North Korea - WMD?

Discussion in 'Korean Chat' started by negiqboyz, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. ralphrepo

    ralphrepo Well-Known Member

    5,158
    459
    200
    One of the undeniable traits of humankind is that people the world over, generally hear or see what they want, when they want. Americans are no different. That's why we pay multi-million to illiterates to throw air filled rubber spheres through hoops while medical care is routinely denied to the destitute. Our priorities are often so distracted and biased that it's a wonder we can survive as a nation. I agree with your assessment that Americans can be cynically stupid a large portion of the time; witness the regular goings on of the national legislature and that fact is borne out repeatedly.

    Having said that, Weapons of Mass Destruction can be improvised. But a WMD does not have to be an IED, nor does it even need to be explosive. Biologic agents when used in a militaristic manner, can be considered a weapon of mass destruction. History claims that Mongols were keen to catapult the bodies of their plague infected dead over a defender's walls, in the hope of spreading infection and fear unto their enemies. But back to the discussion; Improvised munitions can take many forms; but the form that most Americans are familiar with today is the roadside bomb. The Bostonian version was certainly improvised and the technical workings, from what I've been reading, is remarkably similar to a common Afghani field IED. However, the political motivation between the two is different. An IED used in Afghanistan is a weapon of war (even as the combatants aren't declared). Whereas the IED used in Boston was politically a weapon of terror, akin historically to say, the IRA bombings in northern Ireland or the UK; or the Jewish bombings of British Palestine.

    In terms of shaping public opinion, I do get what you're driving at; namely, that it doesn't seem fair to equate an IED as a WMD for purely political purpose to further stoke and inflame public opinion. I know what you're driving at, even as I disagree with it, and here's why. Targeting civilians crosses a very significant line in the course of civilization. Warfare has always been brutal, but the thing that allows us to retain a semblance of humanity, even during armed conflicts, is to ensure that rules of engagement are observed. So much like how a nuclear warhead is indiscriminate in the people that they kill (civilian AND military), a terrorist bomb, secreted into a crowd to indiscriminately ensure massed casualties amongst civilians, can be considered a weapon of mass destruction.

    I don't know how much science fiction you follow, but years ago, there was a canuck show called ReGenesis, in which the premiere episode posited a terrorist plot to infect a baby in utero with a highly infectious airborne disease to which it was naturally immune. That is, anyone coming in contact with this newborn would eventually become infected and die, while the baby itself was immune. In such a case, would that baby be considered a WMD? Of course it would. Again, if the intent is to indiscriminately sow destruction; then the device would be considered a WMD.

    As for the DPRK, and their missiles, which they report will be aimed at Guam, Hawaii, and the US west coast; yes, they would be classed as WMD's too.
     
  2. surplusletterbox

    surplusletterbox Well-Known Member

    318
    53
    1
    Anyway what ever you call things , one needs to be mindful of the size of outcome and impact from the huge numbers of people die from hunger, disease, family feud, obesity, motor accidents, natural events, hyperthermia, tobacco, alcohol, drugs....and compared with WMD (as measured by actuals rather than perception or estimated).
     
  3. ralphrepo

    ralphrepo Well-Known Member

    5,158
    459
    200
    I agree, that compared to outcomes of major natural events (eg. like an extinction level event), all earthly matters would be rather moot. Having said that, the impetus for discussion is the chance for effecting change. But if one insists on citing 'outcomes' from all possible causations besides the topic at hand, then why bother discussing it to begin with? In such a scenario nothing would matter, because eventually an asteroid will arrive and wipe out everything on earth again. Statistically speaking, it isn't if, but when; ergo all discourse is nullified. We, as well the earth, are all just marking time until the next Kapooyah... Rather like one doctor talking about curing someone's illness and another saying "why bother" because we're all going to eventually die anyway?

    IMHO, that's a rather fatalistic outlook to existence. Hence, in my view, we shouldn't use the collective impact from or as a result of other causations as a rationale to discard political consideration of the WMD.

    This thread started primarily as a discussion based upon the cumulative frustrations borne from the DPRK's reliance on bellicosity and actual acts of destructions to solicit charity from its neighbors. It's rather like a homeless man who keeps throwing bricks through your window, and promises to throw more, unless you give him financial support. Simply put, this solicitation method is regarded as extortion and or armed robbery by even the most supportive viewer. The DPRK has proven through its past dealings that it hopes to garner a bigger pay off by doing something even more horrendous. This of course requires a firm response from the south and the US, as well the world community. What no one wants is to trigger a wave of refugees out of the north. The delicate balance here is to teach her regime a lesson without destroying or supplanting it; else their nation will disintegrate and nobody actually wants that.

    Simply put, our greatest fear of the DPRK isn't just her arsenals; it's also from her impoverished masses. Note, if there's anyone who wants a thorough review of the background in the current DPRK issue, take a look at CNN's extensive library of coverage on North Korea.
     
    #23 ralphrepo, May 17, 2013
    Last edited: May 18, 2013
  4. surplusletterbox

    surplusletterbox Well-Known Member

    318
    53
    1
    Never trust one single source like CNN. The best combination of sources is to seek opinions from top academics (opposing views from humanties) at 5 top universities in USA, UK, Germany, China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, France, India, Korea, Italy plus a few smaller countries who have better connections with the geo-political situation in Korea. Moreover, read collective views from UN, International Associations making up of at least tens of countries representative of countries on all continents. Uusally I put more weight on intellectuals' opinions, who are not millionaires funded by industry with a special trade interest.
     
  5. ralphrepo

    ralphrepo Well-Known Member

    5,158
    459
    200
    I posted the link to CNN's discourse simply for readers who are new to the Korean political discussion. Obviously, serious researchers will avail themselves of more serious approaches like you suggested. But can you do me a favor, since you're obviously heavily into this sort of research, can you please offer me a few links or insights into getting the in depth connected geo-political opinions that you've stated above?

    Thanks in advance.

    ADDENDUM: while we're waiting for your list of links, it seems that the PRC rose to the occasion and just did the world a favor. China basically told the DPRK that it couldn't have nuclear weapons. In a stunning rebuke of North Korea, China advised a DPRK representative that it should return to the discussion table, with the aim of denuclearization of the peninsula.
     
    #25 ralphrepo, May 19, 2013
    Last edited: May 25, 2013