Dull thoughts on a shiny, shiny world.
Who gives a shit?
Published on February 19, 2005 By cactoblasta In Politics
There seems to be an inordinate amount of worry amongst many Americans in particular about the axis of evil getting nuclear weapons. Why? The US president has recently restarted research into the use of nuclear arms on what would previously be considered conventional targets, in particular as bunker-busters. So to the US government an increase in the use of nuclear arms is merely good policy, and certainly not something that has to be stopped.

Of course one could reply that Iran and North Korea are evil nations, full of monkey-men and maniacs hell-bent on reaping havoc throughout the civilised world. One would be an incredibly arrogant racist, but one could do so. After all, they do have turbans or slanty eyes; sure signs of the disreputable if encountered in any bastion of western influence, such as a mall or Jerry Springer. They must be practically champing at the bit to attack us.

One could also argue that Iran and North Korea has been at war with the west for decades. The recent occupation of Paris by Palestianian crack troops (hey, they're both Muslim countries/groups, right?) and the subjugation of Geneva by NK diplomats are cases in point of the two nation's recent history of constant assault on our interests and our peoples. Iran and NK also, like the treacherous French and those notoriously villianous New Zealanders also opposed our occupation of the third point in the axis: Iraq. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is.

One could argue that Iran's anti-Israel rhetoric is merely a mask for their true hatred of non-Semite/Iranian peoples. Once they conquer the world's second most powerful military power they'll come for us next! It only stands to reason - Israel is practically the Constantinople of the modern world, providing the only entry-point to the western world. If it falls, there'll be nothing to protect New York or Washington from terrorist attack.

And of course we need only to look at NK and Iran to see two countries on their way to global domination. It's only through military invasion that we could possibly prevent their scientists from selling their expertise to the highest bidder in the same way the Iraqi scientists recently have. Waiting for them to fall would be futile, especially considering their domination in global economics and their robust social systems. Especially when we consider the instability that occurs around the end of a regime... you just don't get that instability when you invade. The current peacefulness and tranquility of Afghanistan proved that to the world.

Now that I think of it, there is a lot to worry about when two of the world's most insignificant middle powers gain nuclear arms. Perhaps the scare-mongers have a point...

Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Feb 24, 2005
You won't *ever* see that happen. If they are as brainwashed as they seem to be they will not change and overthrow him.

In which case overthrowing him ourselves will only create a situation a million times worse than Iraq - if everyone's a partisan, you'd have to kill them all. The media would have a field day and the US government would probably fall. That's a big price to pay for a massive increase in world terrorism (as politically useful as that can be).


With NK, it would not be the same. If Kim, who hates the US, really is the only one with his finger on the button (and, since he controls everything, he probably is), then there are going to be some big kabooms. And even if we are only talking about "in the 10s", that's too many. You're still talking millions of lives lost in minutes and more down the road from radiation poisoning and injuries


So you really think Kim is the one with the power in NK? Any reason to believe that? Surely he's too insane to be trusted with anything more than figurehead status. I would have thought that the country was ruled in reality by a junta of military figures; certainly not Kim. I think you'd still have to really push him to make him launch nukes if he was in power though - to the best of my knowledge the psych assessments of him that i've read don't indicate paranoid psychosis, so he'll have to feel really threatened to fire them off anyway.

I don't think we're going to agree on this though; you seem to want to destroy the nukes even at the cost of a first strike, while I'm prepared to let several million die (roughly the same number) on the off-chance that the situation can't be contained without violent intervention.

If I'm getting you here, you think that the people will eventually just tire of repression and push it away, right? Well, they've had the same brutal government, passed from father to son, for what? Going on 60 years now?

Not just think; know. It usually takes up to two generations for brutal dictatorships to be overthrown. In South America the US faced the unusual problem of it happening a few times a decade. If the populace is nearly-fed and can see the upper class lording it over them for no apparent reason, they're going to ask, "where's the pork?" It's just something people do.

I mean, they even went to war for the father, and a bloody war it was (as many or slightly more US casualties in 3 years than in the 11 years we spent fighting in Vietnam). If they haven't tired of it by now, will they anytime soon? I doubt it. And we had been feeding them and giving them medicine and oil for some time...that was part of the Clinton-Albright deal to keep them from pursuing their nuke program. Didn't seem to work, huh?

Yeah, that was a stupid plan. Far better to have offered the aid on the requirement that it go to the peasantry. I haven't a clue what the Clinton administration was thinking when they figured they could prevent a country that felt threatened from developing nukes. It's just not going to happen. And in case you haven't noticed, the NK peasants have been tiring of it. That's why relations between SK and NK were softening quite considerably up until the 'Axis of Evil' comments. NK knew it had to change or face serious unrest; family reunions were just one side-effect of this.
on Feb 24, 2005
family reunions


Short-lived family reunions. Then "back behind the fence, folks. Don't want you getting too many ideas."

I don't know, cacto...I hope all your (pretty much) rose-colored glasses idealism about the situation is correct, and things just fall apart without any help from anyone else.
But if it isn't, yes, I'd support (unwillingly) a first strike to take out their nukes before they got the chance to use them.
on Feb 25, 2005
One minute I'm a cynic, the next I'm an idealist - what next? That's very John Kerry-like of you, and most unbecoming. I base my opinions on my cynical approach to human nature, and that leads me to think that NK would wither and die if it wasn't hated so intensely from outside.

By the way - thanks for supporting that first strike. When the clouds of fallout hit Australia due to prevailing winds I'll be sure to remember your name with real thanks.
on Feb 25, 2005
So you really think Kim is the one with the power in NK? Any reason to believe that? Surely he's too insane to be trusted with anything more than figurehead status.


If he's not the one with the power then *how* does he stay in power?

If I'm getting you here, you think that the people will eventually just tire of repression and push it away, right? Well, they've had the same brutal government, passed from father to son, for what? Going on 60 years now?

Not just think; know. It usually takes up to two generations for brutal dictatorships to be overthrown. In South America the US faced the unusual problem of it happening a few times a decade. If the populace is nearly-fed and can see the upper class lording it over them for no apparent reason, they're going to ask, "where's the pork?" It's just something people do.


Sorry but *you* don't know any such thing. Neither do I. NONE of us can say what a group of people will do or think at any given time. All you can do is surmise. If you have a doubt as to what they might do, go read some history circa 1950 AKA: Korean Conflict
on Feb 25, 2005
One minute I'm a cynic, the next I'm an idealist - what next


Okay, you got me...you're an idealistic cynic. Howzat?
You do have an extremely cynical view of things, as we've already touched upon.
But as far as the NK situation goes...you have a little brighter outlook than most of us. But, as I say, you're not exactly in the line of fire, so you're free to have those views without any real danger to yourself or those you love.

By the way - thanks for supporting that first strike. When the clouds of fallout hit Australia due to prevailing winds I'll be sure to remember your name with real thanks.


No problem; take a nice, deep breath before you say it, though.
on Feb 25, 2005
If he's not the one with the power then *how* does he stay in power?

You do realise how strange this sounds, don't you? In case this was a serious question...

There are always advantages to wielding power through less obvious means. History is replete with examples of regents and chancellors who wielded real power despite the apparent existence of a king or supreme ruler. The mythology surrounding his father, coupled with Kim's own apparent lack of intelligence makes Kim a great candidate for figurehead status. Let him take the wrap in the world courts if it comes to that, or let him take the blame for well, any kind of negative action. The real power-brokers will still be there when the government falls, so the power won't have to switch hands to any real extent.

You're right though; 'know' is too strong a word. 'Educated guess' is as good as I can do, but then again you can't do any better; my theory is as valid as yours, especially when we're talking about something so abstract.
on Feb 25, 2005
You're right though; 'know' is too strong a word. 'Educated guess' is as good as I can do, but then again you can't do any better; my theory is as valid as yours, especially when we're talking about something so abstract.


Never said mine was any better did I? What I *did* say was that if you wanted an inkling of what they *might* do, go read up on the Korean Conflict circa 1950.
on Feb 25, 2005
Cacto doesn't have to read up on anything...he possesses the entire spectrum of all human knowledge locked (tight) up in that closed mind of his. Just ask him, he'll happily tell you.
on Feb 25, 2005
Thanks, righty, I appreciate your input - especially when you offer such profound insights as that. I don't know everything, but that doesn't mean I don't have any common sense.

Why would the children of today react in the same way that their grandparents did?

Things have changed a little since then; the dicatorship has consolidated, the fervour of the beginning has faded and the impact of the regime's failures is starting to hit hard. It seems a little strange to assume that the reaction of the people today would be the same as those 50 years ago.

But then again you're probably right; it does seem logical to assume that the cycle of belief would fit in at least a little bit into the 50-year timeframe we've got here. Whether that cycle of rebellion (ie the grandpas rebelled against their parents (love Kim), their kids rebelled (hate Kim) their kids rebelled (love Kim again)) continues in the face of considerably different circumstances is less likely.
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4