*Breaking News* N. Korea Claims Successful Nuclear Test

Link:
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Top...howbyline=True

Some of that in a synopsis:

Canadian relatives thrilled for next UN chief

13/10/2006 9:37:40 PM

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon's appointment as head of the UN is bittersweet, his Canadian cousin says, referring to this week's crisis over North Korea's nuclear threat.


Ban Ki-moon,

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/ima...on2_061013.jpg

newly appointed Secretary General of the United Nations speaks at a press conference after he was elected at a meeting of the General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, Friday, Oct. 13, 2006.

Kang is a committee director at the Korean-Canadian Cultural Association.

"Everyone said to him congratulations, but he said

" I'm not getting that feeling yet, because North Korea weighs heavy on my mind."

Ban has said publicly he will work to resolve the crisis over North Korea's nuclear threat.

He repeated this commitment to his cousin, when he called the Kang home in Oshawa Wednesday, to celebrate his impending appointment.

Friday, the celebration became official...

Ban, 62, will succeed Kofi Annan as the UN's eighth secretary-general on Jan. 1.

Annan predicted Ban would be "a future secretary-general who is exceptionally attuned to the sensitivities of countries and constituencies in every continent."

Paul Evans, co-CEO of Vancouver's Asia Pacific Foundation, met with Ban in New York two weeks ago. He says the career diplomat's appointment comes at an interesting time for Koreans.

"It's the best of times and the worst of times in South Korea right now," Evans told CTV.ca.

"For South Koreans, it's a sign of special pride that a South Korean would be selected for the post."

"But it's also the worst of times, with the North Korean nuclear test, essentially now straining relations all over northeast Asia."

Ban was heavily favored to win the appointment, according to four informal polls in the UN Security Council. While there is no formal policy, the position of secretary-general rotates among the continents, and many considered it Asia's turn.

"Ban was seen as the person who could get the support of the entire Security Council, including both China and the United States, said Evans.

Ban is well known for his close ties to the United States.

He received his master's degree in public administration from Harvard University in 1985. His cousin remembers...

Ban's interest in U.S. politics was sparked at a much earlier age.

"In 1962, he visited the United States," said Kang,

"He met President John F. Kennedy, who gave him a pencil case. He gave it to me, but I was too young to understand why he was so excited."

According to Evans, Ban's warm attitude to the U.S. could have been the tipping point in his selection.

He was seen as someone who could gain the U.S. confidence.

"For the last four or five years, there's been a feeling that U.S. unilateralism has lead it into collision with the UN. The philosophy of wanting to work with the U.S. is a necessary prerequisite of the secretary-general," Evans said.

While the rest of the world waits to see how Ban will perform, his family already expresses confidence in his leadership.

"He's worked in foreign affairs for 40 years," said Kang.

"He's my cousin, so of course I say this, but Koreans know he is a genius."


Comment woodbuck27:

I'm thinking.

It'll take... more than genius, to unravel this mess.

CRAP I hate this stuff. "How has the world gone so crazy"... some may ask?

I believe that History often / to... just repeats itself It's always been crazy, because people become enamoured with wrongful POWER LORD's, that are lost in theie selfish ego-maniacle nonsence.

We get trapped in their bullshit.

Yet... we trap ourselves in OUR slack attitudes and weak stances.

It should be every man/woman's position, to encouage rightful purpose in ways of thinking and living for the good not evil that is predominating societies all over the world. We must pay better attention to events outside of OUR own lives, with at least some proper form of consciosness and decent conviction.

Why?

Because not enough of us, do come to realize... the TRUE VALUE in the term..."POWER to the people".

This person ... that... often takes the stance of powerlessness, and the "what can I do response/whine" and it /that mushrooms. The money POWERFUL win out over more purposeful candidates in terms of overall goodand holisitic agendas.

Young people today are the worst for denying themselves the POWER of their vote.

We must realize that this issue, that we discuss on this thread is important and try to reach some valid conclusion. "a proper response"... rather than toss the salad around as a distraction. :mrgreen:

My name is Ed.

Zig, Scott, 'buck,

pure rhetoric on you parts. Why would l'il Kim use nukes once he has them? He has them. He hasn't used them yet. Argument just collapsed.

Scott, the world is not better because your country has nukes. It makes L'il Kim, Pakistan et All want their own. Finally get that as a fact. It is a fact. It's called an Arms Race.

'buck. I am not vs you. That's in your head and it is flattering ONLY YOU.

None of you have made a case for the USA to have nukes, and everybody else not to; The fact is, THERE IS NO CASE.

I agree with Tarlam here. This seems like a case of "The Nuclear Club" wanting to bar any new membership. Personally, I worry about the fact that Pakistan has them more than I do about North Korea. It's just a matter of time before another coup occurs in Pakistan. When it does, we could very easily have a situation where people friendly to Al-Qaeda have their hands on a nuclear weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarlam!

None of you have made a case for the USA to have nukes, and everybody else not to; The fact is, THERE IS NO CASE.

---

We developed the technology. Saying we shouldn't have nukes is akin to saying China shouldn't have blackpowder :crazy:

It was a sad day in the world's history when the US had to end an extremely bloody war to use these weapons - if Pearl Harbor hadn't occured and the Nazis didn't try to take over the world - the US wouldn't have been in a position to develop or use this weapon.

As I stated above, nuclear warfare has an inherent beauty in it's power - and MAD would assure that nation wartimes would avoid nukes at all costs.

Having rouge gov'ts w/ unknown motives wanting nukes and terrorists wanting to destroy US citizens with them is :crazy:

Not having US nukes is equally :crazy:

Fosco, the USA didn't share nuclear technology with anyone. So, by your argument, anybody who develops the technology is entitled to have it.

Einstein (a German) encouraged Roosevelt to develop the bomb, because Hitler was doing it. This fact also lends to my theory that as long as any country persist with maintaining a nuclear arsenal, other countries will pursue similar goals, if only to "keep up with the Jonses".

It is on record that Oppenheimer (received his PhD in Germany) and many of his team petitioned to shelve the technology after they witnessed the devestation of the first test site.

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa050300a.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarlam!

Fosco, the USA didn't share nuclear technology with anyone. So, by your argument, anybody who develops the technology is entitled to have it.

---

Not entirely true.

We've given nuclear technology to other countries (friends and enemies alike). I don't have time to research all the timelines of the past century but a quick search found the US gave/sold IRAN a nuclear reactor in the 60s and blueprints for a 'firing set' from a former Russian scientist at Clinton and the CIA's bidding in 2000. In '05 we gave India civilian nuclear technology (to hasten their rise to global power to counteract China). In '78 we almost did the same for Egypt but they rejected the oversight requirements.

The United Kingdom tested its first nuclear weapon ("Hurricane") in 1952, drawing largely on data gained while collaborating with the United States during the Manhattan Project. Its program was motivated to have an independent deterrent against the USSR, while also remaining relevant in Cold War Europe

In fact, the US has offered nuclear assistance numerous times - with a caveat of full disclosure of international monitoring and signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Atoms for Peace program launched by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953. As soon as the U.S. Atomic Energy Act was passed in 1954 (which allowed the U.S. authorities to enter cooperative arrangements with other countries).

Tar, I've stated pretty plainly that I don't think terrorists or rouge gov't should have nukes. I'm fine w/ any sane country, willing to be monitored, having nukes as the remnants would trace the weapon to country of origin - and without theft or fraud would lead to an immediate response by one of the 7,000+ nukes the US maintains. I'm questioning now the relevance of the NNPT and IAEA.

Interesting read from LA Times today:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...=la-home-world

Some excerpts:

Countries that had nuclear weapons when the treaty went into effect — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — were allowed to keep them, whereas others were asked to forswear them.

The "haves" made the commitment to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals, and the "have-nots" agreed not to seek atomic weapons as long as they could have the advantages of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, was put in charge of making sure countries refrained from taking steps toward making fissile material suitable for bombs. But the treaty, in effect, permitted any country that wanted nuclear weapons capability to go down that road.

Agreed. The US offered peaceful technology as the carrot of contolling states. Germy, too, for instance. I should have made that differentiation.

They also protect Germany and other states with nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarlam!

Zig, Scott, 'buck,

pure rhetoric on you parts. Why would l'il Kim use nukes once he has them? He has them. He hasn't used them yet. Argument just collapsed.

Scott, the world is not better because your country has nukes. It makes L'il Kim, Pakistan et All want their own. Finally get that as a fact. It is a fact. It's called an Arms Race.

'buck. I am not vs you. That's in your head and it is flattering ONLY YOU.

None of you have made a case for the USA to have nukes, and everybody else not to; The fact is, THERE IS NO CASE.

---

Tarlam!

It's difficult to apply any meaningful learning exchange when YOU jump all over yourself with "SLAM BAM commentary" as you elicit below Tarlam! :idea:

" 'buck. I am not vs you. That's in your head and it is flattering ONLY YOU."
Tarlam!

Sometimes "an EGO SUCK Mask" proceeds US, Maan. Please GET REAL Tarlam!. This issue has hardly anything to do with YOU or I.

Discussion with you Tarlam!... always gets to "more challenging than trying to teach an OLD dog new tricks". Why is that?

SWEEP it away !

TRY to attack just this ISSUE... with focus. Try harder Tarlam! to keep any?EGO SUCK MASK out of it PLEASE.

Back to the matter at hand, Tarlam!

My objective is to discover on this thread a direction that is both plausable, (realistic) and effective in ensuring that NO more Nations / Countries have nuclear weapon capability that may/will lead to a disaster. To tackle this matter inside a context of what exists.

To ensure a course of acting responsible for OUR future. More important. That of future generations. Freedom of potential harm of a Nuclear Holocaust.

Tarlam! your approach: Disarmament on a World wide scale.

woodbuck27: I am on the side of saying that approach isn't realistic. It won't happen in OUR foreseeable future, probably ever.

Given the wide division in OUR views on this issue, introduces a classic debate on the scale of. Is it " BLACK or WHITE ". There can be no GRAY area's. Ehh ?

I believe to get to the Black or white one must examine the gray.

OK ?? Tarlam! May we confine OURSELVES within the context of the issue?

I have faith in a proper discussion that we will realize an answer we all may live with. No pun intended.

Tarlam! and woodbuck27 are miles apart in ** OUR personalities. May we confine this to proper intellectual discussion? Too much of that ** is pointless in regards to seeking a solution that will protect OUR future.

Too much of that will damage this thread.

Maybe my wishes are as Utopian as your suggestion of " World Wide Nuclear Weapon Disarmament", as a solution, Tarlam! ?

We need FOCUS.

Only then may we determine through respectful discourse a method both real and effective.

Maybe in you. I'm guilty of rhetoric tantamount to suggesting that "your out to lunch" Tarlam!. If I'm just that... everytime I pop into your view that's sad.

I don't pursue a challenge, involving Tarlam!. I pursue TRUTH.

I'm sitting here and thinking. WOW ! Isn't that nice that Tarlam! has "of course" the ultimate response. Get rid of all the Nuclear weapons. Of course that is "the BEST way". :mrgreen:

Then I scale the issue of protection and nuclear arms back to the common man's right to or not to own a gun (for whatever reason). Given that I certainly realize that my World is composed of GOOD and EVIL.

What is my responce to any government stance to take my guns from me?

Well clearly, that response is NO !

There is absolutely no reason for my Government to dictate what I may own that is not going to be used in any way to do harm to innocent people.

So "in fact" I have my pseudo Nuclear weapon and noone's taking it from me and I will only voluntarily give my guns up, if that is overall suitable for me.

I don't even want the Government to regulate me and my guns (my property in my proper and responsible care). When such a program is over the top unrealistic given it's cost monetarily and an invasion of my privacy and rights.

Why should the GOOD and generally respectful people like myself, live without a gun, or worse offer ourselves up to a system "a Gun Registry" that may inform the BAD guys... of my capability to defend myself from their evil intents?

It's a case of what they don't know may hurt them. I'm as many men. I would not hesitate to defend myself or my loved one's and property with a gun. if that option was called upon.

I'm OLD School- tough as they come. Noone ever invades my life with evil intent and doesn't suffer me. If necessary, I would not hesitate to bring that invader down with whatever means is at my disposal. Even to go as far as using my guns as a weapon. Whatever it takes !!

SoTarlam! It's come see come saw.

Countries that already have Nuclear Weapon capability will NOT disarm,Tarlam!

In order for that to work "in Utopian Theory" is that ... ALL Nuclear weapons would have to vanish fron OUR planet.

The next or logical question, based on that as a solution. How do YOU propose that be accomplished? Base your solution/plan on reality.

That usually, in a REAL sense, comes down to cost and then it's tossed away. So again from that standpoint ...NO to Nuclear Weapon disarmament on a world wide scale. It's just not practical as a solution.

It's an unreal proposal you make Tarlam! and also very dangerous to even consider. May I add and putting it in Black and White terms, Tarlam!

That suggestion is plain n' simple.... STUPID to consider as a viable option !!

Back to woodbuck27 and my guns.

Well they have always been used strictly to prepare for and to hunt wildlife. I don't own guns with any real day to day emphasis on having them as a source of protection. I have other means of security, but no less I deserve the right to keep them and do so in privacy and to back myself up if the evil side comes down on me and my home.

I'm well aware that "the Bad Guys" are everyday gaining more POWER to and do harm innocent people. To deny that "as a reality" in all aspects of living today, is a delusion and a means to encourage only the Bad guys determination to harm all of us Good guys.

They don't discrimminate as the opportunity may present itself.

We must examine this issue from the concept of.

Does N.Korea have a Nuclear weapon? If so as it now appears they do. Then the proper approach is for N.Korea to get rid of that capability. No other option is available to N.Korea as "the World" overwhelmingly supports NO to Nuclear Arms and N.Korea.

How do we exercise pressure on N. Korea and monitor N. Korea as the measures are put in place, to disarm N. Korea of any Nuclear Weapon capability. That is the issue of focus here Tarlam!, not anything else.

Why are we getting sidetracked with discussion on something as stupid as World Wide Nuclear Weapon disarmament, that just isn't practical or sensable from any standpoint Tarlam! ???

To go there is to waste OUR God given abilitiy to reason capably.

The solution to all car accidents = Get rid of all car? :idea:

Hardly. Not the proper resonse.

The solution to all murders or other violations of "the Law" and in the commission of any such crimes using a gun = Get rid of all guns? :idea:

Hardly. Not the proper response.

The proper resosponse to the World generally opposing N.Korea and Nuclear Weapon capability = The rest of the World's great Power's getting rid of their arsenal's of Nuclear Weapons? :idea:

Hardly. Not the proper response when that has hardly anything to do with the problem.That problem is N. Korea, not the World's Powers,Tarlam!.

So what have you got Tarlam! to counter my position? :?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarlam!

Agreed. The US offered peaceful technology as the carrot of contolling states. Germy, too, for instance. I should have made that differentiation.

They also protect Germany and other states with nuclear weapons.

---

Tarlam!

The U S of A's place in the World, with it's leading edge in Nuclear Weapon Technology and POWER is in place to "in fact" act as a deterrent to any Rogue Countries Administration. Possibly exercising an option of threatening the rest of the world with the threat or othewise of a Nuclear weapons attack. By it's own means or otherwise exporting it's capability to unstable groups that have no other agenda but destruction. ie terrorists.

Canada trusts and relies on OUR neighbors POWER or authority to utilize this deterrant... as it must. For the promotion of PEACE and any threat of a Nuclear calamity by any Rogue Government or terrorist/hate group.

The argument may be simplified, Tarlam!?

If only one of two nations...

The US of A or N. Korea... was allowed to have this POWER of Nuclear weapons and technology; to produce Nuclear weapons for it's own means or export to whomever?

and...

You Tarlam!, have the full authority to decide which Nation "in fact" gets that POWER exclusively.

Of these two Nations. Which Nation do you choose to veto, considering all that each Nation represents for the benefit of the World overall?

That's right.

Now take the next step, Tarlam!

Given the US of A's POWER and it's deterrant factor, against any other Nation using Nuclear Power Tecnology for other than peaceful needs/means.

Would you see this issue of who has Nuclear Power Tecnology for possibly destructive means; extended to a Nation such as N. Korea, as it's perceived to be by an overwhelming majority of the World's Nations/Countries?

There you go. Good.

So how do we disarm or otherwise ensure that N. Korea buckles to the desire from the UN?

That N. Korea doesn't have a plan, means or otherwise intent to produce a nuclear weapon for itself?

That N. Korea doesn't have any capability of exporting technology and or fissionable materials to enable a bomb of any size or description outside it's borders?

That and only that is the primary issue of concern in this thread.

None other. :idea:

:cool:

Woodbuck, I saw you addressed 2 posts to me. I refuse to read your novel-length-feature posts, as I have clearly indicated. Maybe yourwin the argument in your posts. But, I will not read that amount of text. From anyone.

Enjoy your colossal victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarlam!

Woodbuck, I saw you addressed 2 posts to me. I refuse to read your novel-length-feature posts, as I have clearly indicated. Maybe yourwin the argument in your posts. But, I will not read that amount of text. From anyone.

Enjoy your colossal victory.

---

Enjoyment??

I'd get more enjoyment banging my head into a brick wall Tarlam!

Your like "the Texas holdem' player that announces. . . "I'm all in" and then breaks out in a silly giggle and says "only joking boys".

Your stances maan. :crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbuck27

Your stances maan. :crazy:

---

Look at the where's Woody thread and you will note that you have a great reputation for accelerating the scroll wearage. It's not just me. Your posts are too long and too cryptic for the average Joe - that' me - to decipher.

You're a highly valued poster. That's what counts. I just can't be bothered to read your eternally long posts. I am not alone with my crazy stance.

Such a nice Dear Leader....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=artslot

Story is to long to cut - paste.

Why resurrect the bogus "nuke" test thread to post this stuff?

Also, what would you suggest we do about this prison camp stuff? From your history of posting, Freakout, you don't seem like the gung ho interventionist cowboy type.