world

North Korean nuclear law reflects global trend

24 Comments
By Claire Lee and Kang Jin-kyu

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made thinly veiled threats of nuclear war, vowing Wednesday that Moscow would use "all the means at our disposal to protect Russia".

Putin's loyal followers claim he's 'smart" for doing so, though it's doubtful Putin will allow any of his minions to share space with him at one of the fallout shelters each of his palaces probably has. And Kim's supporters cheer him on because he's on Putin's side, so it's OK for him to threaten first strike. Putin and Kim's supporters continue to back their authoritarian idols, because like their other idols Xi, Jinping and the Ayatollah they are anti-democracy.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Of course tinpot dictators will not give up their nuclear weapons seeing what happened to Qaddafi, a fellow dictator who gave up his ambitions to build nukes in return for recognition from the West.

The West has a problem on their hands with North Korea having nuclear weapons and also Iran on the path of developing them, so it would be fruitful to remember who provided them with the knowhow and technology to go nuclear.

It was none other than Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Nishan-e-Imtiaz of Pakistan and the father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Qaddadfi-duck Was pulled out of a drainage pipe and shot not because of anything the west did to him, but because he was a lousy leader who squandered his nation's wealth and then turned his guns including fighter bombers on civilians.

So, not the West's fault.

North Korea using this is nothing more than a cheap excuse as well as an admission that it is incompetent at basic governance and are scared of its own population.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

What are these crazies so afraid of? Seems like they are all afraid of America. So cry babies. Live by the sword.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

No Worries, if and when it happens does anyone really think that life is worth living for when it's all over, rather be dead than living in a poisoned and radiated world.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Thankyou Putin for making the world a more dangerous place

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Of the nuclear powers, only two - China and India - have adopted a no first use policy. NK is not the exception but rather the rule.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

What kind of nut jobs are we allowing to shape the world our children will navigate life through? As adults, we are all responsible for this.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Anyone else miss $1.29 a gallon gas, world peace, and mean tweets?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Out of interest, what was the USA's nuclear weapons policy on the morning of August 6, 1945?

Aren't those weapons tests?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Was pulled out of a drainage pipe and shot not because of anything the west did to him

@ Nemo

Did you miss the part where US and UK chipped in with air strikes which helped the rebels corner him? Or did you deliberately leave that out?

Of course Libya had oil whereas North Korea only has coal, so Rocket Man would be feeling quite safe with his nukes for now.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Let's remember that Korea was cut in half by the Americans, who then proceeded to inflict genocidal level casualties on the civilians of the part that successfully resisted America's violent attempts to turn them into another satrapy.

Once you realize that your enemy is brutal enough to not just deliberately bomb every house and hospital, but to return to bomb them again and again until even the rubble has become unrecognizable, you can either hope (in vain, as the rubble of Raqqa proves) that enemy will become civilized enough not to target civilians, unite and rebuild yourself (if you have a resource everyone wants like Iran), or find some other way of being able to inflict enough damage on your enemy to deter them (nuclear weapons meet that challenge, even if your enemy has thousands of times more of them) as self protection.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Did you miss the part where the US and the UK did that BECAUSE he had bombed his own population or did you leave that out on purpose?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Let's remember that Korea was cut in half by the Americans, who then proceeded to inflict genocidal level casualties on the civilians of the part that successfully resisted America's violent attempts to turn them into another satrapy.

Complete and total crap.

The US and the USSR jointly agreed to accept the IJA surrender, the US in the South but at the time of the invasion, by the North, the US had left the Peninsula.

There were a lot of civilian casualties but not for any of the reasons you claim.

BTW, ask the South how much they mind US intervention today.

Your grasp of history seems as shaky as your hold on factual reality.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Did you miss the part where the US and the UK did that BECAUSE he had bombed his own population or did you leave that out on purpose?

Previously you were saying that West didn’t have anything to do with his removal but now you have conveniently changed your tune.

The US and UK did not hit Gaddafi with air strikes because he was an evil tyrant.

There are a lot more evil tyrants out there who do not raise any concerns in the West.

The US and UK wanted Gaddafi gone because Libya had oil. The same reason that they wanted Saddam gone and the same reason that they wanted Shah as their puppet before the Iranian Revolution. The same reason that Fidel Castro was at loggerheads with the West and its the same reason that whoever comes next in Russia will also be at loggerheads with the West.

If a country has oil then trust the US and UK to give them a taste of freedom and democracy. Unless the oily dictator does the bidding of the West.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Add Hugo Chavez and Maduro to the above list and see the pattern.

All countries having oil need a dose of freedom and democracy.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I did not change my tune.

The US made a deal w/ Qaddadfi to give up his nuclear material in exchange for a promise not to blow him up for having an illegal nuclear program and secretly trying to get s bomb.

It did not promise to protect him from the wrath of his own people neither did it nor should it have promised to stand idly by while Qaddadfi set his heavy weapons on his own people.

Your version of events is as biased and as shoddy as Richard's.

So keep on hating Western democracy, but your whataboutism and excuses for a dictatorship like either Qaddadfi or Kim is neither credible nor widely accepted.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So keep on hating Western democracy, but your whataboutism and excuses for a dictatorship like either Qaddadfi or Kim is neither credible nor widely accepted.

Neither do I hate Western democracy nor do I offer any excuses for tinpot dictatorships.

Many of my own relatives live in the West and are doing quite well so I have no reason to hate the West.

What I do point out is the foreign policy hypocrisy of the West which creates enemies out of one set of dictatorships as well as democracies who are not willing to do the bidding of the West while looking the other way or even offering tacit support when rogue countries aligned with them indulge in genocide or human rights abuses.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let's remember that Korea was cut in half by the Americans, 

Korea was cut in half by the Soviets who refused to go along with UN plans for national elections. They formed the DPRK government within their occupation zone and refused to allow the UN to conduct elections across all of Korea so Korea could have a single national government.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For the sake of some historical accuracy, the military intervention in Libya was conducted under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. A UN sponsored cease fire in the First Libyan Civil War failed. The UN imposed a no fly zone over Libya hoping to at least ground the Libyan Air Force and prevent them from bombing civilians. That didn't stop the bloodshed so the Security Council authorized a military intervention. The resulting force was a mixture of NATO and non-NATO militaries including Sweden, UAE and Qatar. The very first bombs were dropped by the French Air Force followed by the RAF and RCAF. Later the US and Royal Navies fired Tomahawks at Libyan military targets but US forces arrived after the intervention was well underway due to a reluctance among members of the US Congress to become involved.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For all the US foreign policy apologists out here, there was a time during the Clinton era when North Korea was willing to negotiate and give up it’s nascent nuclear program in return for security guarantees.

The high point of the negotiations was the visit to North Korea of Madeleine Albright, the then Secretary of State. 

What followed was a failure of diplomacy where hawks like Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton sidelined those in the Bush administration with moderate views on the basis of dubious intelligence reports.

The book Meltdown by former CNN journalist Mike Chinoy reveals the entire story for those who care to read.

The other thing to note is that when Pakistan conducted its nuclear tests they officially invited observers from North Korea to attend. But if Pakistan can get away with sheltering Osama Bin Laden then providing nuclear technology knowhow to North Korea is nothing.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Just leave North korea the heck alone.

The USA is 100% to blame for interfering by intervention of the peace treaty signing between the two Korea's !

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites