North Korea

[suityou01]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/8066861.stm

Geological recordings of the tremor suggest it was much larger than the 2006 test. That was backed up by the Russian defence ministry, which detected a blast of up to 20 kilotons - comparable to the American bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

A twenty kiloton underground nuclear test. That is some test. I note the language is still very diplomatic.

But in a strongly worded statement, President Obama said the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatened peace and was in "blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council".

"The danger posed by North Korea's threatening activities warrants action by the international community. We have been and will continue working with our allies and partners in the six-party talks as well as other members of the UN Security Council in the days ahead," his statement said.

I wonder what the course of action to deal with this threat would be. More sanctions, some passive aggressive rhetoric in the newspapers, yes that'll do the trick.

Does anyone for a minute believe anything physical will transpire out of this nonsense?

[d000hg]

What do you suggest? Invade them because they actually have the potential to create WMDs?

How about the US says, "we'll get rid of our nukes if you get rid of yours", instead of "we can be trusted, you can't" which is pretty insulting and fairly hypocritical to boot.

[suityou01]

What do you suggest? Invade them because they actually have the potential to create WMDs?

How about the US says, "we'll get rid of our nukes if you get rid of yours", instead of "we can be trusted, you can't" which is pretty insulting and fairly hypocritical to boot.

Shirley we can find some halfway house between invading and using colourful language. I just reckon that if they have no qualms with p*ssing off the international community harsher sanctions will do sod all.

[NotAllThere]

What do you suggest? Invade them because they actually have the potential to create WMDs?

How about the US says, "we'll get rid of our nukes if you get rid of yours", instead of "we can be trusted, you can't" which is pretty insulting and fairly hypocritical to boot.

Because the US has some semblence of democratic process, whereas N. Korea is the most oppressive regime on earth.

Forget about invading. Get China to bomb the appropriate sites. So long as they can avoid the death camps, they'll probably avoid civilian casualties.

[Mich the Tester]

Bomb them with satellite telephones so that the population can organise themselves and communicate with the outside word.

[Pickle2]

Bomb them with satellite telephones so that the population can organise themselves and communicate with the outside word.

yeah man! And some dylan tapes thrown in too!

[d000hg]

Because the US has some semblence of democratic process, whereas N. Korea is the most oppressive regime on earth.

So if it was a democracy testing Nukes that'd be OK?

[DodgyAgent]

What do you suggest? Invade them because they actually have the potential to create WMDs?

How about the US says, "we'll get rid of our nukes if you get rid of yours", instead of "we can be trusted, you can't" which is pretty insulting and fairly hypocritical to boot.

It may be insulting but it is true

[DodgyAgent]

So if it was a democracy testing Nukes that'd be OK?

Another one too stupid to realise or understand the diffent dynamics here. Your "equivalence argument" makes the Allies killing of germans in WW2 equally as reprehensible as Hitler killing Jews in concentration camps. After all what is the difference? killing is killing.

[NotAllThere]

So if it was a democracy testing Nukes that'd be OK?

The US haven't tested nukes, since 1996, when they signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The US doesn't oppress most of it's own people. The US doesn't run death camps. The US doesn't practice collective punishment against families. etc. etc.