Home | The Axis of Evil is nuclear.
North Korea has conducted a nuclear explosion.
The next thing we'll see is a nuclear test explosion in Iran.
Would you agree that nothing has really changed, since the USSR has done that too in it's aera and the threat is gone today?
Do you think any reaction of the international audience would exceed writing diplomatic notes in either case?
Not sure why so much fuss. They acknowledged having nukes years ago. We just need to wait until the old guard of their leadership passes away, so that new leaders would open up the country to reforms.
As a youth I used to weep in butcher's shops.
28,000 athletes - 36 million visitors hope to attend the 2008 Beijing Oympics.
The nuclear test sites were (according to the CIA) centered at 40.81-N, 129.101-E, some 15 km from Sangpyeong-ri in Kimchaek City, North Hamgyeong Province (but Punggye-ri in Gilju or Hwadae in the province have not been ruled out).
That's just 740 kilometers from the swimming venues at Shenyang and 900 kms from Beijing itself. A nuclear cloud from a detonation in the summer of 2008 will float over much of northern/central China......in about 16 hours.
In the interest of public safety, isn't it time to cancel the Oympics?
^_^
In the interest of public safety, isn't it time to kill the Kim?
As a youth I used to weep in butcher's shops.
New event: 10km fallout run.
From the slate : http://www.slate.com/id/2151270/fr/rss/
By Daniel Engber
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006, at 4:46 PM ET
Download the MP3 audio version of this story here, or sign up for The Explainer's free daily podcast on iTunes.
The nuclear weapons test in North Korea may set off a regional arms race, warns Slate's Fred Kaplan. A new military threat could help Japan's new prime minister revise his country's pacifist constitution and make a push toward nuclear armament. What are the exact limits on Japan's armed forces?
They're not supposed to have any. According to Article 9 of the country's post-World War II constitution—which was drafted by American lawyers—"the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation." Furthermore, "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."
Article 9 doesn't apply to nuclear weapons. The Japanese government has always maintained the right to develop a defensive stockpile of nukes under the constitution, and the country's Supreme Court would likely go along. But there is an informal policy against the introduction, storage, and use of nuclear weapons. These "three principles" are firmly entrenched, even though they're not codified in the constitution or in any laws.
As a youth I used to weep in butcher's shops.
What about an army? Japan has maintained a pseudo-army—called the "Self-Defense Forces"—for decades, arguing that it's an extension of the national police and therefore doesn't violate the country's constitution. According to Japanese law, the Self-Defense Forces can only be used for, well, "self-defense." Until the last few years, that meant they would defend the islands from enemy attacks. The scope of their mission began to widen after North Korea tested a long-range missile over Japan in 1998.
First, the government signed a deal with the United States to help develop a missile-defense system. A long-standing ban on arms exports was later relaxed so the country could start shipping off missile parts to the Americans. Old-line pacifists say the program has also run afoul of a 1969 law restricting the use of space flight for military purposes, since Japan now has three intelligence satellites in orbit.
Meanwhile, Japanese troops have joined in military operations overseas. The war on terrorism has been deemed exempt from Article 9's specific ban on the "use of force as a means of settling international disputes," since it can be viewed as a form of individual self-defense. Former Prime Minister of Japan Junichiro Koizumi persuaded the parliament to pass temporary laws allowing for overseas deployment. The "Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law" sent supply ships to help U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and another law from 2003 permitted a limited ground presence in southern Iraq.
More-recent debates have focused on whether the Self-Defense Forces can order emergency missile intercepts without first consulting the prime minister, and if it might be possible to launch a pre-emptive strike under certain conditions. The ruling party has also been considering a rewrite of the constitution that would make it easier for the SDF to deploy overseas. To get such an amendment passed, the government would need a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament, plus a majority vote in a national referendum. While there's a lot of support for the reforms right now, it looks like the doves still have enough votes to scuttle the plan in one of the houses.
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer
Explainer thanks Ellis Krauss of the University of California at San Diego.
It's all about keeping up with the Jones'
As a youth I used to weep in butcher's shops.
LOL-Nice 1Originally Posted by Mediocrates
A decision has to be made here. Either treat them nice, or start making threats you are more than willing to back up. This in between stuff is not going to cut it. Love em or kill em. I personally would be more than happy if the world gave the green light for china to do whatever it pleases. I.E Take that country as it's own .... no questions asked. Is China willing to do this? In my oppinion the threat is more than enough to bend this dictator to dropping it's program. He just needs to know he has no other choice.
Granted he is a nut with nukes. All the more reason to either make him go away permanently, or find out how nutty he is, because five years from now he could be a nut with more nukes, and a better delivery system.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks