Comments on: Why Should We Worry About North Korea’s Nuclear Test? http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:24:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: loboinok http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56573 loboinok Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:32:34 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56573 <i>I doubt either side is still using equipment of the same effectiveness as what they had in the 50s. Under a strict interpretation, both sides have probably been in violation for decades.</i> Of course they both upgraded their weapons as the older generation became obsolete and that would have been handled by the committee. But, North Korea cannot justify their WMDs,according to the armistice, because S. Korea has not developed the same weapons. <i>Even if NK is found to be in violation of the armistice, the only recourse would be to declare it null and void.</i> Which would free the U.S. to honor it's "Mutual Defense Treaty". <i>Ok, but I don’t believe they’ve been accused of developing such.</i> Biological Weapons are classified as WMD. <i>Was their membership contingent on anything?</i> Yes... complying with the obligations of the UN Charter. I doubt either side is still using equipment of the same effectiveness as what they had in the 50s. Under a strict interpretation, both sides have probably been in violation for decades.
Of course they both upgraded their weapons as the older generation became obsolete and that would have been handled by the committee.

But, North Korea cannot justify their WMDs,according to the armistice, because S. Korea has not developed the same weapons.

Even if NK is found to be in violation of the armistice, the only recourse would be to declare it null and void.
Which would free the U.S. to honor it’s “Mutual Defense Treaty”.

Ok, but I don’t believe they’ve been accused of developing such.
Biological Weapons are classified as WMD.

Was their membership contingent on anything?
Yes… complying with the obligations of the UN Charter.

]]> By: Jeff Molby http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56574 Jeff Molby Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:07:52 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56574 <blockquote>The armistice stipulates that only existing equipment, weapons and ammunition were permitted and replacement (of the same effectiveness and the same type)</blockquote> Factually accurate, but I would like to make a couple points. - I doubt either side is still using equipment of the same effectiveness as what they had in the 50s. Under a strict interpretation, both sides have probably been in violation for decades. - Even if NK is found to be in violation of the armistice, the only recourse would be to declare it null and void. <blockquote>Also… Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987 of which neither have withdrawn from.</blockquote> Ok, but I don't believe they've been accused of developing such. <blockquote>North Korea also became a member of the U.N. in 1991.</blockquote> I'm not an expert on the UN. Was their membership contingent on anything?

The armistice stipulates that only existing equipment, weapons and ammunition were permitted and replacement (of the same effectiveness and the same type)

Factually accurate, but I would like to make a couple points.

- I doubt either side is still using equipment of the same effectiveness as what they had in the 50s. Under a strict interpretation, both sides have probably been in violation for decades.
- Even if NK is found to be in violation of the armistice, the only recourse would be to declare it null and void.

Also… Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987 of which neither have withdrawn from.

Ok, but I don’t believe they’ve been accused of developing such.

North Korea also became a member of the U.N. in 1991.

I’m not an expert on the UN. Was their membership contingent on anything?

]]> By: loboinok http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56556 loboinok Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:00:28 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56556 The armistice stipulates that only existing equipment, weapons and ammunition were permitted and replacement of same was to consist of the same and nothing more. Also... Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987 of which neither have withdrawn from. North Korea also became a member of the U.N. in 1991. The armistice stipulates that only existing equipment, weapons and ammunition were permitted and replacement of same was to consist of the same and nothing more.

Also… Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987 of which neither have withdrawn from.

North Korea also became a member of the U.N. in 1991.

]]> By: Jeff Molby http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56575 Jeff Molby Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:13:45 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56575 <blockquote>Jeff you happy now?</blockquote> No. If you can find even one sentence of mine stating that I wanted NK to develop a nuclear bomb, I'll buy you a bottle of your favorite champagne. lobo, Thanks for taking the time to cite the relevant treaties. However, I looked through the <a href="http://www.koreanwar.com/ArmisticeAgreement.htm" rel="nofollow">armistice</a> and I don't see any reference to any of the following phrases: nuclear, wmd, mass, chemical, or biological. Am I missing something?

Jeff you happy now?

No. If you can find even one sentence of mine stating that I wanted NK to develop a nuclear bomb, I’ll buy you a bottle of your favorite champagne.

lobo,

Thanks for taking the time to cite the relevant treaties. However, I looked through the armistice and I don’t see any reference to any of the following phrases: nuclear, wmd, mass, chemical, or biological.

Am I missing something?

]]> By: Right Voices &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Madeline Albrights&#38;#8217; Reaction To North Korea http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56576 Right Voices &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Madeline Albrights&#38;#8217; Reaction To North Korea Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:06:00 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56576 [...] Bosun tells us why we should worry: Along with DPRK, Pakistan and Iran have jointly worked with DPRK on similar missile projects. The Iranian Shahab-5/Shahab 6 is similar in technology and in design to the Taep’o-dong 2. There is much more that meets the eye on this problem. (Source: Missile Threat.Com) [...] [...] Bosun tells us why we should worry: Along with DPRK, Pakistan and Iran have jointly worked with DPRK on similar missile projects. The Iranian Shahab-5/Shahab 6 is similar in technology and in design to the Taep’o-dong 2. There is much more that meets the eye on this problem. (Source: Missile Threat.Com) [...]

]]> By: Bosun http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56577 Bosun Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:45:12 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56577 Loboinok, good information, thanks for putting it in perspective. However, I do not think that Jeff is listening. The hands of the doomsday clock advanced toward midnight last evening (our time, kim's morning). Loboinok, good information, thanks for putting it in perspective. However, I do not think that Jeff is listening.

The hands of the doomsday clock advanced toward midnight last evening (our time, kim’s morning).

]]> By: loboinok http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56580 loboinok Mon, 09 Oct 2006 07:47:26 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56580 <i>but if they are not signatories of the NPT, on what basis do you tell them that they can’t?</i> They have withdrawn from the NPT, but they are still signatories to the Korean War Armistice Agreement of 1953 (which forbids WMDs including nuclear) and since South Korea refused to sign, the U.S. entered into a treaty with S.Korea called: The Mutual Defense Treaty, signed 1 October 1953. but if they are not signatories of the NPT, on what basis do you tell them that they can’t?
They have withdrawn from the NPT, but they are still signatories to the Korean War Armistice Agreement of 1953 (which forbids WMDs including nuclear) and since South Korea refused to sign, the U.S. entered into a treaty with S.Korea called: The Mutual Defense Treaty, signed 1 October 1953.

]]> By: Bosun http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56578 Bosun Mon, 09 Oct 2006 05:38:07 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56578 Jeff you happy now? Peace, love, rock and roll Bosun Jeff you happy now?

Peace, love, rock and roll
Bosun

]]> By: Conservative Thinking http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56579 Conservative Thinking Mon, 09 Oct 2006 04:08:03 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56579 <strong>North Korea Success In Nuke Test</strong> Constant updates at Stop The ACLU: Someone tell Bush to push the red button! Update: Not looking good: In Seoul a foreign ministry spokesman said South Korea's intelligence agency has detected a 3.58-magnitude seismic tremor, following North Korea's ... North Korea Success In Nuke Test
Constant updates at Stop The ACLU: Someone tell Bush to push the red button! Update: Not looking good: In Seoul a foreign ministry spokesman said South Korea’s intelligence agency has detected a 3.58-magnitude seismic tremor, following North Korea’s …

]]> By: Jeff Molby http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/comment-page-1/#comment-56555 Jeff Molby Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:21:40 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/10/04/why-should-we-worry-about-north-koreas-nuclear-test/#comment-56555 <blockquote>I believe the issue of nuclear v. conventional weapons is that a nuclear weapon can take out a city which contains a lot of citizens, but who cares about citizens?</blockquote> I clearly acknowledged the incrediblly destructive powers of nuclear weapons. <blockquote>So you are saying that John F. Kennedy had no right to object to Russia moving nuclear missiles into Cuba because it is the same type of issue?</blockquote> No, he had every right to object, lobby, and threaten. I'm glad he did. But his right to invade Cuba would have been questionable. It would have been even more questionable if we were talking about conventional weapons.

I believe the issue of nuclear v. conventional weapons is that a nuclear weapon can take out a city which contains a lot of citizens, but who cares about citizens?

I clearly acknowledged the incrediblly destructive powers of nuclear weapons.

So you are saying that John F. Kennedy had no right to object to Russia moving nuclear missiles into Cuba because it is the same type of issue?

No, he had every right to object, lobby, and threaten. I’m glad he did. But his right to invade Cuba would have been questionable. It would have been even more questionable if we were talking about conventional weapons.

]]>