It's that time of year, where North Korea cries for attention on the international stage.
First it was announcement of the uranium enrichment facility by Dr. Hecker:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/world/asia/21intel.html?ref=northkorea

A surprise, especially given the level of sophistication of the facility and the speed in which it was set up, about a year and a half.

Now that they have this technology, they want to trade either the plutonium program or the uranium enrichment program for peace with the U.S., which the U.S. says hell no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112206571.html

Second, what can best be described as a slip, asked in parliament if the U.S. would consider stationing tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea again Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young stated he will review it with the U.S. That led to the U.S. saying it would not do that and will not bring up the matter in the South Korea-U.S. consultations.
Still, shows perhaps the South Koreans are getting a little defensive.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/restofasia/Seoul-rules-out-redeployment-of-US-nuclear-weapons/629896/H1-Article1-629870.aspx

Finally, the news this morning of the shelling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/asia/24korea.html?ref=northkorea

Typical North Korean behavior, provoke, have a small incident and claim attention. While the death of 2 South Korean soldiers is sad and the damage awful, it is a time to keep cool heads as all North Korea wants is attention. If the U.S. takes a tough line, but basically ignores North Korea, but engages over the long haul with other states, like China, then perhaps we can end the tit-for-tat game.

Sounds like the Security Council will meet on the matter, but like the Cheonan incident, I expect nothing from the body. China, though apparently is caught in the dark, so their response will be interesting.

This is one of the most serious incidents since the Korean war. A few months back North Korea sank a South Korean naval vessel. No military response from the South. I this incident the South has returned artillery fire but to what level I don't know. They are now on a high state of military alert and are currently the government leaders are in an underground war room weighing a response.

This is also just after North Korea's disclosure of an operational uranium enrichment program. That and with 10's of thousands of US troops in the theatre this could become a big problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101123/wl_afp/nkoreaskoreamilitarynuclearweapons_20101123092327

Interesting what the response of the South will be. They should not let this go. Next time it will be the mainland.

The value of a Treaty … hey! Let have a new start with N. Korea and re write all the Treaties they have broken

Belly35;572284 wrote:The value of a Treaty … hey! Let have a new start with N. Korea and re write all the Treaties they have broken

What treaty? There is no treaty with North Korea.

ptown_trojans_1;572285 wrote:What treaty? There is no treaty with North Korea.

Correct why because when push comes to shove counties just walk away and screw the treaty ...

1953 Mutual Defense Treaty ……… BROKEN
And
Let start with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).
Four non-parties to the treaty are known to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program.
North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and in 2003 withdrew from it. What good is a Treaty if you can just walk away …. BROKEN


Treaties are meaningless ...weaker countries all want treaties to prevent the other side from progress forward
Treaties are a nice gestures for the more powerful countries to make but that just a political move for favoritisms for other allies

Treaties have never worked in the history of the world and have always end short of the expectation of the treaty …so why even venture into a treaty?

Unless the treaty benefits our country and does not weaken our strengths ..why a treaty?

Belly35;572307 wrote:Correct why because when push comes to shove counties just walk away and screw the treaty ...

1953 Mutual Defense Treaty ……… BROKEN
And
Let start with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).
Four non-parties to the treaty are known to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program.
North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and in 2003 withdrew from it. What good is a Treaty if you can just walk away …. BROKEN


Treaties are meaningless ...weaker countries all want treaties to prevent the other side from progress forward
Treaties are a nice gestures for the more powerful countries to make but that just a political move for favoritisms for other allies

Treaties have never worked in the history of the world and have always end short of the expectation of the treaty …so why even venture into a treaty?

Unless the treaty benefits our country and does not weaken our strengths ..why a treaty?

Ok. you are mashing so many things here.
Treaties serve a purpose as they maintain regional and international stability. The most famous treaty is the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the modern nation state. Treaties are very useful, so long as they have verification and teeth to them.

But, naturally, since this is a nation state world, nations can cite "national interest" and pull out of treaties. It is within their right of international law. But, I would honestly say that the world is a less dangerous place with treaties. Hell, look at NATO-that is a treaty organization. Is that meaningless?

The Nonproliferation Treaty, I'd say is largely effective. India, Pakistan and Israel never signed it, citing national interest which they can. North Korea's withdraw is technically not seen as they did not go through the proper procedure and could not withdraw since they were in violation.

But, that is 1 state. The NPT has been influential in stopping states like Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, the Swiss, Germans, Japanese and South Koreans from all seek nuclear weapons. What also helped was the nuclear umbrella by the U.S. But, by essentially discrediting nuclear weapons by the NPT, it deemphasized many states from seeking them. The world in which Kennedy saw 10-15 nuclear power in 1962 by 1972 did not occur.

Now, what treaty are you talking about with North Korea? I am unaware of us seeking a treaty with them. The 6 party talks on on easing tensions with the goal of reunification long term, and an official end to the war. But, no one sees that happening for a long time. The 1953 agreement was not a treaty, but was an armistice.

You are all over the place on this one.


The events today and earlier just show that North Korea seeks attention. Tensions will ease and everything will go back to the status quo.

ptown_trojans_1;572324 wrote: The events today and earlier just show that North Korea seeks attention. Tensions will ease and everything will go back to the status quo.

Agreed fully...this is no biggie in the grand scheme. North Korea is like the Bill Maher of the international community.

ptown_trojans_1;572324 wrote:Ok. you are mashing so many things here.
Treaties serve a purpose as they maintain regional and international stability. The most famous treaty is the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the modern nation state. Treaties are very useful, so long as they have verification and teeth to them.

But, naturally, since this is a nation state world, nations can cite "national interest" and pull out of treaties. It is within their right of international law. But, I would honestly say that the world is a less dangerous place with treaties. Hell, look at NATO-that is a treaty organization. Is that meaningless?

The Nonproliferation Treaty, I'd say is largely effective. India, Pakistan and Israel never signed it, citing national interest which they can. North Korea's withdraw is technically not seen as they did not go through the proper procedure and could not withdraw since they were in violation.

But, that is 1 state. The NPT has been influential in stopping states like Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, the Swiss, Germans, Japanese and South Koreans from all seek nuclear weapons. What also helped was the nuclear umbrella by the U.S. But, by essentially discrediting nuclear weapons by the NPT, it deemphasized many states from seeking them. The world in which Kennedy saw 10-15 nuclear power in 1962 by 1972 did not occur.

Now, what treaty are you talking about with North Korea? I am unaware of us seeking a treaty with them. The 6 party talks on on easing tensions with the goal of reunification long term, and an official end to the war. But, no one sees that happening for a long time. The 1953 agreement was not a treaty, but was an armistice.

You are all over the place on this one.


The events today and earlier just show that North Korea seeks attention. Tensions will ease and everything will go back to the status quo.

Admittedly not my strong suit ..of international politics an treaties

I’m just not a fan of Treaties …….like a contract from a used car lot..
What the value, what the guaranty and unless you can provide some type of reconciliation for violation of the treaty what the point?

Belly35;572339 wrote:Admittedly not my strong suit ..of international politics an treaties

I’m just not a fan of Treaties …….like a contract from a used car lot..
What the value, what the guaranty and unless you can provide some type of reconciliation for violation of the treaty what the point?

The point is usually to 1. End a war. 2. Provide strategic stability to a situation where both countries adhere to a common set of limits and 3. Bind an alliance.
So, the first one is probably the most common, so like the treaties to end WWII where both sides agree to end fighting and agree to terms. Ending the war can also bring two countries together. Take the UK and US. Treaties led to common alliance during WWI.
The 2nd is one like the START Treaty, where both countries ease tensions by agreeing to limit arms. The Chemical Weapons Convention is the same thing.

The third is like NATO, where common countries are bound to defend each other in times of war.

Treaties serve a purpose and can be really useful for a country. But, it ultimately comes down to the state, and in the international system, states see it in their best interest to adhere to treaties. States rely on self interest in making decisions, and in most cases, it is in the best interest of a state to follow a treaty.

Violators of treaties either face economic or military punishment, or are banish from the club of good nations and called a "rogue state."

fish82;572332 wrote:Agreed fully...this is no biggie in the grand scheme. North Korea is like the Bill Maher of the international community.

Haha. I've never been a big fan of Maher. Don't like his delivery even if I sometimes agree with his politics. Seems like a doucher.

But on topic. I think ptown's position on this is pretty logical.

You "sometimes" agree with Maher?

To be honest I've never watched his show for longer than 2 minutes. I said I sometimes agree with his positions because I assume I do, that's usually the case for most people.

What the percentage factor that S. Korea will strike N. Korea nuclear plant?

Belly35;572506 wrote:What the percentage factor that S. Korea will strike N. Korea nuclear plant?

0%

Why would they when their capital, Seoul, is right by the DMZ and would be basically destroyed by North Korea rockets and missiles?

Back in March when the Cheonan went down killing 46 South Korean sailors, the South did nothing to respond.
I see the same here.

ptown_trojans_1;572324 wrote: The events today and earlier just show that North Korea seeks attention. Tensions will ease and everything will go back to the status quo.

This may be how it pans out. But I'm not convinced. This is North Korea's first direct artillery attack on South Korean territory since the Korean War. It is a big deal and South Korea is talking very tough in terms of retaliation.

History is full of "minor" incidents that sparked major military engagements. A Serbian assassins bullet sparked WWI. In fact I would say most wars are triggered by hot heads trying to make a show of force. North Korea is lighting matches in a shed full of dynomite. Its only a matter of time before it blows up.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1

Yeah, but again, this is nothing compared to the sinking of the Cheonan which killed 46 South Korean sailors. While there was tough talk initially by South Korea, eventually cooler heads prevailed until this incident.

What this probably is is efforts by the young Kim to strengthen his grip on power once his father dies. But, I don't expect anything major to occur.

Belly35;572307 wrote:Treaties have never worked in the history of the world and have always end short of the expectation of the treaty so why even venture into a treaty?

Are you telling me the Treaty of Versailles didn't work

Classyposter58;572556 wrote:Are you telling me the Treaty of Versailles didn't work

Nope, but it didn't have the U.S.

fish82;572332 wrote:Agreed fully...this is no biggie in the grand scheme. North Korea is like the Bill Maher of the international community.

classic

I am hearing today, albeit thirdhand at best, that now the thinking is that the missle that fired off the west coast about 2 weeks ago may have come from a Chinese sub .......... ptown, your thoughts please (because I know the bullshit excuses already circulated are just that).

QuakerOats;572687 wrote:I am hearing today, albeit thirdhand at best, that now the thinking is that the missle that fired off the west coast about 2 weeks ago may have come from a Chinese sub .......... ptown, your thoughts please (because I know the bullshit excuses already circulated are just that).

It was a plane, in all probability.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/10/national/main7041217.shtml
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3136/it-aint-no-thing

1. The Chinese have no subs that can fire that missile yet.
2. Even if they did, the sub would be so loud we would detect it before it would get to our coast.
3. The most obvious and likely outcome was a plane contrail.

Get ready to dust Jimmy Carter off. We might need him to get over there and broker another shitty deal. The NorKs love useful idots.

majorspark;572787 wrote:Get ready to dust Jimmy Carter off. We might need him to get over there and broker another shitty deal. The NorKs love useful idots.

True but Carter's too busy laying blame for the Dem Congressional defeat on Fox News to concentrate his talents on Kim Jong Douche.

believer;572892 wrote:True but Carter's too busy laying blame for the Dem Congressional defeat on Fox News to concentrate his talents on Kim Jong Douche.

Same with Rockefeller. It's been on our local news alot lately, being so close to West byGod Virginia.

What about blaming who's REALLY at fault... the democrats!