when something kicks off that the "rest of the world" pays attention to, its like theyve seen it all before and worse, and whats all the fuss about?
Something nuclear would never be a small issue but usually if its going to escalate into anything the first people the "bad guys" go looking for is their immediate neighbours with whom lifelong and longer grudges need to be settled before all else.

[Darth Hibbie]

Working out in Asia the now you´d be amazed at how blase´ (sp) the locals all are when something kicks off that the "rest of the world" pays attention to, its like theyve seen it all before and worse, and whats all the fuss about?
Something nuclear would never be a small issue but usually if its going to escalate into anything the first people the "bad guys" go looking for is their immediate neighbours with whom lifelong and longer grudges need to be settled before all else.

What is being said out it in that neck of the woods? Do they think there is a chance of things getting worse. I totally agree with what you say about going for neighbours first. Hopefully it will not come to that.

[GC]

Anyone else a tad worried by the growing tension in North Korea?

For anyone who's not been following it, North Korea conducted a subterranean nuclear test last week. The UN security council condemned the act and North Korea responded by launching 2 short range missiles from 2 offshore bases.

The United States have today said that North Korea will pay "a heavy price" for the actions, with North Korea stating that they are ready for battle and will punish the US for any pre-emptive or responsive strikes.

Kim Jong Il has a history of sabre rattling with the West, but these most recent actions are those of a reckless madman. I'm not necessarily a fan of war, and I don't suggest it as a primary response, but something NEEDS to be done to this lunatic government, before they endanger the rest of the planet! That perhaps sounds a little "Western arrogance" in tone, I'm aware, but I'm genuinely concerned about the intentions of the N.Korean state and their current nuclear proliferation plan!

Korea goad the West (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8068619.stm)

No chance will N Korea even contemplate launching a nuclear attack and to be honest they are not even capable to do so at the moment.

To even contemplate it would be suicide for them.

[Future17]

No chance will N Korea even contemplate launching a nuclear attack and to be honest they are not even capable to do so at the moment.

That's a bold prediction/statement. What's that based on?

[Tazio]

I've a feeling that if anything huge kicks off it will be in the Asian Subcontinent. Pakistan is a huge country with a government struggling to keep control. India has a big sectarian potential with muslms, hindus and sikhs. And then on the other side of India Bangladesh with a mainly muslim population. And of course the largest muslim country in world isn't too far away with Indonesia.

[GC]

That's a bold prediction/statement. What's that based on?

In my opinion this is a tool for bargaining with the rest of the world, N Korea are in a much stronger position to demand more aid to return to talks and to halt production of nuclear weapons if they are seen to be moving in the direction of producing a much more advanced weapon.

Also, even though their military manpower is over 1 million, the are believed to be in possesion of very poor actualy arms.

Just my opinion but this is more them trying to show strength that actualy wanting to start a war.

[majorhibs]

I've a feeling that if anything huge kicks off it will be in the Asian Subcontinent. Pakistan is a huge country with a government struggling to keep control. India has a big sectarian potential with muslms, hindus and sikhs. And then on the other side of India Bangladesh with a mainly muslim population. And of course the largest muslim country in world isn't too far away with Indonesia.

India is actually a funny old place to be, having worked a couple of years previously to it in central Africa I will tell you one thing, give me the far east and Asia every time over Africa. All my imo of course, Gordon Turnbull etc like their African postings but compare one to the other- Asia is a better all round place to be than Africa

[Sir David Gray]

I've no idea whether this latest situation with North Korea will take us into WWIII any time soon, but I am pretty sure that any Third World War will be fought with nuclear weapons.

There's no shortage of countries that possess them, or that are actively trying to possess them, and a lot of the countries that have them also have an enemy that has them or is trying to get them.

North Korea is a very unstable country with a completely unpredictable man in charge. It has been said that they often use their nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool in order to receive aid from South Korea and the West.

Its people are starving and are living in extreme poverty, so ignoring any warnings from the international community, regarding threats about possible sanctions and further isolation, will be completely senseless. However I don't think the North Korean government really cares what the USA, UK, EU or South Korea has to say to them.

China has a massive responsibility to play in all of this. They are North Korea's one real ally and anything that they have to say on this matter will probably be extremely influential.

PS-It's just been reported that they have fired another nuclear missile.

[Sylar]

I've no idea whether this latest situation with North Korea will take us into WWIII any time soon, but I am pretty sure that any Third World War will be fought with nuclear weapons.

There's no shortage of countries that possess them, or that are actively trying to possess them, and a lot of the countries that have them also have an enemy that has them or is trying to get them.

North Korea is a very unstable country with a completely unpredictable man in charge. It has been said that they often use their nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool in order to receive aid from South Korea and the West.

Its people are starving and are living in extreme poverty, so ignoring any warnings from the international community, regarding threats about possible sanctions and further isolation, will be completely senseless. However I don't think the North Korean government really cares what the USA, UK, EU or South Korea has to say to them.

China has a massive responsibility to play in all of this. They are North Korea's one real ally and anything that they have to say on this matter will probably be extremely influential.

PS-It's just been reported that they have fired another nuclear missile.

My use of "World War III" as a title was flippant, and dramatic to gain interest, truth be told - my use of the phrase was a throwback to the sabre-rattling between Germany and Austrohungaria prior to WWI and the incendiary propaganda which preceded WWII - not quite so literal in this case.

Are you sure it was a nuclear missile they're reporting? As far as I understand, the previous missile launches have been merely that - missile launches, with a separate underground nuclear test...

I know from an external perspective we can say that North Korea wouldn't use nuclear force, as it would be suicide, but consider their value in military force (from their famous processions), their instability on a global relations scale, their disregard for UN Security and their willingness to keep the outside world at a safe distance - we don't really know how "prepared" North Korea are for attack/defence.

I too, would hope that, despite being governed by a leader who doesn't seem to value global relations, that Il would realise the sheer recklessness and danger in the use of nuclear arsenal against a country with the military and nuclear stockpile in a country like the United States.

Does the global security council, Western powers and neighbours of North Korea really have the confidence in doing nothing and trusting they will remain at peace, or not use nuclear weapons should relations escalate? That being said, who honestly has the right to tell them otherwise/intervene?

Combined with the recent troubles in India (last year) and Pakistan (Swat Valley) to name a few, the Eastern side of the globe is one hell of a powderkeg waiting to go off!

[Steve-O]

I'm willing to stick my neck out and predict absolutely nothing will come of all this.

[Darth Hibbie]

I'm willing to stick my neck out and predict absolutely nothing will come of all this.

Thats what I really though till I got up this morning and read this

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=147591522

Could just be all talk I suppose (hope)

[RyeSloan]

I've no idea whether this latest situation with North Korea will take us into WWIII any time soon, but I am pretty sure that any Third World War will be fought with nuclear weapons.

There's no shortage of countries that possess them, or that are actively trying to possess them, and a lot of the countries that have them also have an enemy that has them or is trying to get them.

North Korea is a very unstable country with a completely unpredictable man in charge. It has been said that they often use their nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool in order to receive aid from South Korea and the West.

Its people are starving and are living in extreme poverty, so ignoring any warnings from the international community, regarding threats about possible sanctions and further isolation, will be completely senseless. However I don't think the North Korean government really cares what the USA, UK, EU or South Korea has to say to them.

China has a massive responsibility to play in all of this. They are North Korea's one real ally and anything that they have to say on this matter will probably be extremely influential.

PS-It's just been reported that they have fired another nuclear missile.

It's not really though is it....it's ruled by an iron fist and has been 'stable' in terms of leadership for some time.

I agree though that this it is largely to gain influence and China are the main players, thus while N Korea may sabre rattle and look for a leg onto the nuclear table China would never allow it to dictate to an extent where it caused a WWIII.

No signs of a nuclear missile though...a nuclear explosion and the basic ability to fire a few rockets (not always with success) does not equal a nuclear missle. N Koreas ability to lauch a pre emptive nuclear strike is v.limited and probably non existant.

In all honesty despite N Koreas recent efforts I think these 'rogue' nations are much easier to control and keep a lid on than say the insurgencies in Pakistan, India and a number of African countries where the players are much more difficult to pin down and ultimately the potential for damage and contagion are much greater.

[Future17]

Also, even though their military manpower is over 1 million, the are believed to be in possesion of very poor actual arms.

Kinda like a T-Rex? :wink:


I'm willing to stick my neck out and predict absolutely nothing will come of all this.

You're not really sticking your neck out though Steve-O, 'cos if you're wrong, nobody will be around to correct you. :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

I've no idea whether this latest situation with North Korea will take us into WWIII any time soon, but I am pretty sure that any Third World War will be fought with nuclear weapons.

There's no shortage of countries that possess them, or that are actively trying to possess them, and a lot of the countries that have them also have an enemy that has them or is trying to get them.

North Korea is a very unstable country with a completely unpredictable man in charge. It has been said that they often use their nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool in order to receive aid from South Korea and the West.

Its people are starving and are living in extreme poverty, so ignoring any warnings from the international community, regarding threats about possible sanctions and further isolation, will be completely senseless. However I don't think the North Korean government really cares what the USA, UK, EU or South Korea has to say to them.

China has a massive responsibility to play in all of this. They are North Korea's one real ally and anything that they have to say on this matter will probably be extremely influential.

PS-It's just been reported that they have fired another nuclear missile.


To be honest i'm far from concerned by North Korea and China. North Korea is as far as i'm aware incapable of building a nuclear weapon. The last test they carried out about 3 years back was a failure and thus far there has been no conirmation this one was a success. China has already condemned the attack, albeit without revoking it's UN veto regarding to sanctions. Add to this the massive economic problems they have and their reliance on EU and to a lesser extent American trade and they are unlikely to be provoking 'World War III'.

[Gatecrasher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0hk9vaqWUg&feature=related
(some sweary words in link :rules:)

somebody had to :greengrin

[Darth Hibbie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0hk9vaqWUg&feature=related
(some sweary words in link :rules:)

somebody had to :greengrin

:thumbsup:

[The_Todd]

Although a deadly offensive weapon, nukes are a much more effective defensive weapon - actually not used at all, just sat there carrying a threat.

And that's all it is, having nukes is just a statement at the end of the day - "don't screw with us, cos we'll screw with you".

Nobody is likely to launch a nuclear offensive becuase they would be rapidly hit with a retaliation of an equal force - resulting in mutual destruction, the very thing that kept the cold war pretty frosty.

[The Green Goblin]

Although the testing etc. in N Korea should not be ignored, I think the really serious danger of instability and war breaking out in the region comes from Pakistan right now.

GG

[majorhibs]

Although the testing etc. in N Korea should not be ignored, I think the really serious danger of instability and war breaking out in the region comes from Pakistan right now.

GG

Ditto. Instable doesnt do that place justice.

[hibsbollah]

Asia is a better all round place to be than Africa

I agree, and Oceania is also far better than the Americas, especially if you like crass and pointless generalisations:agree:

[majorhibs]

I agree, and Oceania is also far better than the Americas, especially if you like crass and pointless generalisations:agree:

Give you it was a generalisation, but I wont give you that Africa is a better place than Asia, far as I'm concerned anyway, and that the people ruling the places in Africa that I've been think of anything other than how they can become richer and more powerful. Generalisations maybe, where I was the maybe 5% rich were stinking rich and looking to become richer and the poor were never going to have a chance, and the way the places are set up nobody is ever going to do much about it either.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Good article by Seumas Milne in today's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-us

After Iraq, It's Not Just North Korea That Wants A Bomb

The big power denunciation of North Korea's nuclear weapons test (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/north-korea-hiroshima-nuclear-test) on Monday could not have been more sweeping. Barack Obama called the Hiroshima-scale *underground explosion a "blatant violation of international law", and pledged to "stand up" to North *Korea – as if it were a military giant of the Pacific – while Korea's former imperial master Japan branded the bomb a "clear crime", and even its long-suffering ally China declared itself "resolutely opposed" to what had taken place.

The protests were met with *further North Korean missile tests, as UN *security council members plotted tighter sanctions and South Korea signed up to a US programme to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Pyongyang had already said it would regard such a move as an act of war. So yesterday, nearly 60 years after the conflagration that made a charnel house of the Korean peninsula, North Korea said it was no longer bound by the armistice that ended it and warned that any attempt to search or seize its vessels would be met with a "powerful military strike".

The hope must be that rhetorical inflation on both sides proves to be largely bluster, as in previous confrontations. Even the US doesn't believe North Korea poses any threat of aggression against the south, home to nearly 30,000 American troops and covered by its nuclear umbrella. But the idea, much canvassed in recent days, that there is something irrational in North Korea's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons is clearly absurd. This is, after all, a state that has been targeted for regime change by the US ever since the end of the cold war, included as one of the select group of three in George Bush's axis of evil in 2002, and whose Clinton administration guarantee of "no hostile intent" was explicitly withdrawn by his successor.
In April 2003, North Korea drew the obvious conclusion from the US and British aggression against Iraq. The war showed, it commented at the time, "that to allow disarmament through inspections does not help avert a war, but rather sparks it". Only "a tremendous military deterrent force", it stated with unavoidable logic, could prevent attacks on states the world's only superpower was determined to bring to heel.

The lesson could not be clearer. Of Bush's "axis" states, Iraq, which had no weapons of mass destruction, was invaded and occupied; North Korea, which already had some nuclear capacity, was left untouched and is most unlikely to be attacked in future; while Iran, which has yet to develop a nuclear capability, is still threatened with aggression by both the US and Israel.

Of course, the Obama administration is a different kettle of fish from its *predecessor; it had earlier floated renewed dialogue with North Korea and has made welcome noises about nuclear disarmament. Whether such talk was ever going to impress the cash-strapped dynastic autocracy in Pyongyang – which had had its fill of broken US commitments (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/26/north-korea-nuclear-obama) and the new belligerence from its southern neighbour – seems doubtful. In any case, having gone so far, it was surely inevitable the regime would want to rerun its half-cocked 2006 test to demonstrate its now unquestioned nuclear power status.

Yet not only has America's heightened enthusiasm for invading other countries since the early 1990s created a powerful incentive for states in its firing line to acquire nuclear weapons for their own security. But all the main nuclear weapons states have, by their persistent failure to move towards serious disarmament, become the single greatest driver of nuclear proliferation.

It's not just the breathtaking hypocrisy that underpins every western pronouncement about the "threat to world peace" posed by the "illegal weapons" of the johnny-come-latelys to the nuclear club. Or the double standards that underpin the nuclear indulgence of Israel, India and Pakistan – now increasing its stock of nuclear weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world/asia/18nuke.html), even as the country is rocked by civil war – while Iran and North Korea are sanctioned and embargoed for "breaking the rules". It's that the obligation of the nuclear weapons states under the non-proliferation treaty – and the only justification of their privileged status – is to negotiate "complete disarmament".

Yet far from doing any such thing, both the US and Britain are investing in a new generation of nuclear weapons. Even the latest plans to agree new cuts in the US and Russian strategic arsenals would leave the two former superpower rivals in control of *thousands of warheads, enough to wipe each other out, let alone the smaller fry of global conflict. So why North Korea, no longer even a signatory to the treaty and *therefore not bound by its rules, or any other state seeking nuclear protection, should treat them as a reason to disarm is a mystery.

Obama's dramatic plea (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/nuclear-weapons-barack-obama)for a "world without nuclear weapons" in Prague last month was qualified by the warning that such a goal would "not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime". But a lifetime is too long if the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons is to be halted. Earlier this month, *Mohammed ElBaradei, the outgoing director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/elbaradei-nuclear-weapons-states-un) that without radical disarmament by the major powers, the number of nuclear weapons states would double in a few years, as "virtual weapons states" acquire the capability, but stopped just short of assembling a weapon, to "buy insurance against attack".

This is what Iran is widely assumed to be doing, despite its denial of any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. And the evidence is now growing that the US administration is heading towards harsher sanctions against Tehran rather than genuine negotiation, as two former US national security council staffers, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, argued in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html) at the weekend. That was also the message Hillary Clinton sent to North Korea last month when she said talks with the regime were "implausible, if not impossible".

In fact, they are desirable, if not essential. Obama has set out a positive agenda on the nuclear test ban treaty, arms cuts and control of fissile material. But if, instead of slapping more sanctions on Pyongyang, the US were to push for far broader negotiations aimed at achieving the long-overdue reunification of Korea, its denuclearisation and the withdrawal of all foreign troops – now that would be a historic contribution to peace.

[hibsbollah]

"Of course, the Obama administration is a different kettle of fish from its predecessor"

So you agree with Seamas Milne's take on Obama? I'm glad you've come round to my happy-clappy naivete:wink:

[Woody1985]

Good article by Seumas Milne in today's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-us

After Iraq, It's Not Just North Korea That Wants A Bomb

The big power denunciation of North Korea's nuclear weapons test (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/north-korea-hiroshima-nuclear-test) on Monday could not have been more sweeping. Barack Obama called the Hiroshima-scale *underground explosion a "blatant violation of international law", and pledged to "stand up" to North *Korea – as if it were a military giant of the Pacific – while Korea's former imperial master Japan branded the bomb a "clear crime", and even its long-suffering ally China declared itself "resolutely opposed" to what had taken place.

The protests were met with *further North Korean missile tests, as UN *security council members plotted tighter sanctions and South Korea signed up to a US programme to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Pyongyang had already said it would regard such a move as an act of war. So yesterday, nearly 60 years after the conflagration that made a charnel house of the Korean peninsula, North Korea said it was no longer bound by the armistice that ended it and warned that any attempt to search or seize its vessels would be met with a "powerful military strike".

The hope must be that rhetorical inflation on both sides proves to be largely bluster, as in previous confrontations. Even the US doesn't believe North Korea poses any threat of aggression against the south, home to nearly 30,000 American troops and covered by its nuclear umbrella. But the idea, much canvassed in recent days, that there is something irrational in North Korea's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons is clearly absurd. This is, after all, a state that has been targeted for regime change by the US ever since the end of the cold war, included as one of the select group of three in George Bush's axis of evil in 2002, and whose Clinton administration guarantee of "no hostile intent" was explicitly withdrawn by his successor.
In April 2003, North Korea drew the obvious conclusion from the US and British aggression against Iraq. The war showed, it commented at the time, "that to allow disarmament through inspections does not help avert a war, but rather sparks it". Only "a tremendous military deterrent force", it stated with unavoidable logic, could prevent attacks on states the world's only superpower was determined to bring to heel.

The lesson could not be clearer. Of Bush's "axis" states, Iraq, which had no weapons of mass destruction, was invaded and occupied; North Korea, which already had some nuclear capacity, was left untouched and is most unlikely to be attacked in future; while Iran, which has yet to develop a nuclear capability, is still threatened with aggression by both the US and Israel.

Of course, the Obama administration is a different kettle of fish from its *predecessor; it had earlier floated renewed dialogue with North Korea and has made welcome noises about nuclear disarmament. Whether such talk was ever going to impress the cash-strapped dynastic autocracy in Pyongyang – which had had its fill of broken US commitments (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/26/north-korea-nuclear-obama) and the new belligerence from its southern neighbour – seems doubtful. In any case, having gone so far, it was surely inevitable the regime would want to rerun its half-cocked 2006 test to demonstrate its now unquestioned nuclear power status.

Yet not only has America's heightened enthusiasm for invading other countries since the early 1990s created a powerful incentive for states in its firing line to acquire nuclear weapons for their own security. But all the main nuclear weapons states have, by their persistent failure to move towards serious disarmament, become the single greatest driver of nuclear proliferation.

It's not just the breathtaking hypocrisy that underpins every western pronouncement about the "threat to world peace" posed by the "illegal weapons" of the johnny-come-latelys to the nuclear club. Or the double standards that underpin the nuclear indulgence of Israel, India and Pakistan – now increasing its stock of nuclear weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world/asia/18nuke.html), even as the country is rocked by civil war – while Iran and North Korea are sanctioned and embargoed for "breaking the rules". It's that the obligation of the nuclear weapons states under the non-proliferation treaty – and the only justification of their privileged status – is to negotiate "complete disarmament".

Yet far from doing any such thing, both the US and Britain are investing in a new generation of nuclear weapons. Even the latest plans to agree new cuts in the US and Russian strategic arsenals would leave the two former superpower rivals in control of *thousands of warheads, enough to wipe each other out, let alone the smaller fry of global conflict. So why North Korea, no longer even a signatory to the treaty and *therefore not bound by its rules, or any other state seeking nuclear protection, should treat them as a reason to disarm is a mystery.

Obama's dramatic plea (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/nuclear-weapons-barack-obama)for a "world without nuclear weapons" in Prague last month was qualified by the warning that such a goal would "not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime". But a lifetime is too long if the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons is to be halted. Earlier this month, *Mohammed ElBaradei, the outgoing director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/elbaradei-nuclear-weapons-states-un) that without radical disarmament by the major powers, the number of nuclear weapons states would double in a few years, as "virtual weapons states" acquire the capability, but stopped just short of assembling a weapon, to "buy insurance against attack".

This is what Iran is widely assumed to be doing, despite its denial of any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. And the evidence is now growing that the US administration is heading towards harsher sanctions against Tehran rather than genuine negotiation, as two former US national security council staffers, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, argued in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html) at the weekend. That was also the message Hillary Clinton sent to North Korea last month when she said talks with the regime were "implausible, if not impossible".

In fact, they are desirable, if not essential. Obama has set out a positive agenda on the nuclear test ban treaty, arms cuts and control of fissile material. But if, instead of slapping more sanctions on Pyongyang, the US were to push for far broader negotiations aimed at achieving the long-overdue reunification of Korea, its denuclearisation and the withdrawal of all foreign troops – now that would be a historic contribution to peace.

I had read part of that today / yesterday IIRC (was just back from holiday so my thinking wasn't 100%. No jokes LH!).

My simplistic view is that China are quite happy for N Korea to piss about and irritate America to see what their reaction is. N Korea are like a little political pawn of China's IMO.

[SteveHFC]

I think it could happen.

[LiverpoolHibs]

"Of course, the Obama administration is a different kettle of fish from its predecessor"

So you agree with Seamas Milne's take on Obama? I'm glad you've come round to my happy-clappy naivete:wink:

No chance!

[LiverpoolHibs]

I had read part of that today / yesterday IIRC (was just back from holiday so my thinking wasn't 100%. No jokes LH!).

My simplistic view is that China are quite happy for N Korea to piss about and irritate America to see what their reaction is. N Korea are like a little political pawn of China's IMO.

I'm not sure it's quite that clear-cut. China don't have anything to gain from North Korea's actions whatsoever, on the contrary the missile and nuclear tests will almost certainly bring about massive remilitarisation in Japan (possibly even with them looking to go nuclear) which China will dislike immensely. Plus, they haven't really got on particularly well ever since China's détente with South Korea in the mid-nineties.

[RyeSloan]

I'm not sure it's quite that clear-cut. China don't have anything to gain from North Korea's actions whatsoever, on the contrary the missile and nuclear tests will almost certainly bring about massive remilitarisation in Japan (possibly even with them looking to go nuclear) which China will dislike immensely. Plus, they haven't really got on particularly well ever since China's détente with South Korea in the mid-nineties.

Tis true to say the N Korea are far from China's puppets but it would be wrong to under estimate Chinas influence here, they do after all supply the regime with most of what they need to continue to exist.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Tis true to say the N Korea are far from China's puppets but it would be wrong to under estimate Chinas influence here, they do after all supply the regime with most of what they need to continue to exist.

Absolutely, I wasn't doubting that. Just pointing out that I doubt China will be particularly enamoured by their latest actions.

[RyeSloan]

Absolutely, I wasn't doubting that. Just pointing out that I doubt China will be particularly enamoured by their latest actions.

Cool. Yeah for sure, China pretty much publicly told them not to but they did it anyway...still with 75% of N Korea's trade being with China and China's desire for N Koreas natural resources I'm sure they won't really be falling out anytime soon.