Liverpool FC Forum

by **82-1074641017** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:10 pm

Ciggy wrote:I know you kept taking the p.iss out of this fella Paul, but he seems to have lost the plot with testing out that bomb and showing his others off, in that ceramny yesterday.
Will the radiation effects of this bomb that got tested be on the scale of Chernobyl

Christ what a topic to bump Cigs :laugh:

by **Ciggy** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:20 pm

Roberts wrote:Christ what a topic to bump Cigs

Well I remembered your fascination with him and Pyangyong boy.

by **Dom1** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:09 pm

pyongyang city

by **matrix** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:27 pm

North Korea threatens war over sanctions
AP - 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea stoked regional tensions Wednesday, threatening more nuclear tests and saying additional sanctions imposed on it would be considered an act of war, as nervous neighbors raced to bolster defenses and punish Pyongyang. South Korea said it was making sure its troops were prepared for atomic warfare, and Japan imposed new economic sanctions to hit the economic lifeline of the communist nation's 1 million-member military, the world's fifth-largest.

well things could really kick off now... watch this space

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:21 pm

Its getting to be a bit like the Cuba missile crisis, "who blinks first". The problem is I dont think N.Korea are going to blink and the USA have placed themselves in a position in which they will find it very difficult to back down. Hopefully it wil be settled by both sides claiming a "diplomatic victory" and not by military force.

by **CardinalRed** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:25 pm

I know that Kim Il what's his name is a nutter but what gives the US the right to dictate who should and who shouldn't have nukes? They've been testing 'em for years and don't mind who knows it but when another country (and a commie one at that) starts a nuclear programme, they sh*t themselves, typical Bush it seems......?

:cool:

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:34 pm

The nonprolification of nuclear weapons is not the USA dictating who can and cant have nuclear weapons but a UN treaty :-

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been the primary international anti-proliferation organization since it was established in 1957 by the United Nations. It operates a safeguards system as specified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. It has involved cooperation in developing nuclear energy while ensuring that civil uranium, plutonium, and associated plants are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs.

by **74-1160487249** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:48 pm

s@int wrote:Its getting to be a bit like the Cuba missile crisis, "who blinks first". The problem is I dont think N.Korea are going to blink and the USA have placed themselves in a position in which they will find it very difficult to back down. Hopefully it wil be settled by both sides claiming a "diplomatic victory" and not by military force.

America had best not resort to using military, they are already in enough hot water and North Korea are not to be messed with, especially seeing as North Korean dictator and military would have little trouble in using their nuclear technology in warfare. Oh and China is North Korea's ally, the US would be stepping on dangerous ground.

For once the US will have to leave this world affair to the UN.

by **74-1160487249** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:50 pm

s@int wrote:The nonprolification of nuclear weapons is not the USA dictating who can and cant have nuclear weapons but a UN treaty :-

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been the primary international anti-proliferation organization since it was established in 1957 by the United Nations. It operates a safeguards system as specified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. It has involved cooperation in developing nuclear energy while ensuring that civil uranium, plutonium, and associated plants are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs.

Well if that's concrete policy from the UN, then most of the West (notably America) and a handful of countries in the East have broken this resolution.

It's funny how the US use this when another country is a economic threat to them or decides to upgrade their arms.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:19 pm

Jerzy wrote:
s@int wrote:The nonprolification of nuclear weapons is not the USA dictating who can and cant have nuclear weapons but a UN treaty :-

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been the primary international anti-proliferation organization since it was established in 1957 by the United Nations. It operates a safeguards system as specified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. It has involved cooperation in developing nuclear energy while ensuring that civil uranium, plutonium, and associated plants are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs.

Well if that's concrete policy from the UN, then most of the West (notably America) and a handful of countries in the East have broken this resolution.

It's funny how the US use this when another country is a economic threat to them or decides to upgrade their arms.

Look at the dates in my quote. The only countries to have broken the nuclear non-proliferation treaty were India, Pakistan,S.Africa (dismantled under UN observation ),Israel (suspected)and now N.Korea.

Hardly most of the West!

The USA already had nuclear weapons before 1968, as did Britain, France, USSR and China.

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons production technology and knowledge to nations that do not already have such capabilities.

Are you on another windup?

by **74-1160487249** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:29 pm

s@int wrote:Look at the dates in my quote. The only countries to have broken the nuclear non-proliferation treaty were India, Pakistan,S.Africa (dismantled under UN observation ),Israel (suspected)and now N.Korea.

Hardly most of the West!

The USA already had nuclear weapons before 1968, as did Britain, France, USSR and China.

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons production technology and knowledge to nations that do not already have such capabilities.

Well I've learn't something new today, thank you S@int. However this Nuclear non- proliferation seems to segregate a few countries from the rest of the world. I also gathered that USA had Nuclear weapons before 1968 as they wanted to blow Japan off the face of the map, but instead settled for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Out of interest, does this piece of fine UN legislation allow the countries who had nuclear weaponary before 1968 to carry on developing nuclear weaponary? If this is the case, then why can't other countries like the ones you have mentioned, develop nuclear weaponary as well?

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:37 pm

this piece of fine UN legislation is to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons not to stop countries who already have it.

The likelyhood of legislation being passed to prevent further developement is highly unlikely ,as the 5 main nuclear powers all have the power of veto in the UN!

by **74-1160487249** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:41 pm

That is seriously un-democratic. Why should a nation who wanted to wipe an entire nation off the face of the map be allowed to develop nuclear arms, than a country like Iran are stopped because they weren't wealthy enough to afford nuclear technology before 1968?

Surely the best thing would be to take that "priviledge" away from the countries who had nuclear capabilities before 1968 as well as the countries who didn't have nuclear capabilities before 1968?

Another point is why are the US allowed to Veto and decide what happens in the world? They use the UN to their advantage like calling upon them to help them out when they disagree with something someone else does, yet they tell the UN to get lost when they choose.

by **CardinalRed** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:11 pm

A UN Treaty ain't much use when the Country in question refuses to recognise the UN....
These days the UN is a toothless tiger that the US uses as a medium to expound it's own policies worldwide..... it's no coincidence that it's based in New York....

:cool:

by **74-1160487249** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:21 am

I agree, the US only recognise the United Nations when they see fit, as soon as something like the "war on terror" is started they tell the UN to get lost.

Liverpool FC Forum

North korean state tv

Who is online