Wednesday, November 07, 2007
North Korea and WMDs (for real this time)
North Korea has demonstrated that it has a nuclear program and given the governments bizarre antics and control, is it wise for us to be concerned? A recent poll that I heard about in a South Korean newspaper announced that if the North were to go to war with America, 40% would back its enemy, North Korea. This illustrates how dangerous the hated is that many countries have for America; I think we are always at risk because of it. But it has been exacerbated by our Executive administration's recent shenanagans in Iraq, and how we dealth with it, I pose the question: Under the current Executive Branch administration's policy of pre-emptive strikes against countries possessing the ability to harm the United States or sell weapon technology to countries with that aim, why has that policy not been applied to North Korea?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
umm... that would be war.
Another one.
BlueMeanie -- I don't have you in my gradebook. You currently have credit for 0 posts and 0 comments. You have to go back and put your real name on every post and comment to get credit for them.
And the reason there isn't much concern about North Korea is because they are in a shambles economically speaking and couldn't mount any kind of war from a financial standpoint. Beyond that, despite the fact that their leader is probably clinically insane, he has no real motive for attacking the U.S. other than words.
>KylerBerry said...
umm... that would be war. Another one.
yeah of course it would be war, that's the point, but N. Korea actually has what Iraq didn't and we attacked Iraq for such reasons (supposedly), so how can they NOT attack Kim Jung Il if that is the policy?
I never indicated that N.Korea wanted to attack the territorial U.S., but it does sell weapons to countries hostile to U.S. Also the U.S. currently has a large military presence as well as a security treaty in S. Korea. Furthermore, despite being "in a shambles economically", the North maintains a very large army amassed near the DMZ (I have seen it), which is probably more than capable of anniliating Seoul from the DMZ.
Under U.S. treaty agreements, any attack on the South would involve the U.S. into a second Korean War. Also, under the current Bush administration's policy, pre-emptive military actions can be made against states that produce and sell WMDs to other organizations that endanger the lives of citizens of the United States.
Also, stating as a "fact" that Kim Jong Il is clinically insane is a logical fallacy, and if he really was "clinically insane" then why would he need a motive to attack any country?
Korean missile sales:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546
A sight stating the North's military capabilities:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm
clinical analysis of world leaders (Kim Jung Il):
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/22/nkorea.kim/index.html
May I remind you that "Kenneth" is the professor. Also he said "probably". To my point though, I do agree with questioning the Bush administration's competency. Though, I'd find it odd if there were unsurmountable evidence that North Korea was a major threat to the United States as of now and our country is not taking any precautions what so ever. If America is doing something, but not calling all out war it wouldn't be fair to say they aren't taking precautions of some sort. In fact that would be a logical fallacy. I could name quite a few although you could later disprove the logical fallacies such as: Observational Selection, Truth by Declaration, Memory, Misunderstanding the Nature of Statistics, Immunity to New Ideas, False Information, Desire for Simple Answers, Avoidance of Positive Information, and Argument from Authority. Make sure your not using any of these fallacies during your critical thinking.
>but N. Korea actually has what Iraq didn't and we attacked Iraq for such reasons (supposedly), so how can they NOT attack Kim Jung Il if that is the policy?
It isn't a universal policy, first off. Secondly, it would be close to impossible for us to successfully engage in three wars simultaneously, particularly when the first two aren't going all that well in the first place.
>but it does sell weapons to countries hostile to U.S.
But it is a bit of a stretch to say N. Korea is selling weapons to nations "hostile" to the U.S. There are certainly nations that don't like us in that group, but I've seen no evidence of hostilities from these countries (which is not to say that individuals from these countries haven't done so). Iran is the only one that's even close, but the evidence for that is sketchy at best. If they were openly hostile towards us, why would their leader come give a speech at a U.S. college? And if they were hostile, how could he get a visa in the first place? The concern with some of these countries isn't current hostility, but potential future hostility.
>Furthermore, despite being "in a shambles economically", the North maintains a very large army amassed near the DMZ (I have seen it),
Right, but they can't afford to feed their own population. How long do you think they could sustain an attack on anyone?
>which is probably more than capable of anniliating Seoul from the DMZ.
I doubt this severely. Troops is one thing, a small number of faulty weapons that barely work is another altogether.
>Under U.S. treaty agreements, any attack on the South would involve the U.S. into a second Korean War.
Yes, but they have to actually attack, something they appear to have no interest in doing. Other treaty agreements we have, notably the U.N. charter, forbid pre-emptive attacks on U.N. members.
>sell WMDs to other organizations that endanger the lives of citizens of the United States.
There's no evidence of the selling of WMDs to anyone. Missiles are not WMDs, only nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are.
>Also, stating as a "fact" that Kim Jong Il is clinically insane is a logical fallacy,
Which is why I didn't say that.
>and if he really was "clinically insane" then why would he need a motive to attack any country?
Being clinically insane is a broad category and it doesn't necessarily (or usually) mean one is suicidal. Even most insane people work under motives. I didn't suggest he had a break with reality or was suicidal.
Post a Comment