North Korea just declared that it has nuclear weapons, and Iran is taking a tough stand on its nuclear weapons programme.

Do you think that either of these regimes will return to the negotiations table?
What do you think that the world needs to be doing here? What do you think that Canada's role in this should be? How do you think that the US is going to react?

Ironic that in two places that currently possess weapons of mass destruction, no military action will take place (not that I would favour such action).

What should Canada do? Economic sanctions won't do a whole lot, given that it is my understanding that our trade with either nation is zero. For North Korea, perhaps we can offer our services as a conciliator, though North Korean's leader is nuts, and I don't think any negotiation will work with him - we have to wait until he dies or is overthrown. In the meantime, all parties should try to keep NK in check - i.e., happy enough that they don't press the button.

Canada should avoid the Iranian situation altogether. We're not neutral in that dispute, due to our year long dispute over their handling of the murder and torture of the Canadian-Iranian journalist there last year. As such, we'll help the process by staying out of it.

North Korea has pulled stunts like this many times in the past. They will return to the table at some point.

Iran is another story. There is no history to go by as far as their negotiating is concerned.

Either one would give or sell any and everything they had if they thought it would harm the West. Because of that, I think it is imperative that Canada, Europe and the US band together here. We are all prime targets.

Coincidentally, we've been studying The Chrysalids in English class. We also saw the documentary "If You Love This Planet" which is about nuclear war and its effects.

It's scary.

I disagree. I personally think Iran just wants to be left alone - this is a nation that has never directly attacked anyone other than Iraq, and if I understand that situation correctly, that war was fought only after Iraq began the war. There is no evidence that Iran has some global domination plot that I can see (though I'd be happy to be pointed in the direction of such evidence). I do recognize that Iran sponsors terrorist groups, most of which are groups operating in Palestine and Israel, and not against Western targets.

My view of Iran is no doubt coloured by the fact that I know several Iranians, who are all very nice and trustworthy people who are not hell bent on destroying the west.

Also I don't think it is in Canada's best interest to "band together" with any nation that has foreign policy aims which are not consistent with our own. If America or European nations are taking a line that is contrary to Canadian values, then I favour not cooperating with such nations.

In the best case scenario, I do favour cooperation when it comes to the Iranian situation, but Canada has to help out in that situation in a "behind the scenes" fashion, due to our recent conflict with Iran. We are not an appropriate intermediary in this case. The two major protaginists, that being the USA and Iran, need to be eased to a resolution through intermediaries, such as certain "dovish" European powers, and moderate muslim states such as Jordan. Really, it will be the intermediaries who will hold the key to peace. There is far too much rhetoric coming from both the Americans and the Iranians for them to be able to come to a peaceful resolution on their own.

Should an accord be reached, I would also suggest that a form of "ping pong" diplomacy take place sometime thereafter to continue the thaw in relations between Iran and America (and Canada too). I would favour a situation where Iranian and American athletes would travel to each other's nations, perform in front of each other's people, and break down barriers through friendly sporting competitions, such as took place in China in the 70's (they used ping pong as their mechanism, hence the term ping pong diplomacy).

Amateur Wrestling is huge in Iran, perhaps a tour of American wrestlers across Iran in front of packed houses would do a great deal to show Iranians that Americans and other westerners are just "people" like they are. But such a display or exchange would have to be contingent on some sort of deal that allows for such a warming of relations.

Ultimately though, both sides need to let the other know that they have a right to exist, respect each other's sovereignty, and then move together towards warmer relations on mutually acceptable terms.

I've heard The Chrysalids is an absolutely horrendous book. What do you think of it KD?

I liked it. Of course, I didn't read it very "deeply."

Iran: We don't need to get too heavily involved there. I don't believe anyone should really start hammering on Iran except for possibly the UN as Iran definitely could step up its human and political rights along with being smarter financially (ie. nukes vs. healthcare). Violence solves nothing with countries like this because it's all about religious propoganda - I find that some of these Middle Eastern nations are incredibly manipulative when it comes to slanting their people's thoughts. Even where I live in Dubai (principality of UAE) you notice it, though this is one of the most modernized and westernized countries in the area. Iran will stick to their guns in regard to standing up for themselves, but like bweezy said, Iran has never looked for trouble, they simply value security (I would too if I was in a spot like they are).

North Korea: Appeasement? What else can you really think of when it comes to Kim Jong II? He's an absolute nut! Like bweezy said, lets focus on just keeping him away from the big red button until his time as ruler is done (death, overthrown). If someone like the US starts a war with North Korea we'll be in trouble. It will undoubtedly end in some sort of nuclear disaster along with easily turning into a world war.

most of my classmates thought it was terrible, but I enjoyed it. Of course these same classmates detested Brave New World, it was all me and my best friend at the time could do to keep from laughing out loud as the point blasted over the heads of so many.

I quite enjoyed Brave New World, but I never got to finish it... I'm going to see if I can borrow it from Mr. Utley tomorrow.

Also factor in that they are allied with China and North Korea themselves have the third largest military on earth, I don't anticipate America or anyone else attempting an invasion or other prolonged armed conflict in North Korea.

That and the U.S. has enough of its own men in South Korea they're not liable to step too heavily...

I liked Brave New World a lot. At one time it was my favorite book, though currently I'd have to lean towards "Jennifer Government".

How did they miss the point?

Don't overestimate the North Korean military (I think that it's the fourth largest). Manpower isn't everything. They lack an effective airforce, and their vehicles are dated and obsolete. They have a huge army, but it's mostly non-mechanized. Their nation spends 22% of their economy on their military, but it's still less than the amount spent by South Korea.

Not saying that it's not a significant force, but between the US, South Korea, and Japan, I don't think that the DPRK would stand a chance. China is the X factor, and I think their involvement would really depend on how the war started.

Bweezy, Amon and Daemon all make good points. Let me try and clarify what I tried to say. I am not at all concerned that Iran or North Korea would attack or attempt to attack us. They simply are not up to it.

My concern is that if either has nuclear materials, (weapon grade or not), either one wouldn't be too concerned (IMHO) if some of it fell into terrorist hands. With all the plutonium missing since the break up of the USSR, this may already have happened.

If and or when this occurs, there are several terrorist groups that would be very happy to use these materials to kill and mame as many westerners as they could.

I totally agree that one of the main reasons for all the fighting in the world is a lack of understanding of other peoples ways of life. But even eliminating that as a problem, we still need to deal with the fact that there are about 4 billion more people on this planet than the planet would be happy with. Something's gonna give and that is an unfortunate reality.

Ah, that makes much more sense.

Certainly, nuclear proliferation is a problem, as is insecure storage and use of nuclear materials. It goes without saying that all nations with Nuclear installations, peaceful or otherwise, ought to subject themselves to rigorous inspections by the UN to ensure that security at these installations is sufficient, and to get an accurate picture of what activities are going on at each installation (i.e., whether Weapons grade materials are being produced).

As for the concluding statement that there are too many people on this planet, that may be true by some measures. However, I would suggest that the current population can be easily sustained on this planet. The problem, of course, is that nations such as Canada live in a very unsustainable manner (In the 1990's, a news item was released that Canada, per capita, uses more resources than any other nation on earth - I'm not sure if that is still the case, but I'm sure we're still up there, using way mroe than our proportionate share of the Earth's resources)

Well, its either that or be very very cold. :wacko:

I agree that it is unlikely/impossible that the US will get hit (they simply lack the ballistic missile technology), both Iran and DPRK are in range of close US allies, such as Isreal, Japan, and South Korea. Both regimes also have used very tough talk when it comes to said allies.

A nuclear attack on Israel would be unimaginable, as they have between 100 and 200 20 MT weapons. I think that this is a huge deterrent which means that Israel is relatively safe. I agree with Bweezy that Iran is likely just developing weapons (even though they still claim that their enrichment is for peaceful purposes) as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

The Korean situation is worse. They are just WEIRD, like that thing that they pulled with the Japanese children? Kim Jung Il Sung seems to be blatantly hostile to the West and seems to still envisions a united Korea Peninsula. He also seems to be delusional enough to think that he could win. The problem is that the ROK has a large military too. DPRK could destroy most of Seoul with artillery, and probably capture significant territory on a blitz. They might be even able to hold it before the US and ROK counter via a major theater war. And the USFK and ROK have been doing massive planning for that. OPLAN 5027, IIRC. I think that they just wrote up a new doctrine last year. I think that by week two or three, the tides will have turned, and North Korea will be crushed.

As for China, I think that if DPNK attacks then the Chinese will stay out of it, but step in if the USFK/ROK invade North Korean territory, just like in 1953. I think that while they aren't big fans of the DPNK regime, they also don't want the US to gain more power in the region. I just hope that the DPRK understands this and doesn’t try to pull any shit. The US has a pretty itchy trigger figure these days.

The following link confirms that Canada uses the third most energy in the industrialized world on a per capita basis, behind only Iceland and Luxembourg.

http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htd...ators/8ener.htm

Unfortunately it doesn't tell us where other nordic nations, such as Sweden, Norway and Finland fall in the mix by comparison.

Don't be so sure: According to some sources, Hawaii, Alaska (and possibly the entire west coast) are within range of a missile that is currently in development, though not known to be tested.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/North.../Missiles.shtml

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/nkorea/bm2003.htm

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/...2/12/us.nkorea/

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

The North Koreans also did launch a satelite into space a few years ago (the satelite actually had no purpose other than being a hunk of metal in orbit), but that in and of itself shows the capability to send a long range (but likely highly inaccurate) missile towards the North American west coast may be in their hands.

Although we may also want to take all that with a grain of salt. The US administration needs to justify its missile shield. Overstating the North Korean threat may be one way to build support for it, as this source claims: http://www.atimes.com/koreas/CC07Dg02.html

I suppose that I should have said that they presently lack the ballistic missiles technology.

China joined in Oct/Nov 1950. Ur thinking of the end date.

unfortunately i think that Iran is our next target, the U.S. has already been running special ops missions out of Iraq scouting possible nuclear weapons sites to bomb along with the unmanned drone flyovers

Yeah, you're right. It looks like mid/late-Oct marked the first encounter between the CCF forces and the US (UN) forces.

Both Ballistic attack and the so called "Dirty Bomb" are threats, but there are factors that make both limited in their efficacity.

In relation to performing either attack there are factors that would hamper an attempt. Nuclear fission bombs are big, difficult to move around and easily detected.

A ballistic attack without proper telemetry and guidance could go way off the mark. In most respects what we are dealing with is technology from the sixties. (which in some respects was much more reliable, cos it had to be made damn well to work in the first place).

Even though its sobering.

2,750 Deaths in the 9-11 attack (I had thought it a lot higher, but I went to look for the stats and found this Securius Newsletter)

By comparision the total number of deaths attributed to Hiroshima (which I am taking as a comparative explosion to one that might be produced from an Iranian/N.Korean bomb) is estimated to be around 200,000 (http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/)

I believe that the source is not including Nagasaki, and the bomb was an air burst, thus less devastating than it could have been. And its worth remembering that these orginal bombs were delivered from a plane. These countries don't need ballistic missiles. They already have what they need to deliver a bomb with existing aircraft technology.

I haven't been following the news recently, due to my holiday. I had no idea this was happening, the news story had stopped running in the UK by the time i got back.

With Bush in the Whitehouse, this can only mean bad news. In a way Jack is right though. We do need to deal with the problem of over population. We cannot really continue, and we are vastly over populated as a species.

As to whether we should be worried, I think we ought to be. I remember the cold war (just), and I am starting to feel the same way about the state of the world today.

Nagasaki was far less devestating than Hiroshima, for several reasons. I'm told that the fact that Hiroshima's device was an air burst actually increased the death toll, as the bomb had a wider impact then if it had exploded on contact (though I'm not at all sure about that one - I seem to recall having heard that at one time).

Hiroshima's bomb exploded exactly as they planned - in the air, above Hiroshima.

The Nagasaki explosion was frought with difficulty. The bomb wasn't even supposed to be dropped on Nagasaki that day. Nagasaki was the back-up target. Cloud cover at the primary target forced the bombing crew to try Nagasaki, which was also covered by clouds. I've heard that the air crew waited so long trying to execute the delivery of the bomb correctly, that they hit a point where they couldn't abandon the mission - the weight of the bomb meant they would not have enough fuel to make it back to base. Hence, they dropped it. The bomb landed 3 miles outside of town, and exploded on impact (which was not supposed to happen - like Hiroshima, it was supposed to explode in the air). The end result was far less in the way of death (less than half of Hiroshima, but still tens of thousands were killed).

You want a nuke to air-burst if your targets are on the surface. You would only ground-burst or bite if you had underground targets.

I have to say though, I have a lot more confidence in military technology to detect and intercept a plane then an ICBM. What is more worrying to me is a SLBM (sub launched), because I think that the DPRK already has SLBM capable subs (the Chinese Romeo class, I think). Though I would hope that most of the DPRK fleet is old enough that it should be detectable.

Both good points.

All I really wanted to do was point out that the delivery technology already existed in one way or another. You're right Daemon, its a damn sight easier to take out a plane than a missile. Still, easier to build a plane that will get to its target than the aforementioned ICBMs. In many ways the Germans were doing it in WWII.

Yet again, according to the website 70,000 total deaths in Nagasaki, although this is attributed to the size and geography of the city by the website.

The difference in airburst/dirtybomb thing is that a nuclear explosion that occurs on the surface causes less immediate damage, but as a result of the dust and debris thrown up and irradiated the long lasting effects (and thus deaths due to radiation) increase in severity. As I remember airbursts are sactioned under internation law. Not so the dirty bombs (by dirty bomb I mean a bomb detonated at ground level). I can't remember where I heard that so I could be wrong. I am just looking for some confirmation..... updates to follow.

However I did find this neat little calculator for airbursts.

Nuclear Fireball Calculator

Bit morbid - but hey.......

and actually - i think i might have been wrong. It appears that any use of nuclear weapons is a violation of UN protocol.

UN's Stance on Nuclear Weapon Usage

IIRC, dirty-bombs are much different then ground-bursts. Ground-bursts and air-bursts are ways of detonating a bomb, and a dirty-bomb is a type of bomb. Dirty bombs is a conventional explosive (C4, etc) bomb that just disperses radioactive material.

Though it is true that the fallout effects from a ground/water burst will be large and more immediate then those from an airburst.

stand corrected on the "dirty-bomb" just wasn't sure if ground burst was the right way to say it or not. Cheers.

And what I meant to say about the german delivery technology in WWII was that their V1 bombs (buzzbombs as they became known) were just that, an unmanned plane with explosives. Just thought I might not have made that all that clear......

Wouldn't be hard to build today I guess, and use in a terrorist attack from within the target country.

Well, the V1 is the spiritual forefather of the modern cruise missile, which DPRK already is known to have. I think that they are only known to have modified "Silkworms", and so their cruise missile range is around 150Km.

I think that you are correct in saying that any attack on mainland US would most likely be domestic in origin. I think that even a simple unmanned air vehicle is likely to complex to be constucted in situ to the launch location, though I could be wrong on this. Plus, if we are talking about a domestic source, I think that a rented van/truck is likely going to give you the best bang for your buck.

Good book; I did it in grade 10, and I recently gave it another read as well (last semester -- finished it one night. Damn good book).

Lelana

paranoid much?

and if anything you say about the US's espionage into Iran is true, I think it's about time to focus on breaking apart the american military machine.

Who's the real threat? think about it....