Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'd say our ONLY solution is to get China involved Anything we might do could very well end in disasterHow has it failed? Every April they have a Natiuonal Unity Day and bellow threats and loudly fart kimchee. And then every May they go back to doing nothing.
Over the years, there have only been empty threats.
The stated objective has been to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear ability. Going back to former President Bill Clinton, we have been assured by them that they are not developing them. Now they have them and are developing ballistic missiles. Best estimates seem to be that by the end of President Trump's first term, they will have the ability to reach our West Coast with a nuclear device.
ked his interest in intervening to quiet N. Korea's saber rattling. Threatening to put nukes in Southern S. Korea, just mere minutes' flight time from China will definitely get China moving....
Not true. For the last several decades, especially more and more 'recently', N. Korea would rattle their sabers - most of the time is just before or in the middle of winter. They run out of food and oil for heat. The US tells China to get them under control, and a supply of rice and fuel make their way to N. Korea.ked his interest in intervening to quiet N. Korea's saber rattling. Threatening to put nukes in Southern S. Korea, just mere minutes' flight time from China will definitely get China moving....
Last time China moved, they sent a million men into North Korea to help out.
This time it is different. The N. Korean leader is making more serious threats and rattling more than just sabers.
Perhaps bright people are thinking of what will be in 10 years ,,,,not tomorrow if he continues down his nuclear pathSo North Korea has missiles.
He has launched them into the Ocean.
- Has any landed in anyone else's International Waters?
So has he broken the law or violated any treaties?
1. "Two treaties restrict nuclear testing as such: the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty, or PTBT),[2] and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),[3] which has not yet entered into force. However, North Korea is not a party to either of these treaties and thus does not have any direct legal obligations thereunder."
2. "North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced that it was withdrawing immediately from the treaty[7] and notified the Security Council of its withdrawal. If North Korea were still a party to the NPT, its testing of nuclear weapons would constitute a clear violation of Article II of the treaty, which states that "[e]ach non-nuclear-weapon State"
--- "Because Article X(1) of the NPT requires that three months notice be given for withdrawal from the treaty, one must determine whether North Korea's statement that its withdrawal was effectiveimmediately rendered the entire withdrawal ineffective."
This will undoubtedly end in a 'He said - she said' stalemate.
3. North Korea's Nuclear Disarmament Declaration
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed the issue of legal obligations stemming from unilateral declarations, in the (coincidentally-named) Nuclear Tests case: When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers upon the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound ... is binding."
So despite declaring they would no longer adhere to this the Intl Community could still try to hold them to it.
My point in all of this is to ask the question:
HAS NORTH KOREA DONE ANYTHING REALLY 'ILLEGAL' TO MERIT OTHER NATIONS FROM DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY SUCH AS POTENTIAL MILITARY STRIKES?
(Yes, I do know that what they are doing has a direct impact on our 'National Security' and 'National Interest'...)
There is only one clean solution. Assist China in the assassination of the NK royal family and subsequent annexation of NK.
It's doable.
A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now and then turn to Iran and say, "Let's talk." We have so many platforms from which to launch a nuclear strike that the attack would be over before the NK knew it was coming and they would have very limited ability left to retaliate. China's nuclear capability is not very impressive, perhaps less than Israel's, so while the SK would be outraged and the Chinese furious, and the US would have weather a tsunami of criticism from around the world - so what's new? - there would no longer be a NK problem, and this would also send a very strong message to other countries that might be considering violating the non proliferation protocols. So the whole world wins, except, of course, the NK.Perhaps bright people are thinking of what will be in 10 years ,,,,not tomorrow if he continues down his nuclear pathSo North Korea has missiles.
He has launched them into the Ocean.
- Has any landed in anyone else's International Waters?
So has he broken the law or violated any treaties?
1. "Two treaties restrict nuclear testing as such: the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty, or PTBT),[2] and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),[3] which has not yet entered into force. However, North Korea is not a party to either of these treaties and thus does not have any direct legal obligations thereunder."
2. "North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced that it was withdrawing immediately from the treaty[7] and notified the Security Council of its withdrawal. If North Korea were still a party to the NPT, its testing of nuclear weapons would constitute a clear violation of Article II of the treaty, which states that "[e]ach non-nuclear-weapon State"
--- "Because Article X(1) of the NPT requires that three months notice be given for withdrawal from the treaty, one must determine whether North Korea's statement that its withdrawal was effectiveimmediately rendered the entire withdrawal ineffective."
This will undoubtedly end in a 'He said - she said' stalemate.
3. North Korea's Nuclear Disarmament Declaration
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed the issue of legal obligations stemming from unilateral declarations, in the (coincidentally-named) Nuclear Tests case: When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers upon the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound ... is binding."
So despite declaring they would no longer adhere to this the Intl Community could still try to hold them to it.
My point in all of this is to ask the question:
HAS NORTH KOREA DONE ANYTHING REALLY 'ILLEGAL' TO MERIT OTHER NATIONS FROM DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY SUCH AS POTENTIAL MILITARY STRIKES?
(Yes, I do know that what they are doing has a direct impact on our 'National Security' and 'National Interest'...)
There is only one clean solution. Assist China in the assassination of the NK royal family and subsequent annexation of NK.
It's doable.
Unlike when West Germany took on East Germany, there is no history of China wanting N. Korea. It would only be a financial liability, with nothing to be gained.
Simple...elegant...but not realistic. I like it, though.A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now
Why would it not be realistic?Simple...elegant...but not realistic. I like it, though.A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now
The United States, the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons against another nation, arguing how dangerous another nation and their nuclear arsenal would be / is, being the only nation - AGAIN - to use nuclear weapons - AGAIN, this time as a Pre-emptive act, not having been attacked?!Why would it not be realistic?Simple...elegant...but not realistic. I like it, though.A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now
Think we should send the NK leader pictures of what 2 old atom bombs did to japan ? They might get the hint?A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now and then turn to Iran and say, "Let's talk." We have so many platforms from which to launch a nuclear strike that the attack would be over before the NK knew it was coming and they would have very limited ability left to retaliate. China's nuclear capability is not very impressive, perhaps less than Israel's, so while the SK would be outraged and the Chinese furious, and the US would have weather a tsunami of criticism from around the world - so what's new? - there would no longer be a NK problem, and this would also send a very strong message to other countries that might be considering violating the non proliferation protocols. So the whole world wins, except, of course, the NK.Perhaps bright people are thinking of what will be in 10 years ,,,,not tomorrow if he continues down his nuclear pathSo North Korea has missiles.
He has launched them into the Ocean.
- Has any landed in anyone else's International Waters?
So has he broken the law or violated any treaties?
1. "Two treaties restrict nuclear testing as such: the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty, or PTBT),[2] and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),[3] which has not yet entered into force. However, North Korea is not a party to either of these treaties and thus does not have any direct legal obligations thereunder."
2. "North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced that it was withdrawing immediately from the treaty[7] and notified the Security Council of its withdrawal. If North Korea were still a party to the NPT, its testing of nuclear weapons would constitute a clear violation of Article II of the treaty, which states that "[e]ach non-nuclear-weapon State"
--- "Because Article X(1) of the NPT requires that three months notice be given for withdrawal from the treaty, one must determine whether North Korea's statement that its withdrawal was effectiveimmediately rendered the entire withdrawal ineffective."
This will undoubtedly end in a 'He said - she said' stalemate.
3. North Korea's Nuclear Disarmament Declaration
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed the issue of legal obligations stemming from unilateral declarations, in the (coincidentally-named) Nuclear Tests case: When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers upon the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound ... is binding."
So despite declaring they would no longer adhere to this the Intl Community could still try to hold them to it.
My point in all of this is to ask the question:
HAS NORTH KOREA DONE ANYTHING REALLY 'ILLEGAL' TO MERIT OTHER NATIONS FROM DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY SUCH AS POTENTIAL MILITARY STRIKES?
(Yes, I do know that what they are doing has a direct impact on our 'National Security' and 'National Interest'...)
Some people might think this is too an extreme a measure, but all the other measures I have seen are about how to endure the NK nuclear threat, not how to end it. If we do allow NK to continue it will sell its nuclear technology and missile technology and then the NK nuclear threat will blossom into a global nuclear threat.
All other methods, diplomatic and economic, have been tried with no progress, and not one other proposal could end the NK nuclear threat or prevent NK from selling its nuclear weapons technology to other countries. Already Iran's missile program has been based on NK's and NK Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria before Israel blew it up. At this point, the nuclear option is the last option since all the others have been tried and have failed.The United States, the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons against another nation, arguing how dangerous another nation and their nuclear arsenal would be / is, being the only nation - AGAIN - to use nuclear weapons - AGAIN, this time as a Pre-emptive act, not having been attacked?!Why would it not be realistic?Simple...elegant...but not realistic. I like it, though.A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now
Yeah, we would be condemned by every nation on the planet...not to mention we would be inviting military action in response from every other nation that wanted to do so.
WAR, itself, is the absolute last option a nation should use after every diplomatic option has been exhausted/ THAT being said, a nuclear strike should be the absolute last option in war.
Sounds highly illegal to me, besides being the first nuclear weapon used since 1945. A dream plan, not a real one.A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now and then turn to Iran and say, "Let's talk." We have so many platforms from which to launch a nuclear strike that the attack would be over before the NK knew it was coming and they would have very limited ability left to retaliate. China's nuclear capability is not very impressive, perhaps less than Israel's, so while the SK would be outraged and the Chinese furious, and the US would have weather a tsunami of criticism from around the world - so what's new? - there would no longer be a NK problem, and this would also send a very strong message to other countries that might be considering violating the non proliferation protocols. So the whole world wins, except, of course, the NK.Perhaps bright people are thinking of what will be in 10 years ,,,,not tomorrow if he continues down his nuclear pathSo North Korea has missiles.
He has launched them into the Ocean.
- Has any landed in anyone else's International Waters?
So has he broken the law or violated any treaties?
1. "Two treaties restrict nuclear testing as such: the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty, or PTBT),[2] and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),[3] which has not yet entered into force. However, North Korea is not a party to either of these treaties and thus does not have any direct legal obligations thereunder."
2. "North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced that it was withdrawing immediately from the treaty[7] and notified the Security Council of its withdrawal. If North Korea were still a party to the NPT, its testing of nuclear weapons would constitute a clear violation of Article II of the treaty, which states that "[e]ach non-nuclear-weapon State"
--- "Because Article X(1) of the NPT requires that three months notice be given for withdrawal from the treaty, one must determine whether North Korea's statement that its withdrawal was effectiveimmediately rendered the entire withdrawal ineffective."
This will undoubtedly end in a 'He said - she said' stalemate.
3. North Korea's Nuclear Disarmament Declaration
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed the issue of legal obligations stemming from unilateral declarations, in the (coincidentally-named) Nuclear Tests case: When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers upon the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound ... is binding."
So despite declaring they would no longer adhere to this the Intl Community could still try to hold them to it.
My point in all of this is to ask the question:
HAS NORTH KOREA DONE ANYTHING REALLY 'ILLEGAL' TO MERIT OTHER NATIONS FROM DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY SUCH AS POTENTIAL MILITARY STRIKES?
(Yes, I do know that what they are doing has a direct impact on our 'National Security' and 'National Interest'...)
Some people might think this is too an extreme a measure, but all the other measures I have seen are about how to endure the NK nuclear threat, not how to end it. If we do allow NK to continue it will sell its nuclear technology and missile technology and then the NK nuclear threat will blossom into a global nuclear threat.
Why send a picture when a live demonstration would be so much more effective.Think we should send the NK leader pictures of what 2 old atom bombs did to japan ? They might get the hint?A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now and then turn to Iran and say, "Let's talk." We have so many platforms from which to launch a nuclear strike that the attack would be over before the NK knew it was coming and they would have very limited ability left to retaliate. China's nuclear capability is not very impressive, perhaps less than Israel's, so while the SK would be outraged and the Chinese furious, and the US would have weather a tsunami of criticism from around the world - so what's new? - there would no longer be a NK problem, and this would also send a very strong message to other countries that might be considering violating the non proliferation protocols. So the whole world wins, except, of course, the NK.Perhaps bright people are thinking of what will be in 10 years ,,,,not tomorrow if he continues down his nuclear pathSo North Korea has missiles.
He has launched them into the Ocean.
- Has any landed in anyone else's International Waters?
So has he broken the law or violated any treaties?
1. "Two treaties restrict nuclear testing as such: the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty, or PTBT),[2] and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),[3] which has not yet entered into force. However, North Korea is not a party to either of these treaties and thus does not have any direct legal obligations thereunder."
2. "North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced that it was withdrawing immediately from the treaty[7] and notified the Security Council of its withdrawal. If North Korea were still a party to the NPT, its testing of nuclear weapons would constitute a clear violation of Article II of the treaty, which states that "[e]ach non-nuclear-weapon State"
--- "Because Article X(1) of the NPT requires that three months notice be given for withdrawal from the treaty, one must determine whether North Korea's statement that its withdrawal was effectiveimmediately rendered the entire withdrawal ineffective."
This will undoubtedly end in a 'He said - she said' stalemate.
3. North Korea's Nuclear Disarmament Declaration
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed the issue of legal obligations stemming from unilateral declarations, in the (coincidentally-named) Nuclear Tests case: When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers upon the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound ... is binding."
So despite declaring they would no longer adhere to this the Intl Community could still try to hold them to it.
My point in all of this is to ask the question:
HAS NORTH KOREA DONE ANYTHING REALLY 'ILLEGAL' TO MERIT OTHER NATIONS FROM DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY SUCH AS POTENTIAL MILITARY STRIKES?
(Yes, I do know that what they are doing has a direct impact on our 'National Security' and 'National Interest'...)
Some people might think this is too an extreme a measure, but all the other measures I have seen are about how to endure the NK nuclear threat, not how to end it. If we do allow NK to continue it will sell its nuclear technology and missile technology and then the NK nuclear threat will blossom into a global nuclear threat.
A very real plan. In fact, it is the only plan that would end the NK nuclear threat.Sounds highly illegal to me, besides being the first nuclear weapon used since 1945. A dream plan, not a real one.A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now and then turn to Iran and say, "Let's talk." We have so many platforms from which to launch a nuclear strike that the attack would be over before the NK knew it was coming and they would have very limited ability left to retaliate. China's nuclear capability is not very impressive, perhaps less than Israel's, so while the SK would be outraged and the Chinese furious, and the US would have weather a tsunami of criticism from around the world - so what's new? - there would no longer be a NK problem, and this would also send a very strong message to other countries that might be considering violating the non proliferation protocols. So the whole world wins, except, of course, the NK.Perhaps bright people are thinking of what will be in 10 years ,,,,not tomorrow if he continues down his nuclear pathSo North Korea has missiles.
He has launched them into the Ocean.
- Has any landed in anyone else's International Waters?
So has he broken the law or violated any treaties?
1. "Two treaties restrict nuclear testing as such: the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty, or PTBT),[2] and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),[3] which has not yet entered into force. However, North Korea is not a party to either of these treaties and thus does not have any direct legal obligations thereunder."
2. "North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced that it was withdrawing immediately from the treaty[7] and notified the Security Council of its withdrawal. If North Korea were still a party to the NPT, its testing of nuclear weapons would constitute a clear violation of Article II of the treaty, which states that "[e]ach non-nuclear-weapon State"
--- "Because Article X(1) of the NPT requires that three months notice be given for withdrawal from the treaty, one must determine whether North Korea's statement that its withdrawal was effectiveimmediately rendered the entire withdrawal ineffective."
This will undoubtedly end in a 'He said - she said' stalemate.
3. North Korea's Nuclear Disarmament Declaration
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed the issue of legal obligations stemming from unilateral declarations, in the (coincidentally-named) Nuclear Tests case: When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers upon the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound ... is binding."
So despite declaring they would no longer adhere to this the Intl Community could still try to hold them to it.
My point in all of this is to ask the question:
HAS NORTH KOREA DONE ANYTHING REALLY 'ILLEGAL' TO MERIT OTHER NATIONS FROM DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY SUCH AS POTENTIAL MILITARY STRIKES?
(Yes, I do know that what they are doing has a direct impact on our 'National Security' and 'National Interest'...)
Some people might think this is too an extreme a measure, but all the other measures I have seen are about how to endure the NK nuclear threat, not how to end it. If we do allow NK to continue it will sell its nuclear technology and missile technology and then the NK nuclear threat will blossom into a global nuclear threat.
