North Korea agrees to suspend Nuclear Activities

[xxMATTGxx]

North Korea's pledge to suspend uranium enrichment, as well as nuclear and long-range missile tests, has received a cautious international welcome.

A White House spokesman called it a "positive first step" towards denuclearising the Korean peninsula.

China and Russia also welcomed the move, while Japan said it could "be seen as progress".

The deal followed talks between US and North Korean diplomats in Beijing last week.

The US has announced 240,000 tonnes of new food aid for Pyongyang in return for the freeze.

North Korea confirmed the suspension in a foreign ministry statement released in Pyongyang on Wednesday.

It said the move "aimed at building confidence for the improvement of relations" between the two countries, and said talks would continue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-17215805


Interesting indeed, what are peoples views on this?

[dbgtz]

Surely they'll just go back to it afterwards... seems like a stupid move to me.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why are both we, the United States in particular and other western nations bribing other nations not to do things which the are entirely within their rights to do as sovereign nations?

$15tn in debt and most U.S. politicians still don't get it, and the same goes for our political class in the United Kingdom.

[Lee]

I don't know how trustworthy they are though, how do we know they arn't still doing it?

[Chippiewill]

Why are both we, the United States in particular and other western nations bribing other nations not to do things which the are entirely within their rights to do as sovereign nations?

$15tn in debt and most U.S. politicians still don't get it, and the same goes for our political class in the United Kingdom.
I agree with you in the Iran setting, however North Korea is most definitely volatile and has a high possibility of becoming a rogue element, it's really to everyone's benefit for them not to have Nuclear Weapons. Iran on the other hand is considerably more stable than North Korea and is currently surrounded by American military and deserves a right to defend themselves in the same manner that their aggressors choose to.

Further Iran is also insisting just Nuclear power generation and not nuclear weapons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree with you in the Iran setting, however North Korea is most definitely volatile and has a high possibility of becoming a rogue element, it's really to everyone's benefit for them not to have Nuclear Weapons. Iran on the other hand is considerably more stable than North Korea and is currently surrounded by American military and deserves a right to defend themselves in the same manner that their aggressors choose to.

Further Iran is also insisting just Nuclear power generation and not nuclear weapons.

North Korea has nuclear weapons and has had so for a number of years, what now do yourself and the western politicians suggest? do we now invade them and remove that 'threat' and cause a potential nuclear war in Korea?

I'm afraid this is all simply threatre, it is none of our business - any threat posed by North Korea can be tackled easily by South Korea which is far superior in strength economically and militarily. I would also add that South Korea also has every right as a sovereign state to develop and have nuclear weapons for its self-defence. What I don't find right though is the bankrupt western world paying for the defence and diplomacy of other nations.

..along with possibly involving itself in wars and disputes which it does not need to involve itself in.

[Chippiewill]

North Korea has nuclear weapons and has had so for a number of years, what now do yourself and the western politicians suggest? do we now invade them and remove that 'threat' and cause a potential nuclear war in Korea?
I wouldn't however, North Korea is clearly showing signs that they might denuclearise due to DIPLOMATIC efforts.

I think the claim that it's none of our business is unfounded, clearly we don't want to get nuked and North Korea cannot be assumed to abide by M.A.D. so it is in EVERYONE's best interest to denuclearise north korea. Even North Korea's.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't however, North Korea is clearly showing signs that they might denuclearise due to DIPLOMATIC efforts.

What, you mean by us offering them vast sums of goods and money? I by all means support diplomacy (between the concerned parties, which discounts us) but I do not support paying another sovereign nation to remove something which doesn't pose a threat to my bankrupt country and which North Korea as a sovereign nation is entitled to have as a weapon just as we are.


I think the claim that it's none of our business is unfounded, clearly we don't want to get nuked and North Korea cannot be assumed to abide by M.A.D. so it is in EVERYONE's best interest to denuclearise north korea. Even North Korea's.

Why would North Korea suddenly 'nuke' us? or even better, why would it nuke us if we minded our own business, traded with them as opposed to sanction them and stayed out of the affairs between North and South Korea? I go back again do the Iran issue, we're afraid here of nations which don't have/have a small number of nuclear weapons not even capable of reaching the United States/United Kingdom when we faced off the Soviet Union's arsenal.

I find that madness.

[Chippiewill]

Why would North Korea suddenly 'nuke' us? or even better, why would it nuke us if we minded our own business, traded with them as opposed to sanction them
Why would terrorists attack us? (Certainly some do for attacking them but some are the provokers) There doesn't have to be a good reason. It only takes one person to launch a nuke.


and stayed out of the affairs between North and South Korea?
Mmm, I'd probably be happier if both of them had Nukes rather than just one, but if one of them attacks the other even with just one nuke then the whole planet would be affected by Nuclear fallout.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why would terrorists attack us? (Certainly some do for attacking them but some are the provokers) There doesn't have to be a good reason. It only takes one person to launch a nuke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver


Mmm, I'd probably be happier if both of them had Nukes rather than just one, but if one of them attacks the other even with just one nuke then the whole planet would be affected by Nuclear fallout.

Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, what if they attacked one another or what if 'one' launched an attack on us? as you say, it 'only takes one'?

The question you have to ask is, in attempting to solve these problems or limit potential threats, do you sometimes unintentionally do the opposite and actually increase the threat?

[Chippiewill]

If both have it then the odds of a Nuclear attack are greatly reduced from if only one has nuclear weapons due to MAD.

If N. Korea dials up Nuclear weapons a lot then S. Korea will pre-emptive attack and hope to disable N.Korea missile sites. If both can attack then then neither will launch an attack because they can both destroy each other before something happens.

It's very complicated game theory and I didn't explain it brilliantly as I don't understand it 100% but it's the reason the cold war stayed cold.

[dbgtz]

It only takes one person to launch a nuke.

Though for some reason, the only country to have launched them as an attack is still allowed to have them.

[Chippiewill]

Though for some reason, the only country to have launched them as an attack is still allowed to have them.
That's a M.A.D. issue, Japan didn't have nukes but they were at war with America being in a superior position (At least for the time), America decided to attack with nuclear weapons so they could end the war and didn't have MAD as a deterrent.

Ideally no one would have Nukes but we don't live in that world.