Does North Korea have the right to nuclear weapons?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Is that a challenge?

No, just reality.

[Ramo]

What does a state having a right to do something mean?

No, North Korea shouldn't have nukes, but no one else should either.

[The Mad Monk]

If a nation has the strength to insist on a particular right, it has that particular right.

"Strength" does not necessarily mean "military strength".

[The Vagabond]

Rights are not God-given. Rights are either granted by the mighty of this world, or grabbed when the mighty are unable to prevent that. Neither is applicable to NK as far as nukes are concerned. Therefore NK doesn't have the right to nuclear weapons. Simple and straightforward.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Ned
I think the more interesting question is whether NK will continue to exist unless it abandons its nuclear weapons program.

I think the more interesting question is: if little Bush does something stupid (agressive) against NK, will anyone in Aptos, CA (being first on the target list) hear about it or will they be incinerated first?

[Eli]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


IIRC, the Negev desert in Southern Israel.

Errr, do you have a source for that? It's the first time I hear this claim.

AFAIK Carver is right, Israel tested it's nukes together with SA.

[Gatekeeper]

Y'know, for some freakin' strange reason, I guess I *trust* the likes of the United States, Britain, China and France to control their nuclear arsenals than I do the likes of, say, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, India and/or Pakistan. If the world's going to have nukes, better that they're under the thumb of democratic nations or, at the very least, stable nations (I'm thinking China here).

I'm sorry if it offends some folks, but I'd wager that the Indian subcontinent is a far more dangerous place today than it was 30 years ago. I'd wager that the likes of NK or Iraq would do something really, really stupid with whatever they have than the United States, Britain or France would do.

Hell, NK wants a non-aggression pact with the USA now! What does that mean? We pull our 30,000 troops out of South Korea? That, so long as NK doesn't attack America directly, we can't do jack **** about their little (or not-so-little) shenanigans?

Yep, the future looks so bright I gotta wear shades! (To protect my eyes from the flash of nudets.)

Gatekeeper

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The ocean? The border? Use slave labor and dig a big tunnel somewhere? Israel's even smaller, and they detonated tests.

A thought just occured to me. Do you think Greenpeace would be interested in trying to prevent such a test.

[BeBMan]

Does North Korea have the right to nuclear weapons?

Of course, everyone has. Remember, nuclear weapons don´t kill people, people kill people...

[aahz_capone]

NK can have nukes if they want to, I have no fear if they get them either. However, according to International Law they can't. Any country has a sovereignity which allows them to bare any arms except those disallowed by treaties they have signed. NK signed a treaty that said they would discontinue nuke research in return for aid from the US. It has yet to be proved whether they broke the agreement. In theory as long as no one finds out, they haven't broke it, and a sovereign country has a right to hold secrets. If they have them no one should fear their use.

No country in their right mind would dare use them for fear of MAD. The US would never first strike with them, nor would Russia, nor would NK. Especially nowadays, any country using them first, especially rogue countries, would be wiped of the map, because missiles can be traced back to point of origin. The fact that NK is developing missiles along side nukes shows that they are "safe" nukers.

A country like Iraq, only interested in nukes but not ICBM tech is dangerous because a car with nuke can't be traced and terrorism is hard to deflect. Iraq has signed a no-nuke treaty, after the Gulf war, which gives them no legal precedance to bare nukes.

Only sociopathic leaders would nuke and Saddam is a sociopath, but thats besides the point, because he gave up his nuke rights after the Gulf War. I'm talking International Law here, peeps, and that's what it boils down to no matter what Bush says. Basically it boils done to everyone has the right, NK (and Iraq) don't have the legal presidance to though.

I actully votd for banana, because it's everyone God-given right to bare banana and banana power is eco-friendly, anti-terror, pro-porn and financially viable.

[aaglo]

The N-Koreans right to have nuclear weapons is as justified as the USA right to have nuclear weapons.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by aaglo
The N-Koreans right to have nuclear weapons is as justified as the USA right to have nuclear weapons.

When we sign a treaty promising not to develop them, then you can make stupid claims. You are jumping the gun a bit.

[Arrian]

Exactly. They may have the right to them, but they don't have the right to free oil, food, and help with building nuclear power plants. They traded their right to have nukes for those three things pursuant to a written agreement.

-Arrian

[MattyBoy]

What aaglo said

[JCG]

What the flaming heck?

"Somebody give Iraq nukes then! And some/more ICBMs! Quickly! They have the right to 'em too!"