North Korea fires 2nd nuclear missle.....

North Korea reports they have fired a 2nd short range missle rocking South Korea .
Not much else to say right now, will very interesting how the U.N. (who I have NO faith in) will handle this and our President will handle this.
(my first thought is please place duct tape over Joe Biden's mouth )

I think this could very well lead to military action. I certainly hope and pray not but the little madman is obviously thumbing his nose at the UN and the United States. A very strong message (not a little UN slap on the hand again)imo has to be sent.
What are some other opinios on this?

LINK..........

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521617,00.html

Did you feel the same way in 2006?

A few well placed cruise missiles would do the trick or at least set their program back a few years.. Send a few to Jong's palace also, maybe we could kill him too.. The UN is useless.. A proven corrupt organization that Jong doesn't fear.. So guess who the responsibility falls on.. The good ole USA.. The country every one hates(even some of our own citizens who think we are arrogant and derisive) will have to take care of the problem... Obama needs to act quickly and decisively with more than just a token of force...

I hesitate to ask bring this up, because I really want to discuss this and not be attacked, but I'll be brave, I guess, and try.

What right do we have to tell countries that are not in any way under our control that they can't have nuclear weapons, particularly for defense?

I know that Jong is felt by many to be "a loose cannon" (I'm not debating that), but do we look at all of our "enemies" as not having the right to have nuclear weapons?

With the US being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against others, doesn't this seem particularly questionable of us to not allow other countries weapons for defense.

Lucas McCain wrote:

A few well placed cruise missiles would do the trick or at least set their program back a few years.. Send a few to Jong's palace also, maybe we could kill him too.. The UN is useless.. A proven corrupt organization that Jong doesn't fear.. So guess who the responsibility falls on.. The good ole USA.. The country every one hates(even some of our own citizens who think we are arrogant and derisive) will have to take care of the problem... Obama needs to act quickly and decisively with more than just a token of force...

You can love your country VERY much and realize it has faults and admit them.

Annie Oakley wrote:

I hesitate to ask bring this up, because I really want to discuss this and not be attacked, but I'll be brave, I guess, and try.

What right do we have to tell countries that are not in any way under our control that they can't have nuclear weapons, particularly for defense?

I know that Jong is felt by many to be "a loose cannon" (I'm not debating that), but do we look at all of our "enemies" as not having the right to have nuclear weapons?

With the US being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against others, doesn't this seem particularly questionable of us to not allow other countries weapons for defense.

I think that's a fair question. I guess the only answer is the fact that because Jong is such a loose cannon plus the history of North Korea's aggression. They are a threat, as are other countries like them, to the global community. Nukes in the hands of such countries would likely result in a nuclear Holocaust.

Mongo wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

I hesitate to ask bring this up, because I really want to discuss this and not be attacked, but I'll be brave, I guess, and try.

What right do we have to tell countries that are not in any way under our control that they can't have nuclear weapons, particularly for defense?

I know that Jong is felt by many to be "a loose cannon" (I'm not debating that), but do we look at all of our "enemies" as not having the right to have nuclear weapons?

With the US being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against others, doesn't this seem particularly questionable of us to not allow other countries weapons for defense.

I think that's a fair question. I guess the only answer is the fact that because Jong is such a loose cannon plus the history of North Korea's aggression. They are a threat, as are other countries like them, to the global community. Nukes in the hands of such countries would likely result in a nuclear Holocaust.

Which of our enemies would we not accuse of aggression?

Annie Oakley wrote:

Which of our enemies would we not accuse of aggression?

That's what makes them enemies.

I'm not just talking about aggression toward us, I'm talking about their aggression and likely threat toward the entire free world. The risk is too great to allow such dangerous rogue countries to have nukes.

I understand. However, I still don't see what gives us the right. Why should North Korea care what we have to say about whether we think that they have the right to have nuclear weapons?

Mongo wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Which of our enemies would we not accuse of aggression?

That's what makes them enemies.

I'm not just talking about aggression toward us, I'm talking about their aggression and likely threat toward the entire free world. The risk is too great to allow such dangerous rogue countries to have nukes.

Another thing...how does China figure into the whole thing?

I know this probably means nothing to some but China condemned the test.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Monday condemned North Korea's nuclear test and called on Pyongyang not to worsen the situation, but analysts said Beijing is unlikely to back stronger sanctions as part of any new U.N. Security Council resolution.

"The Chinese government expresses its resolute opposition," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website (www.mfa.gov.cn).


http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39856320090525

Annie Oakley wrote:

I understand. However, I still don't see what gives us the right. Why should North Korea care what we have to say about whether we think that they have the right to have nuclear weapons?

Why should we care if they care? I think the world, to a degree, expect the US to "police" the world. It always seems that the toughest problems get dumped in our laps. We will have to deal with both North Korea and Iran soon or there are going to be huge problems with horrible results. I felt Bush didn't do enough when he was in office about the two countries, now it's up to Obama and I hope he makes the right decisions.

Annie Oakley wrote:

Another thing...how does China figure into the whole thing?

They can, and will likely be a problem. However, we can only hope they will listen to reason.

Pat Garrett wrote:

I know this probably means nothing to some but China condemned the test.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Monday condemned North Korea's nuclear test and called on Pyongyang not to worsen the situation, but analysts said Beijing is unlikely to back stronger sanctions as part of any new U.N. Security Council resolution.

"The Chinese government expresses its resolute opposition," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website (www.mfa.gov.cn).


http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39856320090525

The problem with China is they speak out both sides of their mouth. It's hard to trust them as we or the rest of the free world isn't exactly priority one for them.

Annie Oakley wrote:

I hesitate to ask bring this up, because I really want to discuss this and not be attacked, but I'll be brave, I guess, and try.

What right do we have to tell countries that are not in any way under our control that they can't have nuclear weapons, particularly for defense?

I know that Jong is felt by many to be "a loose cannon" (I'm not debating that), but do we look at all of our "enemies" as not having the right to have nuclear weapons?

With the US being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against others, doesn't this seem particularly questionable of us to not allow other countries weapons for defense.

Because a nuclear bomb is not a defensive weapon..

Mongo wrote:

Pat Garrett wrote:

I know this probably means nothing to some but China condemned the test.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Monday condemned North Korea's nuclear test and called on Pyongyang not to worsen the situation, but analysts said Beijing is unlikely to back stronger sanctions as part of any new U.N. Security Council resolution.

"The Chinese government expresses its resolute opposition," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website (www.mfa.gov.cn).


http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39856320090525

The problem with China is they speak out both sides of their mouth. It's hard to trust them as we or the rest of the free world isn't exactly priority one for them.

I knew it didn't matter.

Pat Garrett wrote:

I knew it didn't matter.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm just saying I don't trust China. Do you?

Mongo wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

I understand. However, I still don't see what gives us the right. Why should North Korea care what we have to say about whether we think that they have the right to have nuclear weapons?

Why should we care if they care? I think the world, to a degree, expect the US to "police" the world. It always seems that the toughest problems get dumped in our laps. We will have to deal with both North Korea and Iran soon or there are going to be huge problems with horrible results. I felt Bush didn't do enough when he was in office about the two countries, now it's up to Obama and I hope he makes the right decisions.

I'm not saying that we should care whether or not they care, just that why should we expect them to hold to our expectations.

Please understand - I don't WANT NK to have nuclear weapons. I don't really want anyone (including ourselves) to have them. However, once the knowledge of how to create one is gained, you can't quite go back.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

I hesitate to ask bring this up, because I really want to discuss this and not be attacked, but I'll be brave, I guess, and try.

What right do we have to tell countries that are not in any way under our control that they can't have nuclear weapons, particularly for defense?

I know that Jong is felt by many to be "a loose cannon" (I'm not debating that), but do we look at all of our "enemies" as not having the right to have nuclear weapons?

With the US being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against others, doesn't this seem particularly questionable of us to not allow other countries weapons for defense.

Because a nuclear bomb is not a defensive weapon..

What are your definitions of offensive and defensive weapons? Can any weapon be one and not the other?

My .38 special is, for my purposes, purely a defensive weapon. It could defend me against an intrusion. It could also even the playing field if ever in a situation where I was threatened by someone else with a gun.

A nuclear weapon can be for purely defensive purposes if you feel that by having one you are lessening the change of someone using one against you, as you could then use yours for retaliation.

Pat Garrett wrote:

Did you feel the same way in 2006?

Yes, I feel the the UN is pretty much a useless orgnazation now used to kiss the butts of people (I use that term referring to these thugs loosely) like this. That ittle madman is also no doubt in bed with Iran, Syria, al queda and Bin Laden.

Lucas McCain wrote:

A few well placed cruise missiles would do the trick or at least set their program back a few years.. Send a few to Jong's palace also, maybe we could kill him too.. The UN is useless.. A proven corrupt organization that Jong doesn't fear.. So guess who the responsibility falls on.. The good ole USA.. The country every one hates(even some of our own citizens who think we are arrogant and derisive) will have to take care of the problem... Obama needs to act quickly and decisively with more than just a token of force...

1.) I don't know if I would go to that level yet but I would definately not rule it out.
2.) I definatley agree on the UN (stands for Useless Nothings)
3.) I also agree on Obama needing to act quickly.....immediately if not sooner. To heck with the UN, they do nothing. I would take my suggestions to them but not be confident at all or trust in the UN doing anything. After a very, very short time to see "if" the UN would act I personally would start immediate sanctions, stepping up ones already in place on China (China can control N.Korea imo), place N. Korea and the little maniac on the terrorist list and put them at the top with Bin Laden and his band of worthless coward thugs.
4.) I also agree as I said, I don't think I would go to using military force...........yet, but would be preparig and planning for just that if neded.

These Pin Head maniacs need to go, one way or the other. Should sanctions/penalties not work.....send him to see his maker (would imo be a very short meeting) and then ultmately he would join his buddy Saddam Hussien in his eternal and permanent residence.

Mongo wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Another thing...how does China figure into the whole thing?

They can, and will likely be a problem. However, we can only hope they will listen to reason.

I agree, China imo can control them. I would ask China to step it up then place sanctions on them (China) if they didn't. I feel that China can control the little freak.

Mongo wrote:

Pat Garrett wrote:

I knew it didn't matter.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm just saying I don't trust China. Do you?

Another very good point. I can spit further than I trust China.

Annie Oakley wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

I hesitate to ask bring this up, because I really want to discuss this and not be attacked, but I'll be brave, I guess, and try.

What right do we have to tell countries that are not in any way under our control that they can't have nuclear weapons, particularly for defense?

I know that Jong is felt by many to be "a loose cannon" (I'm not debating that), but do we look at all of our "enemies" as not having the right to have nuclear weapons?

With the US being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against others, doesn't this seem particularly questionable of us to not allow other countries weapons for defense.

Because a nuclear bomb is not a defensive weapon..

What are your definitions of offensive and defensive weapons? Can any weapon be one and not the other?

My .38 special is, for my purposes, purely a defensive weapon. It could defend me against an intrusion. It could also even the playing field if ever in a situation where I was threatened by someone else with a gun.

A nuclear weapon can be for purely defensive purposes if you feel that by having one you are lessening the change of someone using one against you, as you could then use yours for retaliation.

Even if you used your nuke to retaliate it's still offensive.. A defensive weapon would be a Patriot type system that destroys incoming offensive weapons... I see your point though, but you need enough nukes to wipe out a whole country before it to work defensively.. Not just one or two.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Even if you used your nuke to retaliate it's still offensive.. A defensive weapon would be a Patriot type system that destroys incoming offensive weapons... I see your point though, but you need enough nukes to wipe out a whole country before it to work defensively.. Not just one or two.

So far the mere nominal possession of nuclear weapon has provided defense. Have two nuclear powers ever gone to war with one another?

As to the questions at hand, keeping these weapons from North Korea is a goal worth achieving, but it is one that can only be achieved diplomatically. Certainly, we have the military ability to stop them, but that would only give them grounds to use it.