Can I ask a question?

[Truth2Tell]

For the record, I understand the differences between the USA and North Korea, in governance, power etc. I also understand the role of the United Nations. That being said, can someone please tell me, from the standpoint of fundamental fairness, why the USA should be allowed to test long-range ballistic missiles but North Korea should not? And where do we derive the right to decide this? Really.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Well, North Korea doesn't have the trust of its neighbors

The US generally adheres to protocol when conducting tests as far as I know. North Korea cultivates the image of the person who's just crazy enough to do something rash. That's the way their government likes it. Therefore, it's understandable that Japan, SK and China might get nervous about what the DPRK is really up to.

[Truth2Tell]

6. Can I get a count of countries invaded

in the last 40 years? USA vs North Korea?

[rug]

21. If you count general meddling, about 214 to 1.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

[rockymountaindem]

24. I'm referring to missile tests

Japan was threatening to shoot down the missile because North Korea fired one right over Tokyo Narita Airport during the 1990s with no warning at all. Japan doesn't trust North Korea, with whom they have many outstanding issues. North Korea warned that if Japan tried to shoot down the missile, which the Japanese evidently have the capability to do, they would consider it an act of war. In the last couple of months, the DPRK has threatened war against the ROK on more than one occasion. Japan didn't like what they were seeing or hearing.

The US' record has nothing to do with this particular showdown. It's a flare up of regional tension in an already nerve-wracked region.

[scarletwoman]

2. I assume it's because N. Korea is a "Rogue Nation", while we are The Shining Light Unto the World.

But I could be wrong.

[Mari333]

23. ! yep! nt

[Cynical Guy]

3. Because we did it years ago when "nobody" lived on the islands we tested on?

[rrneck]

4. There is no good reason for that disparity.

And we don't have the right to tell any other sovereign nation what to do. That's what diplomacy is for. Unfortunately, we lost ours somewhere in the basement of the Pentagon.

[rwheeler31]

5. Didn't they sign something?

[Truth2Tell]

7. You mean like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

that we unilaterally abandoned?

[DJ13]

8. By most accounts todays launch wasnt a missle, it was a rocket

Calling it a missile was a propaganda effort by our MSM to whip up anti NK sentiments.

Missles arent used to try and launch a satellite.

[NeedleCast]

10. Generally there's a satellite involved with a satellite launch

[DJ13]

13. According to experts that reviewed the photos from it on the launchpad

It had a satellite on it.

[NeedleCast]

18. I haven't seen anything used beyond the word "payload" so far

But I haven't looked very hard. The only source I've seen saying it was actually a satellite so far is NK and they're not the most trustworthy source (especially since they're claiming the satellite launch was a success when it obviously wasn't, not that that's unexpected).

[Truth2Tell]

14. Something evidently landed in the Pacific.

Missile or rocket with failed satellite. Your guess is as good as mine. And likely more reliable than anything in our MSM.

[Truth2Tell]

11. Fair point. My question still applies though. nt

[KitchenWitch]

9. A very astute question that I do not have an answer for.

Personally I think it is pretty messed up.

[patrice]

12. Honestly, it really is "Because we say so" and for no other reason

It's the same sort of blind hypocrisy that drives Americn kids crazy, that and the total inability to see or think of anything from someone else's perspective.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Because we're bigger.

[terisan]

16. You can be very fair and very dead. The lack of basic human rights in N Korea is to me an

indication of why many do not want to trust them with nukes, The leader of Korea is a dictator who is massively abusing the people of that country-people who are not even free to escape his rule.

Why should he-the dictator-have nuclear weapons? If the people are not free, they are not getting nuclear weapons-he is.

We derive our right to oppose his power by virtue of being his potential victims.

[NeedleCast]

22. I think you've pretty much hit on it

Other nations don't tend to trust dictatorships, even when their country is also one. North Korea is one of the most closed nations in the world. They've been accused (by more than just the US) of selling missile and nuclear technology to other countries (and I have little doubt they would).

[Truth2Tell]

26. There are a lot of dictators in the world. In fact

we actually provide high-tech weaponry to dozens of them. Ever heard of Pakistan?

And when has NK ever said they intend to use nukes against us? Or even threatened us directly? Not South Korea, but us.

You say we derive our rights by virtue of being his potential victims? Please tell me how that logic is fundamentally different from the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war? Or has that simply become the widely accepted bi-partisan view these days?

[terisan]

34. 1. It differs from preemptive war policies because we are not invading N. Korea.

2. We have the 1953 Mutual Defense treaty with S; Korea. Should we break it?

3. Yes I have heard of Pakistan.

4. Providing high tech weaponry to one country at one or more points in time does not require us to provide same to another country. Countries are not interchangeable. They are located at diifferent points on the globe and have different situations.
For example, signing a Mutual Defense Treaty with one country does not require that we sign the same treaty with another country or with every other country.

[truedelphi]

36. have you caught that movie about the American defector who left his unit

When stationed in North Korea?

I forget the film's name - it was a little indie documentary, but it really pointed out that North Korea is not all that different from some other nations. For some reason, The USA doesn't mind Communist China, but dinky little North Korea bothers us so much.

Meanwhile, China has killed again and again in Tibet, and we sweep that murderous behavior under the rug.

[MrSlayer]

17. C'mon. Do you really want Little Kim to have nukes that can hit us?

This is ridiculous. Why don't we just let every nutjob tinpot dictator have them as well? North Korea cannot be trusted with such power. That's why. Fuck fairness.

[Bluebear]

20. Yes, that's exactly what the OP wanted, for N. Korea to be able to hit us.

Discussion isn't your forte, is it?

[MrSlayer]

42. It is when there is something to discuss.

In this case it's pretty clear cut.

[patrice]

25. I think the implication is that if we want them to end nuclear weapons we have to do it too.

[Truth2Tell]

28. Boy.. it would sure help if we at least

were making an effort. I think people forget that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty had two major parts. On one hand non-nuclear powers agreed to not acquire nuclear weapons, and in exchange the existing nuclear states agreed to reduce our stockpiles and eventually eliminate them. We complain a lot about others not keeping their end of the deal, but haven't exactly made much progress on our end either.

[MrSlayer]

44. President Obama said he wants to do that.

But that doesn't mean we should let Kim have the capability before we demand that he get rid of it. North Korea should not have ICBMs at all, ever.

[patrice]

27. Trust? Does Invasion affect trust? What happens when both of us have Invaded others?

1,000,000 dead Iraqis would have questions about our trustworthiness were they able to speak.

[Truth2Tell]

30. It always helps me to know who I'm talking to

when people use demonizing pet names for foreign leaders.

[MrSlayer]

48. He doesn't deserve respect.

Although I realize he is the greatest golfer in the world.

[DeepBlueC]

19. Don't they keep making deals with us to suspend nuclear activities

Then they take the swag and keep doing what they do.

[dysfunctional press]

29. when we test- do our missiles go over other countries, or just the ocean?

and if they DO go over other countries- i would imagine that we get permission from them in advance.

north korea is always firing it's missiles over japan without such permission.

that's why.

[Truth2Tell]

33. We were riled up about this before they launched it.

Did we already know where it was going to go?

[dysfunctional press]

35. they've done it before, so yes.

look at a map- they have to fire it over some country, and japan stands between them and the open ocean.

[Truth2Tell]

39. So do you think that if NK agreed

to just test over open ocean, we wouldn't have a problem with it?

[dysfunctional press]

40. how are they going to do that?

:shrug:

there is no open path to the open ocean for them to use.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Objectively speaking you are right.

But as a practical matter, I really don't think there's a satisfactory way to acheive "fairness" without putting a lot of people in extreme danger.

[Truth2Tell]

37. Are you sure more people aren't put into extreme danger

when we escalate tensions than are put in extreme danger by a North Korean test rocket?

[Adsos Letter]

38. Pretty well sums it up for me.

[stillcool]

32. Because might makes right..

and the United Nations are invested in the United States military.

[bridgit]

41. If 'fundamental fairness' existed inside The Walled Fortress Pyongyang...

which it doesn't; and they were able to launch their often failed and disintegrated uber-xenophobic ballistics over Japan and into her sea which they do and did even after Japan said they'd shoot it down but didn't; NK is having a grand time getting all chesty acting all spooky thinking they're making big points but they aren't.

They've just enhanced Obama's case for stronger sanctions and yes preemptive action which he began to make on the visit to Europe. They're already developing *and* launching it's just a matter of time before they tinker the rest together and DefSecGates pretty much said there's nothing we could do about it. But I'll bet the Pentagon is watching it all. That's not us being some big ballistic missile bully, that's just being smart that's minute-man-stuff

And for matter if they manage to squeeze one through and drop it somewhere, oh, say: Seattle; I bet the topic here at DU will be very different indeed

[Truth2Tell]

43. So the smoking gun could be in the form a mushroom cloud.

Is that what you're saying?

[bridgit]

49. Pft, this guy's actually doing it. You can pooh-pooh it all you care to...

but millions on all sides have already died in those Pacific/Peninsula theaters. This guy, not Saddam but this guy: Kim Jong Il is *already firing* missiles over Japan with their failed pieces falling into the Sea of Japan; he *already has* a nuke program and is proud of it. This isn't the imaginary musings of g.w. bush...this is for real and Obama has acknowledged it as such so you can pooh-pooh that too I guess. I understand you don't care about it so I'll see that and raise it: I don't give a shit what he launches personally...so long as if he ever gets serious and does so he ends up dropping it right on top of my head.

That way I won't have to see so many people eating so much crow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaSVx6O_lbU

[hyphenate]

45. I asked a similar question a few years back, and

while I wasn't speaking generally about North Korea, the answer still is the same. Rather than post from my faulty memory, read the Wiki page to get the full information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_club

[metapunditedgy]

46. The words "should" and "ought" may well be meaningless in international politics.

That said, insofar as we get to choose who gets to have nuclear weapons, I'd much prefer that they be limited to a few large nations who have a lot to lose should war ever break out, and that have relatively less oppressive governments. (For example, most people are free to leave the USA whenever they want to.)

[CreekDog]

47. It is not about fairness

If it were fair, all the other nations of the world would be allowed to use 2 nuclear weapons on cities during warfare.

Thus, I don't think being "fair" is the highest goal.

[Festivito]

50. For one, we do share our expertise, a lot.

In NASA you'll find people invited from all over the world, and all over the world you'll find people residing in various countries who have worked with NASA at NASA.

I don't have a hard fast rule that would allow us to allow ourselves and not allow another, but, I do wish to note that many countries respect our sciences for the idea that they are a part of our sciences.

This sharing is not the case with North Korea, as you might well imagine. And they are shunned by many countries who are not participating with them.

I'm no expert on any of this, this is simply from my personal experience in my personal travels. In some cases I share with you this same questioning nature. And I say these questions need to be asked, because sometimes we take agreement with other countries as a given when doing what we do, when we shouldn't. Especially when we lack at least at minimum a hard fast rule that starts our discussions.