The Forums of Glennain

[dohtml]
[/dohtml]

My dear King,

I admit to some confusion on this topic, some variety of feeling.

I heard several people on the radio this afternoon advocating that we "nuke 'em". I certainly do not ascribe to this belief - but yet cannot say what a proper response might entail.

I do believe that if, as it has been suggested, their nuclear armament is in response to the 'axis of evil' so oft spoken of by Mr. Bush - then they are more foolish than I could have guessed. Ever heard that song, "Russians," by Sting? Well, it certainly applies here.

Basic jist: Let's hope the North Koreans love their children, too. Maybe that will keep them from using the weapons they are so proudly displaying.

However, we must keep in mind that if their 'test' went as well as they purport, then US/Chinese/Russian sattelites would have most certainly picked it up. As they did not, it makes me wonder how much bluster is behind the words of the North Koreans.

If indeed they do have nuclear weapons, aren't we best to enter into something equivalent to the Cold War? Not that I always advocate passivity - but in this case, a wait & see attitude might be the best.

Regarding the particular response of your Highness, I believe it would be best to issue a request to the North Koreans, asking them to lay down their nukes in the name of humanity. For who wants to see Hiroshima or Nagasaki played out again?

Thoughts and responses from our beloved countrymen?

-Queen Katherine

I agree with Her Majesty with respect to the North Korean people, who are blameless. Certainly they love their children and are very likely a very decent people. But their leader is a raving lunatic who now has nuclear weapons (allegedly, at any rate: it's reported that their (original) test failed; I'm not sure about the second).

That's easy for a Hanoverian to say, of course, but not so easy for an American. There are many people around the world who believe that the American leader is a raving lunatic with nuclear weapons. Many people are every bit as nervous about George Bush as they are about Kim Jong Il. I suppose it's all a matter of perception and location, really.

Considering that the United States of America has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (I presume, at least), it might seem odd to anyone who is not an American for the United States to condemn another nation for having nuclear weapons. The same goes, of course, for China, Britain, France, India and any other member of the so-called "nuclear club". At this point, it's rather akin to a man wielding an AK47 scolding a child for endangering the people around him by carrying a sling shot.

As far as North Korea's threat goes, well, their best day on Earth will be the day before they decide to launch a weapon against one of the nuclear superpowers. The larger concern is, of course, will they share their capabilities, materials and secrets with maniacal suicidal terrorists who aren't concerned about retribution?

At any rate, as far as Hanover's response, I would recommend leaving it to Parliament to decide whether or not to issue a resolution. But I believe that Parliament would do well to examine the issue impartially, and not strictly from an American point of view.

While I would normally say ignore them but I would show support if the US agreed to do a blockade and agreed to by the Chinese. I would not allow air or see shipments. I would have South Korea and China be the only ones to have access.

Realistically nuking North Korea isnt a viable option. Nuking them would create a bigger problem of having to deal with a pissed off China.

I think North Korea's leader is an absolute lunatic and I look forward to the day that he dies. Realisticly nuking North Korea isn't a viable option nor one that should ever even be considered. North Korea's people have done nothing for the most part. However, we do need to put very strict sanctions on that country. I also commend the Chinese for their reaction to the testing of a nuclear weapon.

Quote:North Korea's people have done nothing for the most part.

Right, and I think it would behoove people to keep in mind that a country's people is seldom the focus of an enemy's fear or hatred. Rather, it is a country's leaders which are feared and despised by enemies, in most cases.

Persons plotting war or carrying out attacks would do well to keep this in mind. Perhaps if our words reflected more precisely our concerns, fewer innocent people would die. Perhaps instead of speaking negatively about "the North Koreans" we should keep in mind that our beef is not with "the North Koreans" but against Kim Jong Il. Likewise, it would be great if the enemies of George Bush would refer to him and not "the Americans" when expressing their anger.

Just as "the Americans" are not one monolithic entity; a single-minded people all sharing the same ideas, views, beliefs and philosophies in lock-step with the president of the United States, neither are "the North Koreans", nor "the Chinese," &c, &c, &c...

If you want to hate George Bush, fine. Aim your fire at him, not at the World Trade Centre. And if you want to hate Kim Jong Il, fine too, but focus your bombs on him and not "the North Koreans".

In this case I can understand just why everything is happening the way it is. Kim Jong Il is the classic spoilt brat. He has a need for attention and will do anything he needs to do to obtain that attention. The sole reason that he is even in power is that he was the spoilt brat of a son of Kim Il Sung.

A leader with such a history having nuclear weapons indeed creates many negative circumstances. He'll do anything to get the attention he needs and I've been fearing a time like this for some time now.

What does he want at this time? One-on-one talks with the United States and normalization of relations.

Should the US give in? Hell no! Eventhough the US has done this to many foreign countries itself, no nation should ever use threats to alter the policy of any other nation. The North Korean government is clearly in the wrong here (and this is coming from somebody who has lost almost entirely all trust in higher levels of the United States Federal Government).

This troubling situation is further amplified by the fact the Kim Jong Il doesn't give a rat's ass about his own people...if North Korea were going to be nuked, he'd just leave the country and leave it and its people to their own fate. So the one method that has been successfully used to prevent nuclear war in the past, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, will have absolutely no effect on the North Korean leadership. This whole situation makes me wish that the nuclear genie had never been let out of its bottle, period.

Sanctions are also going to be troublesome, since the North Korean leadership, being so obviously mentally incompetent, will likely consider such sanctions an act of war...but beyond that, sanctions probably are the best option.

A conventional invasion of North Korea would have been something I would have supported before the invasion of Iraq, but with the military in a quagmire in Iraq and fighting a Taliban that seems to be regenerating in Afghanistan, the military is just simply over-extended as it is.

Anyhow, after saying all this, I think I'll cut myself short...this is all depressing me...there are no really good options in this case.

An invasion of North Korea would have led to a war with China which is we havent

I do believe that the Kingdom of Hanover has a legitimate role, as a world citizen, in expressing it's concern about issues that impact upon all members of the world community.

On the topic of North Korea, I only hope the United States is not crazy enough to start a war.

North Korea has learned from Iraq, disarmament (or the pretense at disarmament) does nothing in preventing a US invasion. To deter an attack one has to have the weapons and appear crazy enough to use them.

This nuclear test is nothing new. North Korea has been testing the missiles for quite some time, they claim to have developed a weapon that can hit most of the west coast of America (though it took North Korea several years to gather the resources and in testing it blew up on the launch pad). What do you think they're going to put on it, a conventional war head that might level a building or ten? Of course not, deterrance requires real destructive capicity.

I do think North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon, it's logical. North Korea wants the deterrant capacity. If they made claims of nuclear weapons, and it were revealed they were bluffing, their security position would be worsened comparative to a position of denial.

North Korea's real weapon is a conventional army (and an impressive atillery array pointed at the South) that could make the short term costs of a war unacceptable to a democratic society.

North Korea would lose a war. The problem is that any war with the North will be a total war, and in the few months it would take to destroy North Korea's capacity millions could die.

I doubt a war with the North would mean war with China, whilst formally an ally, China is wary of the mad cat on it's doorstep as well.

As for a proposal US nuclear responce, I warn American's against it. Over the past six years of the bush regime, America has burnt international good will faster than it has acrued a national debt, what good will remains even in places like Australia would evaporate in the face of a nuclear strike of any description, against any nation.

Wait...

There's a North Korea now? When did this happen? Friggin New World Order.