Was North Korea wrong to test nuclear weapons?

[lithium]

I don't know much about North Korea or anything, and I may be wrong about international laws and stuff, but at the moment I think that NK had the right to test nuclear weapons if they so wanted.

The US and other big states in the world test them all the time - why shouldn't North Korea?

[FriedFrog]

No it wasnt wrong. I think maybe they could have spent their resources a little better though, perhaps on their people?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Every nuclear missile test is wrong. But they were not more wrong than any other nuclear testing nation.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The objective facts are being discussed and debated here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57246).

[rouchambeau]

I'm pretty sure NK didn't test any nuclear missles.

[Janus]

No, I don't think it was "wrong".

[Black Dagger]

I think North Korea should test socialism.

[Janus]

I'm pretty sure NK didn't test any nuclear missles.
Poll edited.

Also, I think this forum should be for serious discussion rather than chit chatty opinion polls.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think North Korea should test socialism.

:lol:

[Tatarin]

North Korea was not wrong, because they feared an invasion by the US. Any nation would probably do that when the US threatens them.

[that1guy435]

North Korea was very wrong. Not because they tested nuclear missiles, but because that money could have gone to, umm, I dunno, the half of their population that's starving to death?

[Noah]

Nuclear bombs are wrong altogether but many nations have them anyway...Point is, they could have spent that money on their people.

They play it wrong, if you spend on the people then you win their hearts but a bomb is just a bomb..If the people are content with the current way of things then they wouldn't welcome an American invasion.

I don't think a nuclear bomb is a long term solution to ensuring North Korea's 'communist' government stays in power.

[loveme4whoiam]

Every nuclear missile test is wrong. But they were not more wrong than any other nuclear testing nation.
Quoted for truth.


I don't think a nuclear bomb is a long term solution to ensuring North Korea's 'communist' government stays in power.
I don't know about that. I mean, this pretty much guarantees the US won't screw with NK to the degree that they have in other countries they don't like. While I think nukes in general are the second-worst idea ever had in the history of mankind, they do scare the bejebus out of states.

I suppose this test means that the "communist" government (you have to grin wryly, or shake your head sadly, whenever you say that) won't be toppled by an outside influence. Whether this will deter any kind of internal movement is another matter (assuming there is one in NK, I don't really know). I mean, no-one is insane enough to nuke their own country... :unsure:

[Organic Revolution]

yes they were wrong testing there weapon. first they put the whole population at risk, not just from the radiation, but by the sanctions and embargos put on the country because of its test. and they were wrong for continuing the use of nuclear weapons.

also, kim jung Il is a bastard.

[Tatarin]

North Korea was very wrong. Not because they tested nuclear missiles, but because that money could have gone to, umm, I dunno, the half of their population that's starving to death?

We all know that that won't happen. Much of what they recieve goes to their army, so if not a nuclear weapon, then some other missile program, or more grenades. Still, I think that North Korea must progress within. As of now, that will only happen once Kim Jong Il dies - because that will turn North Korea into a similar state like Vietnam or China.


Point is, they could have spent that money on their people.

Yes, but so could the US, India, Pakistan... Hell, why construct so many weapons that you can destroy the entire planet?


I mean, no-one is insane enough to nuke their own country...

Tell that when the revolution begins in America :D .

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 15 2006, 06:17 PM
I think North Korea should test socialism.
I totally agree, there needs to another revolution, and this "great eternal leader," shit needs to be cut out like a cancer, the people need to become top priority, and the drunk narcissist needs to be shot.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't believe that this has been a worthy affront to imperialism. Rather, it will just serve to escalate violence. Remember, no war between nations, no peace between classes.

Wanton violence, even if it's an act of aggression against the ruling class, doesn't serve our interests.

[socialistfuture]

amen to that, i think its shows how stagenet politics is if ppl are arguing who is better between north korea and the us - its like the bush or osama arguement.
NEITHER,
revolution time... its fuckin overdue

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From this article (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?61) by the FPM on Iran:


Revolutionaries support the right of countries oppressed by imperialism to pursue nuclear capabilities for a number of reasons.

Firstly, as a general principle, each imperialist-oppressed country must have the ability to determine its own policies without interference.

Secondly, we support the right of all countries to develop nuclear power because it is a clean, sustainable, and safe alternative to energy created by burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. In this case, Tehran says it needs to develop nuclear power plants in order to meet the country’s growing energy needs.

The population of Iran has more than doubled over the last few years, from 32 million to nearly 70 million. The country’s electrical capacity is 30,000 megawatts, and it needs an additional 2,000 megawatts each year, which cannot be produced by oil and gas alone – even under the best conditions, including an immediate end to U.S. economic sanctions and a large inward flow of investments.

Iran’s ambassador to New Zealand, Kambiz Skeikh-Hassani, says if current trends aren’t reversed, Iran will become a net importer of oil by 2010 – this in a country that relies on oil for 45 percent of its annual budget.

This is a large part of the reason why imperialist powers like the U.S. oppose the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by oppressed countries. As Gustavo Marquez, Venezuela’s delegate to the IAEA put it, “There is an effort by nuclear powers, such as the United States, to develop a monopoly on nuclear energy, thus creating an economic and political dependence.” Incidentally, the United States creates more nuclear energy than any other country on earth.

Also, despite the fact that Iran has repeatedly asserted that it is not building nuclear weapons (the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even issued a fatwa, or religious law, forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons), we also support the legitimate right of oppressed countries to construct nuclear weapons for their own defense.

While countries like the U.S. and Israel have immense stockpiles of nuclear weapons – which they constantly threaten to use – the creation of a nuclear defense system is one of the only methods oppressed countries can use to defend themselves.

...pretty much explains our stance on DPRK's recent testing.

[socialistfuture]

Secondly, we support the right of all countries to develop nuclear power because it is a clean, sustainable, and safe alternative to energy created by burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. In this case, Tehran says it needs to develop nuclear power plants in order to meet the country’s growing energy needs.

that is not true tho:
yes nuclear is controlled by corporations like other energy sources and resources. nationalisation and controlling local resources is one way to break from corporate control. i fear nuclear is not a solution tho, to imperialism or pollution (nuclear waste - the resources used to make the nuclear powerplants - the centralised control of them - they are not democratic - control of power is centralised - like a corporate structure).



The nuclear power industry and its governmental allies are spending tens of millions of dollars annually to promote atomic power as a “clean air” energy source and to encourage the construction of new nuclear reactors in the U.S. and worldwide. With Russia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, thereby putting this important agreement into effect, this industry initiative is expected to increase. If successful, we can expect to see a revival—we would call it a “relapse”-- of reactor construction across the globe. There already are numerous proposals for new reactors on nearly every continent.

Yet nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing climate change, when the entire fuel chain is examined, nuclear power is found to be a producer of greenhouse gases. Adding enough nuclear power to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade or so, and, perhaps most significantly, squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change mitigation policies.

In November 2000 the world recognized nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in the Hague. The world dealt nuclear power a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm

campaign for nuclear disarmament:
http://www.cnduk.org/

[Severian]

I think there's two different questions being discussed here. Two different interpretations of "Was North Korea wrong to test nuclear weapons?"

One is: Was this the best possible decision under the circumstances? On the one hand there's the tremendous resources required, on the other hand there's the need to deter the U.S. But what's the point of trying to give tactical advice to Kim Jong Il anyway? We don't have any way of influencing north Korean policy.

Two: do they have a right to test a nuke? Should we oppose the efforts by Washington and others to punish north Korea for it?

Both a clearer and a more useful question. Absolutely they have every right to build a nuclear deterrent. And absolutely we should oppose the U.S.-led "sanctions" effort.
Washington and its allies are going to take this UN resolution and run with it, just as they did with all the resolutions about sanctions on Iraq.

Among other things, they're going to use this to further reinforce their claimed right to stop and search any ship they want, in international waters. They've already been doing that to north Korean ships - it'll become more blatant now.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:05 AM
I don't know much about North Korea or anything, and I may be wrong about international laws and stuff, but at the moment I think that NK had the right to test nuclear weapons if they so wanted.

The US and other big states in the world test them all the time - why shouldn't North Korea?
You're absolutely right. From the standpoint of the capitalists' own "international law," every country has an equal right to build and test whatever weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is voluntary, some countries never signed it, and north Korea has withdrawn from it.

'Course, the imperialists only obey their own laws when it's convenient.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:51 PM

In November 2000 the world recognized nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in the Hague. The world dealt nuclear power a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm

campaign for nuclear disarmament:
http://www.cnduk.org/
Well, I don't know who that "world" is. I.e. which governments pushed that through.

But certainly a number of advanced capitalist countries are continuing to develop nuclear energy themselves, including the U.S. and especiallly France and Japan. It's a huge double standard, then, to set conditions on how Iran can develop nuclear energy.

All these environmental considerations, etc., are things which Third World countries have to decide for themselves.

[socialistfuture]

because maybe NO countries or governments should have nuclear weapons

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, ideally... unfortunately, the reality is that the imperialist countries have nuclear weapons.. lots of them. And they're not going to get rid of them. So, dealing in reality, we see that imperialist-oppressed countries that seek to take an independent path need nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:56 PM
because maybe NO countries or governments should have nuclear weapons
Meanwhile, on planet Earth.....

Actually, it's a provision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty that the existing nuclear powers are supposed to negotiate mutual, total disarmament. But they don't even pretend to do so.

So the existing powers are all in violation of that treaty while pretending to enforce it on others.

[socialistfuture]

thats because the UN top 5 are also the top 5 arms dealing nations. how can they be for disarming when they are arming nations. its economics not just politics.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth.....

war continues and politions pretend they are against it, and more weapons are created. im not saying how things should be - im saying how it is, and that its not working.

[Kaga]

Fucking militarists. Nuclear weapons are always wrong. North Korea should definetely disarm their weapons of mass destruction, and so should every other country too.

I'm not saying it's wrong for NK to have a nuclear bomb, but okay for, for example the US or Israeli. Especially the US should disarm their nuclear weapons, as long as they have more of those than anyone else on the planet, and they are the only one ever to attack civilians with nuclear weaponry. Whackos.

[izquierda80]

U.S. cynism and clear contradictions aside, the development and employment of nuclear weapons is one of the signs of capitalism's warlike and destructive nature, and one of the reasons why this world could eventually come to an end (as we know it), if a nuclear war is ever fought. Foolish humanity has developed a single weapon that holds the secret of its own destruction, or at least its own de-evolution, and continues to use it as part of political powergames.

I don't believe that the oppressed will be attacked with nuclear weapons in the first place outside of the framework of a nuclear war between the world's powers, a war that will be more and more likely as nuclear arms races continue, nor that having a nuclear weapon will prevent U.S. imperialism and interventionism either.

It will only complicate things much further, and allow the U.S. to continue finding more and more "creative" excuses and new ways of manipulating the situation.

Nevertheless, I fully support the development of nuclear energy sources, by Iran, Venezuela and all countries of the world, oppressed or unoppressed, but not that of nuclear weapons. It may be too idealistic, indeed, but nuclear disarmament is the only sensible option that I see for humanity, if we want to avoid a future catastrophe.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:52 PM
Two: do they have a right to test a nuke? Should we oppose the efforts by Washington and others to punish north Korea for it?

Both a clearer and a more useful question. Absolutely they have every right to build a nuclear deterrent. And absolutely we should oppose the U.S.-led "sanctions" effort.
Washington and its allies are going to take this UN resolution and run with it, just as they did with all the resolutions about sanctions on Iraq.

Among other things, they're going to use this to further reinforce their claimed right to stop and search any ship they want, in international waters. They've already been doing that to north Korean ships - it'll become more blatant now.
Making atomic bombs is a threat. I don't see how escalating global violence is an affront to imperialist powes like the US.

[Anti-Capitalism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 04:55 am
because maybe NO countries or governments should have nuclear weapons
only in an ideal world would such a thing be possible, but much of humanity is corrput.

[bezdomni]

North Korean officials have said that they "will not be the first country to use a nuclear weapon", meaning that they'd have to be attacked first in order to retaliate.

I support nuclear weapons as a deterrent to imperialism. Due to growing military and economic pressure from the US, the DPRK felt forced to develop nuclear bombs to defend themselves.

I don't like nuclear bombs, but there are sometimes few viable options. I agree with the FPM's stance.

[Rodack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 08:04 pm
I'm pretty sure NK didn't test any nuclear missles.
You are correct, comrade, no missles were tested, I believe it was an underground test

[Raj Radical]

Absolutely not.

Nuclear weapons are never a positive thing. The more countries with the bomb, the larger the chance of the extinction of the human race. Period.

Especially in a country run by a fat little lunatic which has a starving population.

[chimx]

Duh, of course it was wrong.

The DPRK was a signed member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Pact, but withdrew from it as the final whinning act of the Kim jung-il who had when using the idea of nuclear weapon development as a means of blackmailing the United States for fuel and other resources.

This isn't anything new for anyone that pays attention. The DPRK did the same thing back in '93: pulling out of the non proliferation treaty, and then rejoining when it was promised sanctions would be eased.

Also, to all of the morons that keep saying that the DPRK has the right to build nuclear weapons since the United States has them should remember that the DPRK does not have the rocket technology to even attack the US. Some folk speculate that they MIGHT be able to hit the tip of Alaska, but that's it. The only nuclear states that are in range of the DPRKs alleged nukes are China and the former Soviet Union, which are two of the DPRKs largest trading partners.

In reality, the only people the DPRK could nuke and would want to nuke is South Korea and Japan, neither of which have nuclear weapons because both feel that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is against the interest of humanity.

[Xiao Banfa]

I voted 'not sure' since I'm not sure if the tests helped defend the DPRK from imperialism. I'm not an expert when it comes to brinksmanship.

Agree with CDL's analysis of the situation.

Sup Tane!

[Guerrilla22]

it's likely they didn't even test a nuke at all, but rather set off a bunch of explosives, the US geological survey found that an explosion did take place there at the time the DPRK claimed it tested a nuclear weapon, however they said that the explosion was relatively minor if indeed it was a nuke. Anyway, this was a long time ago.

[chimx]

Due to growing military and economic pressure from the US, the DPRK felt forced to develop nuclear bombs to defend themselves.

Uhh, actually the DPRK had already violated the Non Proliferation Treaty before the 2002 "axis of evil" assertion.

For the past 2 decades, the DPRK has been developing a nuclear program as a means of squeezing aid from foreign powers.

[Devrim]

Was the USA right to invade Iraq?

It all depends what right means here. Is it some abstract moral concept, or does it mean a correct policy for the defence of its interests.

If that is how it is understood it could be argued that the US was right to invade Iraq.

It could also be argued that North Korea was right to test nuclear weapons.

All bourgeois states, whether strong, like the US or weak, like North Korea, follow their own interests.

What is wrong is to confuse the interests of these states with those of the working class.

Devrim

[Guerrilla22]

It all depends what right means here. Is it some abstract moral concept, or does it mean a correct policy for the defence of its interests.


Werd. Politics are often too complex to reduce to right and wrong, especially in the international arena.

[( R )evolution]

Nice bump of a year and some odd months thread....

[darkened day 92]

I was debating this conservtitve guy that said that america has these nuclear weapons as a sort of "pride" it is not how we see it here in the middleast now i am somewhat of a pacifist but america is terrorizing the world and i beleive that the countries threatened by america should do all they have to do to be safe and ensure that america doesn't bully them. i live in qatar and there was a roumor that was going around that GWB ordered them(American military base in qatar) to "accidentaly" trop a bomb on aljazzera news station but tony blair talked him out of it.
These bombs are really dangerous but america still sees it as a free ride for them and israel. N. Korea should have nuclear bombs and if america minds then she should give away all her weapons to the united nations.

[Module]

No, I don't think it was wrong.
Whilst some nations like the United States have nuclear weapons I don't think it's wrong that others seek to have the means to defend themselves. Nuclear weapons are a pretty big 'upper hand'.
The use of nuclear weapons themselves I think it a slightly different issue.

[Bilan]

They're a pretty big 'upper hand', yeah, but that doesn't justify their existence.
We don't impersonate the imperialists and their tactics.
Furthermore, North Korea is hardly an ideal post-capitalist (if that!) social organization, relying still on the class system and the brutal state bureaucracy.
Justify it as you will, it is what it is.

Any state, in the bourgeois state sense, should not have nuclear weapons. To eradicate this problem is not for all nation states to use, or take Nuclear weapons, or develop them.

That is insanity.
Not to mention incredibly dangerous.

And no, it should not have tested them. None should.
And even some do, to counter that by doing it is ridiculous.

[Ismail]

We don't impersonate the imperialists and their tactics.The DPRK isn't. It was simply beginning to defend itself against a much stronger enemy whereas the imperialists create nukes to intimidate the poorer nations.


Any state, in the bourgeois state sense, should not have nuclear weapons.Correct, although the bourgeois develop them anyway as a defensive measure, albeit also offensive especially when the target has no nuclear weapons.


And no, it should not have tested them. None should.Tell that to the US, India, Israel, France....


And even some do, to counter that by doing it is ridiculous.Because the DPRK should be at the mercy of a threat of 'strategic forces'.


The DPRK was a signed member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Pact, but withdrew from it as the final whinning act of the Kim jung-ilEither that or the lack of a stable defense partner caused the government to be afraid of a strong-armed push for 'reforms' by the US. Your point would be valid if it withdrew in 1988 or something, but it withdrew in 2003.


Also, to all of the morons that keep saying that the DPRK has the right to build nuclear weapons since the United States has them should remember that the DPRK does not have the rocket technology to even attack the US. Some folk speculate that they MIGHT be able to hit the tip of Alaska, but that's it.There is no denying that "Our nation has nuclear weapons" is much more intimidating than "We want peace". There is a reason why the DPRK had kept its nuclear program secret. Even if it can't hit the US, it would obviously not want to convey that to the rest of the world unless strongly pushed.

Chimx, do you view the DPRK as a nation which is under imperialist threat?

I think that we need to be realistic here. The bourgeois in the long-run don't care about 'peace' in the liberal sense. The destruction of nuclear stockpiles would probably begin around the time of the defeat of capitalism, in which socialist states, beginning their transition to Communism in which the state is done away with, would begin abolishing nukes as they would no longer be needed.

[RedAnarchist]

Why would it be more "wrong" or "right" for NK to test them than it would be for the US, the UK, Russia, India etc?

[Ismail]

Why would it be more "wrong" or "right" for NK to test them than it would be for the US, the UK, Russia, India etc?Because the DPRK doesn't have the possibility to be a world power nor is it currently exploiting other nations in an imperialistic way. Also, I view it as a revisionist state moving away from Marxist-Leninism (It's already made some fairly large jumps away with Juche) but still a semi-socialist state. And finally I believe that it doesn't actually want to launch a nuclear strike on the US or any of that nonsense, and does its actions concerning the military solely for defense.

Edit: From the KCNA,

KPA to Counter with Its Positive Retaliatory Blows Any Attempt to Stifle DPRK by Force of Arms

Pyongyang, March 2 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Panmunjom Mission of the Korean People's Army (KPA) released a statement on Sunday as regards the fact that the U.S. and south Korean bellicose forces started what they called Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises under the simulated conditions of the second Korean war across south Korea on March 2.
The south Korea-U.S. joint military exercises that have started under the new codename of Key Resolve that replaced RSOI are aimed at leading a war to "victory" through the "effective deployment of U.S. reinforcements in case of 'contingency'" and thereby stifling the DPRK by force of arms, the statement noted, and continued:
The U.S. is staging madcap war maneuvers together with the south Korean bellicose forces after forward-deploying a field commanding mechanism for aggression in south Korea and in its vicinity and massively beefing up its air force. This is an indication that the U.S. is in the process of testing and examining a new war method under the simulated conditions of an actual war, the method of reducing the areas of the DPRK to ashes through preemptive air strikes including nuclear attack from the outset of the war and hurling its ground forces there.
The U.S. military is frantically pushing ahead with the arms buildup and war maneuvers at a time when the U.S. and south Korean conservative hardliners are letting loose such reckless remarks as "north Korea failed to meet the deadline to implement the October 3 agreement" and "it is necessary to take new measures if it continues delaying the nuclear declaration." This is an open and blatant challenge to the denuclearization and peace of the Korean Peninsula.
All facts clearly prove once again that the U.S. does not have any idea of dropping its hostile policy toward the DPRK at all and its loudmouthed "dialogue," "end to the state of armistice" and "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" are nothing but a crafty charade intended to cover up its preparations for a nuclear war, disarm the DPRK and mislead the world public opinion.
The KPA has never expected any benefit from the dialogue with the U.S.
If the U.S. and south Korean bellicose forces persistently work to realize their scenario to stifle the DPRK by force of arms at any cost, the KPA will not stand passively on the defensive but counter it with positive retaliatory strikes by mobilizing all means long built up by the DPRK at a high price.
In this case the U.S. and its followers will be wholly responsible for all the ensuing consequences.

[Lector Malibu]

I'm in agreement with most that nuclear bombs are not cool whatsoever and they are the result of diabolical madmen. That said though, and I wanna highlight the question Red Anarchist touched on because he brings up an excellent point. NK was not wrong in testing arms because those are the cards that are on the table. The United States of America should not be the only one's to have nuclear arms, fuck that! That is The United States saying " Hey either do what we want or else" and nothing less. No quarter should be given to the U.S. on this because don't forget they have already dropped two atomic bombs (basically the same thing ) on Japan. I hate nuclear bombs and I wish to see all of them gone, but as long as the U.S. is vilifying every country that seeks to even the odds and try and lessen U.S. dominance I support their right too.

[piet11111]

ofcourse north Korea going nuclear is a good thing.
the united states dropped their verbal aggression towards north korea right after the nuclear explosion (and it was nuclear according to air samples if i recall correctly)

it should be clear that having a few nuclear missiles will deter everyone with plans of attacking your country.

can anyone blame iran for wanting nukes of their own now ?

[chimx]

Either that or the lack of a stable defense partner caused the government to be afraid of a strong-armed push for 'reforms' by the US. Your point would be valid if it withdrew in 1988 or something, but it withdrew in 2003.

You have to keep in mind that the DPRK has a long history of using nuclear programs as a means of diplomatic leveraging. The current withdraw from the NPT has to been seen with this in mind.


Chimx, do you view the DPRK as a nation which is under imperialist threat?

Define threat? They are not under threat of military invasion. Following the Rhee regime, almost all of the escalations of military conflict on the peninsula has been initiated by the DPRK. This includes the attempted assassination of Korean presidents, the Poplar Tree Incident, the Pueblo Incident, as well as countless border crossings on both land and sea. If the DPRK would have chilled the fuck out, I can guarantee you that military tensions on the peninsula would be significantly less today, and the DMZ would not be one of the most dangerous places in the world.

But again, you have to remember that the DPRK's tactics follow those of its nuclear program. It initiates conflict, only to withdraw and push for aid and such later. They have a long long history of using ploys like this to their countries advantage.

Not to mention, with one of the largest standing armies in the world, there is NO chance the US or the UN would try to invade the DPRK and force a regime change like the UN/US did in Iraq. The cost of life would be astronomical on both side (as well as for American allies in Japan and ROK).

If by threat you mean economic sanctions, than those will persist as long as the DPRK runs a repressive and undemocratic planned economy.

[Ismail]

the Poplar Tree Incident,The DPRK thought that it was started by the US soldiers first. Also it was between soldiers, not governments.
the Pueblo Incident,Claimed to be in waters.


If by threat you mean economic sanctions, than those will persist as long as the DPRK runs a repressive and undemocratic planned economy.Yeah, capitalism is clearly much better and saying "Want this carrot? Do what we say!" is just great. It's clearly doing this because the DPRK is 'evil' and not because it is in their interest.

[Bilan]

The DPRK isn't. It was simply beginning to defend itself against a much stronger enemy whereas the imperialists create nukes to intimidate the poorer nations.

Hence, we don't impersonate their actions, or them.



Correct, although the bourgeois develop them anyway as a defensive measure, albeit also offensive especially when the target has no nuclear weapons.

Correct, but not the point.



Tell that to the US, India, Israel, France....

And you think I am indifferent to them?
I clearly stated that it was acceptable for no one, nation state, socialist or otherwise, to do so.
To counter measures, we do not use the same tactics as the bourgeois states.
We don't impersonate the enemy.



Because the DPRK should be at the mercy of a threat of 'strategic forces'.


Tisk. Don't be absurd. You know thats not even close to what I was saying.

[Awful Reality]

Who the hell is the US to determine who does-and-doesn't get nukes?

[PRC-UTE]

From this article (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?61) by the FPM on Iran:



...pretty much explains our stance on DPRK's recent testing.

Well done.

The obsession with bashing the DPRK is kinda strange. Don't recall the DPRK invading too many countries, slaughtering millions of people and smashing their territory into pieces.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't know much about North Korea or anything, and I may be wrong about international laws and stuff, but at the moment I think that NK had the right to test nuclear weapons if they so wanted.

The US and other big states in the world test them all the time - why shouldn't North Korea?

Obviously cos their non-european and so many of our "comrades" on here hate it when the victims of imperialism fight back.

[Organic Revolution]

One question: Why should any country have nuclear weapons?

[Kropotesta]

One question: Why should any country have nuclear weapons?
my thoughts exactly.

[Module]

Hence, we don't impersonate their actions, or them.
That doesn't follow. Having the same defence as another nation doesn't make your motives the same.


Correct, but not the point.What you said was less the point.
It's not right for any individual to shoot somebody for anything but self-defence, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to own a gun in case somebody tries to shoot you.



And you think I am indifferent to them?
I clearly stated that it was acceptable for no one, nation state, socialist or otherwise, to do so.
To counter measures, we do not use the same tactics as the bourgeois states.
We don't impersonate the enemy. That's the same argument that pacifists use to justify strict non-violence. It's not about 'impersonation' - it's about equal defence.



Tisk. Don't be absurd. You know thats not even close to what I was saying.What you were saying is that North Korea shouldn't have tested nukes because it is wrong to have them, period. You could've well said that.

[Devrim]

Well done.

The obsession with bashing the DPRK is kinda strange. Don't recall the DPRK invading too many countries, slaughtering millions of people and smashing their territory into pieces.

Er...June 1950?...South Korea?

Devrim

[chimx]

not to mention subsequent invasions

[Lenin II]

North Korea needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against American and Israeli imperialism.

[Sankofa]

North Korea needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against American and Israeli imperialism.

Hear Hear! If Israel has nukes, I don't see how North Korea doesn't deserve to have them.

[Devrim]

North Korea needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against American and Israeli imperialism.

Yes, because Israel is threatening to invade North Korea.

I suggest you take a look at a map of the world.

Devrim

[Lenin II]

Yes, because Israel is threatening to invade North Korea.

I suggest you take a look at a map of the world.

Devrim
Yes, because everyone knows imperialism only threatens those nations immediately bordering the victim states, doesn't it? That's why America has been unsuccessful in its social and economic imperialist strikes against the nations of the third world.

I suggest you read a book.

[Devrim]

Please name one instance of Israel threatening North Korea.

Devrim

[Comrade Rage]

I voted no. N. Korea is under direct threat from the imperialists.

[BrotherNo2]

North Korea was not wrong, because they feared an invasion by the US. Any nation would probably do that when the US threatens them.

This was the correct answer, and arrived quite early in the thread.

[BrotherNo2]

I voted no. N. Korea is under direct threat from the imperialists.


Again, yes..... well and succinctly put.

[Raisa]

All Nuclear tests are wrong.
what the fuck!
There is nothing good nuclear testing does for the environment or the people.
It causes deformaties and all kinds of shit.
There is no justification for that in my eyes.
The real question is " are a bunch of talking motherfuckers who havent done shit for my own personal liberation really worth getting cancer over?"
And the answer is no.

[Lenin II]

Please name one instance of Israel threatening North Korea.

Devrim
You're missing the point. Imperialist powers don't have to directly threaten revisionist or socialist powers in order to declare an ideological "war" on them. That was the whole concept behind the Cold War. If America decided to opt for a "regime change" in the DPRK, other leading imperialist powers like Israel and especially Japan would be behind them with funds and arms, if not with troops.

[comrade stalin guevara]

cos not when one is encircled by capitolist one gets nuclear wepons....
p.d.r.k,iran,etc

[Lost In Translation]

I clicked the wrong choice :blushing:, sorry. I wanted to vote no, because I think we need to send the US a message that they're not the only ones with high-tech weapons. We need to get the US off of their little perception that they're still the best, and they're untouchable.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Imperialist hands off north Korea! U.S. troops out of south Korea!


http://mfje.org/english/sknkpro.jpgNo sanctions! No naval blockade! No war!

On October 9, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), better known as north Korea, conducted its first test of a nuclear bomb. The announcement of the test drew criticism from around the world.

Leading those criticisms was the government of the United States, which immediately rallied the rest of the imperialist powers – who oppose the right of oppressed countries who remain outside of their economic and military control – to demand sanctions on the isolated East Asian country.

They were of course joined by the lackey’s of imperialism, who rule neocolonial and colonial countries in the interests of foreign businesses, benefiting from the few crumbs thrown their way as payment for their obedience.

Russia and China also went along with the call for sanctions, but refused to support military action to enforce them.

To aid the drive against the DPRK, mainstream corporate media outlets all over the world quickly went to work whipping up hysteria and fear of the “north Korean threat,” just as they hyped up the “Iraqi threat” on the eve of the illegal invasion of that country.

On October 11, the Japanese government banned all north Korean imports and the entry of north Korean ships into its territory.

On October 14, the Security Council of the United Nations voted unanimously to pass a resolution on enacting a number of economic and military sanctions against the North. UN member states are now prohibited from exporting “luxury goods” to north Korea and must freeze all assets “involved with the DPRK’s weapons program.” On top of this, a ban was placed on the import of weapons and “spare parts” into north Korea, and it was called to “suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program” and “abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.”

Worst of all, a de facto naval blockade was created, that allows the U.S., Japan and south Korea to board and inspect all ships traveling in and out of the DPRK.

The DPRK responded by calling the sanctions “an act of war” – and rightly so!

Even some so-called “leftists” and “progressives” have joined in this round of attacks on north Korea. But there are a few inconvenient truths that get in the way of the Big Lies that these attacks are based on.

A history of aggression and the right of self-defense
The DPRK has developed nuclear weapons for the same reason it maintains a 1 million member army: to defend itself against imperialist invasion.

As World War II drew to a close, a revolutionary swept across the Korean peninsula, lead in large part by communist who were held in high esteem because of part they played in fighting against the Japanese occupiers.

Towards the end of the war, the USSR’s Red Army had entered the northern half of Korea to drive out the Japanese forces that had occupied the country since 1910. The U.S. Army entered the southern half at around the same time.

In the South, a government – based on grassroots “people’s committees” that had sprung up all over the country as workers and farmers united to form a real democracy – was formed in 1945. It declared the country’s official independence from Japan, and pledged to carry out land reform, nationalize major industries, implement an 8-hour work day, establish a minimum wage, and extend voting rights to all men and women over the age of eighteen.

All of this was counter to the interests of the business interests the U.S. government represents, and they wouldn’t stand for it. Only two days after the new government formed in the south, U.S. troops, under General Douglas MacArthur, landed and announced they were taking over.

In the years that followed, close to 100,000 Korean workers and peasants would be murdered for opposing the U.S. occupiers by carrying out strikes, rebellions, protests, and armed resistance.

In 1948, the occupiers announced the formation of a new government in the South, to be lead by Syngman Rhee, a member of an aristocratic family who spent years studying at expensive colleges in the United States.

Rhee’s rule was bloody and oppressive. He had communists captured, tortured and many times murdered. He ordered the military to carry out several massacres, including one on the island of Jeju in response to a popular rebellion against his regime.

Throughout this time, the foundations of the profit system were being overturned in the North. Extensive land reform and nationalizations were carried out by Korean workers and farmers.

In response to the creation of the “Republic of Korea” in the south in 1948, the revolutionary forces in the North announced the creation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and thus Korea was officially separated.

After a serious of cross border skirmishes and provocations, the DPRK’s Korean People’s Army invaded the south in 1950 with the purpose of liberating it from foreign domination and capitalism.

U.S. military forces launched a full invasion of Korea soon after, under what internationalist revolutionary Che Guevara referred to as “the discredited flag of the United Nations,” to destroy and turn back the revolutionary processes then taking place not only in Korea, but also China.

For the next three years they carried out atrocity after atrocity and destroyed the infrastructure of the northern part of the country through a series of heavy bombings. Virtually every city, town and village was flattened as U.S. bombers dropped millions of pounds of explosives and napalm. By the end of open hostilities, the U.S. military said it has nothing left to bomb – it had destroyed every single structure visible from the air!

Despite this brutal onslaught, and in a large part due to the assistance of Chinese communist volunteer soldiers, the Korean toilers (including those in the south, who waged guerrilla war) would not be defeated. Fighting continued until became absolutely clear that a stalemate had been reached.

This so-called “Korean Conflict,” which left millions of Korean women, men and children dead, has never officially ended, due largely to Washington’s refusal to sign a peace treaty and admit defeat in 1953.

To this day, the U.S. military maintains a huge presence in South Korea, consisting of some 30,000 heavily armed troops and land-based nuclear weapons. The U.S. and south Korean militaries have carried out “war games” in and around the Korean peninsula on a regular basis since the 1953 cease-fire, and have long established plans for a nuclear attack on the North.

For its part, the North has actually been the main force calling for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and all of Asia and the Pacific. It has also called for the peaceful reunification of the country, and a normalization of relations with the United States. But the U.S. government has continued to oppose and attack the North at every step.

In 1994, U.S. President Bill Clinton threatened the North with war, including nuclear bombings, after the North said it may withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The North called for a negotiated settlement, which was eventually made.

The North promised to stop developing its nuclear program (which was being built to provide energy to the country, which has no oil or gas reserves) and shut down its nuclear reactor, and the U.S. government promised to organize the production of two light-water reactors by 2003, and provide it with oil in the meantime. North Korea kept its promise, the U.S. did not.

When north Korea went back to work developing nuclear capabilities, the U.S. labeled it a “terrorist” country and imposed sanctions against it.

In late 1997, Kim Dae-jung, a liberal politician who opposed the reign of Syngman Rhee, was elected president of south Korea. He announced intentions of establishing friendly ties with the North, as the early steps of possible reunification in the future. In 2000, he held a historic meeting with Kim Jong-Il along those lines. When George W. Bush took office in 2001, he refused to meet with Kim Dae-jung because of it.

In 1998, the U.S. carried out exercises simulating an attack on north Korea with 30 nuclear bombs.

In its January 2002 Nuclear Policy Review, the Pentagon unveiled plans to utilize nuclear bombs against 7 countries, among them north Korea.

After all of this (and more that we didn’t mention!), it’s plain to see why the DPRK has been forced to dedicate so much of its already limited resources to defense, which has included the development of nuclear weapons.

In a statement released on October 3, six days prior to the nuclear test, the DPRK’s Foreign Ministry released a statement saying as much. “The U.S. daily increasing threat of a nuclear war and its vicious sanctions and pressure have caused a grave situation on the Korean Peninsula ... it has become more frantic in its military exercises and arms build-up on the peninsula and in its vicinity for the purpose of launching the second Korean war ... [the] extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure for defense,” it read in part.

The illegal invasions and subsequent occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly demonstrated what can happen to neocolonial countries that lack means of self-defense.

Imperialist countries like the U.S. and imperialist-oppressed countries like the DPRK are not on equal footing. A nuclear power on the offensive, and small isolated country on the defensive are very different. While it should be our ultimate goal to rid the world of nuclear weapons completely, it must be realized that that can only happen when the oppressed masses take power in the imperialist countries. In the meantime, calling on countries like the DPRK to disarm (which a number of “leftist” and “progressive” groups and individuals have done) is tantamount to supporting the imperialist war machine.

We don’t call on the DPRK to disarm for the same reason we wouldn’t tell a child not to fight back if she were being assaulted by a group of much larger bullies!

Socialist self-defense: the war of the people
In a socialist society, in which the working and farming masses rule, self-defense is based on world revolution and genuine democracy.

This is the case in socialist Cuba, which has always tied its defense in with the fight for world revolution. Every successful revolution and revolutionary upsurge that takes place around the world gives Cuba more room, and further advances humanity towards a time when there will be no need for defense from imperialist aggressors. This is why Cuba has dedicated so much of its resources to revolutionary forces in other countries, including Angola, where it sent thousands of soldiers in the 1970's to beat back an U.S.-supported invasion by the army of the racist white Apartheid regime in South Africa.

On top of this, Cuba has developed the strategy of “the war of the people.” If Cuba is ever invaded, the armed forces, militias of workers, farmers, youths and retirees, and the general population as a whole will carry out a long defensive war that will make it impossible for the enemy to occupy the country. The imperialist learned this the hard way after the stinging defeat of their mercenary army in the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and has not dared attempt to invade since.

This sort of defense is made possible by the energetic participation of the Cuban people in all aspects of life, which came about as a result of the country’s socialist revolution. The DPRK – like Iran – lacks such participation, and the mechanisms and mass organizations through which it would be carried out, and so is forced to depend more on a larger standing army and heavy weaponry to deter attack.

Imperialism is the biggest threat to world peace!
The United States currently has at least 10,000 nuclear weapons in its stockpile – enough to completely destroy the earth several times over – including those aboard several nuclear-armed warships stationed just off the Korean peninsula in the Pacific Ocean.

It is also the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons, as it did in Japan in 1945, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The United States government has also launched wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in the last five years, and continues to threaten north Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba.

Indeed, Bush’s so-called “Axis of Evil,” which included Iraq, Iran and north Korea has read like a hitlist for the U.S. imperialists.

On top of all this, the U.S. maintains a heavy military presence – which includes nuclear weapons – in south Korea.

It has constantly threatened and attacked North Korea, and meddled in the affairs of the Korean people.

It is clear then, that the biggest threat to world peace is the United States government – which seeks to establish its dominance around the world to secure more markets, cheap labor and resources for the owners of big business – not north Korea.

We have absolutely nothing to gain by supporting the attacks on the DPRK by the U.S. Government, which represents the rich, elite exploiters, and aims to reshape the entire world to better facilitate their drive for more and more profits. That is why workers (including “housewives,” the children of workers and the unemployed), farmers, and all other oppressed and exploited people must defend the DPRK and its right to self-defense.

At the same time, we need not lend any political support to Kim Jong-Il and the bureaucratic clique around him. Contrary to the claims of Pyongyang, the DPRK is not a socialist state -- in which the working class rules society in the interests of meeting human need -- but a bureaucratic socialist state, in which a privileged clique rules over a society in which capitalist property relations have been overturned. While we strive for the establishment of genuine socialism in DPRK, we do not do so in a way which can assist the imperialists and open the way to the restoration of capitalism and imperialist domination, which would represent a huge step back (as even the bureaucratic proletarian state that exists -- under which healthcare and education are freely available -- is immensely better than the state that proceeded it, not to mention that its very existence weakens world imperialism).

Regardless, we demand: Imperialist hands off north Korea! U.S. troops out of South Korea! No sanctions, no blockades, no attacks!

http://mfje.org/english/page.php?126

[comrade stalin guevara]

yes n,korea should have nukes 4 the above reasons

n,korea is not a communist state anymore i forget the name of the ideology they follow but it aint marxisim never the less they have the right to protect there citizens from aryan/saxon imperialisim

[Sendo]

I misread the poll title. Change my No vote to a Yes.

It's wrong for anybody to use nuclear weapons. Period.

Yes it's very hypocritical when the US criticizes other for it, I've ALWAYS believed that. But just because one rapist (Person A) might demonize Person B for being a rapist, does not make rape right.

Chomsky is absolutely right when he says we live in the most dangerous stage of human history so far. The impending climate change and the threat of nuclear war are death knells. I love Che, for example, but disagree with his actions over the missile crisis. I'm not gonna demonize him or say he was consciously endangering the whole world, but I won't condone it. No one ever has the right to test nuclear weapons. I would not initiate a conversation on NK's or Iran's nuclear policy. If I were to bring up nukes I would talk about the US and Israel. NK is a petty offender, but still an offender. And as much as I want to support anti-US movements...c'mon....DPRK???? really???

[Mala Tha Testa]

also, kim jung Il is a bastard.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Kim-il-sung_Kim-jong-suk_Kim-jong-il.jpg
no i'm pretty sure he knew who his dad was.;)

but all nuclear tests are "wrong" but since since it's not "wrong" for western nations to test them i don't see why it is for the DPRK

[Sendo]

but all nuclear tests are "wrong" but since since it's not "wrong" for western nations to test them i don't see why it is for the DPRK

b/c one more nuclear weapon ANYWHERE is a threat to all of humanity. Watch Dr. Strangelove; it's the greatest satire on "deterrence".

There is of course, an idealist in me who wants to let the DPRK or anyone anti-US be allotted the same indiscretions as the US in a given case. But I'm sorry, we have enough on this planet to make it a wasteland for centuries. Let's not build on that risk.

"Nothing Human" is also good to point out the aggressive nature of US policy in forcing their hand. The US is equally culpable in the decision as NK. They were wrong, but I do not put full blame on them. The US might be doing the same for Iran I fear. If Iran gets a nuke, Israel WILL strike and that scares me to death.

[ipollux]

They should concentrate on feeding their people.

[Mala Tha Testa]

b/c one more nuclear weapon ANYWHERE is a threat to all of humanity. Watch Dr. Strangelove; it's the greatest satire on "deterrence".

Dr. Strangelove is amazing, we watched it in my World History class.

[Comrade B]

No one should fuck with nuclear weapons, they fuck up the environment.

The United States testing nuclear weapons is just as evil as North Korea testing nuclear weapons.

[Comrade Vasilev]

They should concentrate on feeding their people.
Get your bourgeois crap out of this thread reactionary.

[Lost In Translation]

No one should fuck with nuclear weapons, they fuck up the environment.

Yes, we know, but at least North Korea can justify their testing of nuclear weapons because they need to protect themselves from US imperialism.

Speaking of which, now that the huge reactor in North Korea has been blown up, does that mean the end of their Nuke tests?

[mykittyhasaboner]

im not really sure. i mean nukes suck, i cant find anyway to justify their existence. because they would do more damage to innocent people of a country that was nuked, rather than damaging the state itself.

but then again, they do need to show the US their not fucking around, and wont stand for imperialism.

i dont know.

[lvl100]

One of the reasons that cubans are living better than koreans is that they realised that having an enemy like USA it cant be good.
Well they are enemies anyway, but its a difference between a just non grata system ( how is regarded Cuba) and a clearly potential dangerous system such as Korea.
The results are visible to the naked eye : while USA started to loose the restrictions around Cuba, they are more and more agresive on Korea.

Add that to the fact the even it has a few nukes, they are worthless anyway with the current tech of air defense shields, it seems that they just looking for trouble .

[chimx]

Yes, we know, but at least North Korea can justify their testing of nuclear weapons because they need to protect themselves from US imperialism.

North Korea is ten times as offensive than the United States. If you look at the history of DPRK and ROK/US relations, you will see that after the Rhee regime, the DPRK has significantly more violations than the ROK/US as they are still fixed on the idea of militarily uniting the peninsula, whereas the ROK has generally given up on this strategy all together -- in fact many South Koreans don't want to see a unification because the DPRK's economy is so messed up it would bring down the ROK as well.

[Comrade Vasilev]

North Korea is ten times as offensive than the United States. If you look at the history of DPRK and ROK/US relations, you will see that after the Rhee regime, the DPRK has significantly more violations than the ROK/US as they are still fixed on the idea of militarily uniting the peninsula, whereas the ROK has generally given up on this strategy all together -- in fact many South Koreans don't want to see a unification because the DPRK's economy is so messed up it would bring down the ROK as well.
Please take your bourgeois propaganda and go home.

[RedAnarchist]

Please take your bourgeois propaganda and go home.

You are acting like a troll. Stop it and post something more intelligent and substantial.

[Lost In Translation]

Please take your bourgeois propaganda and go home.
I'm sorry, but what isn't bourgeois propaganda to you?

[Comrade B]

His disagreement was bourgeois because Vasilev IS COMMUNISM!

[chimx]

I feel as if I've studied American-Korean relations pretty thoroughly. I have at least 2 or 3 dozen history books on the subject behind me. If you would like me to cite specific offenses I would be happy to. Both sides have been guilty of not respecting the boundaries of the other country, but in the last 30 years, the DPRK has committed significantly more violations.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

chimx is probably the last person you want to ask about anything to do with Korea. See these threads:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/liberty-north-korea-t63904/index.html?t=63904
http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korea-rebuffs-t63992/index.html?t=63992

Of course communists aren't as interested in "who invaded who" to start the Korean War, but rather what the war was about and what class forces were/are involved.

[Comrade Vasilev]

chimx is probably the last person you want to ask about anything to do with Korea. See these threads:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/liberty-north-korea-t63904/index.html?t=63904
http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korea-rebuffs-t63992/index.html?t=63992

Of course communists aren't as interested in "who invaded who" to start the Korean War, but rather what the war was about and what class forces were/are involved.
Also, the DPRK has never regarded the division and separation of the unification of the Korean people as legitimate and justified, something I strongly agree with. Imperialism has done everything it can to divide the unity of the Korean peoples, and the DPRK still rightly holds that Korea is one people.

Imperialism has of course tried every provocation, threat, economic attack and the like to attack the DPRK and to smear it's name.

In regard to the class nature of the conflict, I would say that it was pretty straight foward, the comprador capitalists who had been Japanese collaborators, and owners of the factories and land, almost unanimously went over to the side of the new imperialists America in the South. The 'conscientious' national bourgeois enthusiastically supported the DPRK, as did the majority of the peasantry (those not kept by force behind the border in the South) and the small (at that time) working class.

In fact while in the DPRK Koreans ran their own state and political affairs, and were independent, in the South the police and most of the government was run by the Japanese and comprador class who owed education/loyalty to the Japanese imperialists. In fact a protest in South Korea against the continued US occupation was put down (with bloodshed) by Japanese military-police.

[chimx]

Also, the DPRK has never regarded the division and separation of the unification of the Korean people as legitimate and justified, something I strongly agree with

Neither I, nor do most South Koreans feel that the division of the Korean peninsula was legitimate or justified. It was an unfortunate power grab between two-super powers after world war II.


the DPRK still rightly holds that Korea is one people.

South Koreans feel the same way. Many just feel that there would be significant economic problems if unification were to happen tomorrow.


In regard to the class nature of the conflict, I would say that it was pretty straight foward, the comprador capitalists who had been Japanese collaborators, and owners of the factories and land, almost unanimously went over to the side of the new imperialists America in the South. The 'conscientious' national bourgeois enthusiastically supported the DPRK, as did the majority of the peasantry (those not kept by force behind the border in the South) and the small (at that time) working class.

This is true for the early years of the DPRK/ROK


In fact while in the DPRK Koreans ran their own state and political affairs, and were independent

The KPR, which you are probably referring to, existed as a precursor to the DPRK and was an incredibly progressive government, but it is a far cry from what the DPRK has devolved into.


in the South the police and most of the government was run by the Japanese and comprador class who owed education/loyalty to the Japanese imperialists. In fact a protest in South Korea against the continued US occupation was put down (with bloodshed) by Japanese military-police.

This is especially true under the Rhee regime. Genderal Hodge of the American Military Command of Korea used Japan's imperialist police force during the early days of American occupation, but he was eventually yelled at by Washington for doing so and this practice stopped, or at least reduced. The major problem was language barriers honestly. The United States didn't know squat about Korea and had a hard time finding Korea-English translators. They were forced to rely on Japanese collaborators that spoke English which was obviously problematic since they would spread misinformation and give advice that was in the interests of Japanese and Korean capitalists.

Eventually Hodge distanced himself from this group as English translators became more readily available since it was very alienating to Koreans who were so opposed to Japanese imperialism. Syngman Rhee, for example, for being as reactionary as he was, was one of the most committed Koreans to anti-Japanese imperialism.

It was of course Rhee that was responsible for a lot of this bloodshed you talked about, while the US stood by complacently. He suppressed trade unions, anybody he thought was quasi-socialist/communist, which lead to many massacres that left tens of thousands dead, such as the Cheju-do massacre.


Of course communists aren't as interested in "who invaded who" to start the Korean War, but rather what the war was about and what class forces were/are involved.

I've said numerous times on this forum that it is irrelevant who started the war. The Rhee regime was just as anxious to militarily unify the peninsula as Kim's government. The only time I argue about who started the war is when people mistakenly argue that Rhee invaded the North, rather than what actually happened.

[Abluegreen7]

I dont think NK was sporting the nukes off to the US as much as they were sporting them off to SK.

[Agrippa]

It's both laughable and shameful (and sadly, all but unexpected) to hear people on this forum justify the construction of devices of indiscriminate, industrial-scale slaughter, especially devices that irradiate the landscape for generations and produce carcinogenic waste that will remain on this planet for billions of years, as well as the North Korean government's genocidal treatment of it's "citizens", under the pretense of combating "U.S. imperialism"

All capitalist states are imperialist. And a capitalist state is a capitalist state, no matter how many busts of Marx and Engels it erects, no matter how many red flags it drapes it's military demonstrations in, no matter how much its' figureheads discuss "the workers". Just because North Korea is much smaller than the u.s. and it's geo-political muscle much weaker doesn't make it any less imperialist, especially in regards to the Koreans who suffer under as much starvation, imprisonment, wage-slavery, and ecological devastation as they would under u.s. rule or proxy-rule of the region.

[JohnnyC]

I think it was very wrong.All nuclear weapons should be destroyed as soon as possible, they are threat to humanity.And beside, there are at least million better ways to spend that money...

[chimx]

Just because North Korea is much smaller than the u.s. and it's geo-political muscle much weaker doesn't make it any less imperialist, especially in regards to the Koreans who suffer under as much starvation, imprisonment, wage-slavery, and ecological devastation as they would under u.s. rule or proxy-rule of the region.

Define imperialism. The way you are using it is very different from how Marxists use the term.

[oblisk]

The DPRK had all the rights to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

The DPRK pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was a totally legitimate act, as they were able to exclude themselves as a legal option. Oh course, the media fails to mention this.

Also, there are nuclear weapons in the South, and aggressive anti-DPRK activities are held often.

And also, if anyone bothered to read up on the Framework Agreement, it was the US, that failed to hold up their end of the bargain. In return, the DPRK broke off its initial promise of freezing their nuclear production. One could say that the US is to blame for DPRK's nuclear arsenal.

[Agrippa]

Define imperialism. The way you are using it is very different from how Marxists use the term.

I don't really consider myself a "Marxist", per se, but "Marxism" means different things to different people.

For example, Rosa Luxemburg who was very much a Marxist wrote "imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states, but is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognizable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The DPRK has every right to develop, construct and deploy nuclear weapons, no matter what imperialist international law says, and I'm disgusted (but not surprised) that chimx somehow thinks they're relevant beyond the imperialist's ability to enforce them.

To deny a nation the ability to defend itself from imperialist aggression, or the potential of such, is to implicitly support imperialism.

Nuclear weapons are a potent force magnifier. Strategic nuclear weaponry allows one to target hardened targets within enemy territory, wiping out army bases, airfields, naval docks and bunkers in a single strike. Tactical nuclear weaponry can increase the firepower of a battalion, bomber squadron or naval task force by at least one order of magnitude so that they are capable of wiping out entire army divisions, air wings or naval fleets. With an appropriate warhead yield and delivery system, tactical scale units are capable of delivering strategic scale firepower.

I believe that this force magnification via nuclear weaponry will be an essential weapon in the armoury of a post-revolutionary society. With the increased miniaturisation of computers since the Cold War, designing adequate targeting systems will be a relatively small challenge, and even if we produced nuclear warheads for everything from ballistic missiles all the way down to recoilless rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29) assigned to every battalion, supplies of uranium and other fissionables for civilian purposes would not be significantly affected - and even less so if most of our energy comes from renewables. Also, we can avoid impoverishing ourselves by making the most of dual-use technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use) such as civilian vehicles that can be rapidly retro-fitted for military purposes, civilian space programs, GPS networks etc.

Just as it perverse to deny the victims of imperialism the means to defend themselves, so it would be foolish of ourselves in the extreme to deliberately muzzle our potential. Very few nations have the ability to do this on their own, and since world revolution is out of the question (think about it) it seems likely that such a program would be easily within the reach of a revolutionary Eurasia, Latin America and what have you. Without the bloat of the bourgeouis military structure, we can have both sharp teeth and full bellies.

[Pogue]

Imperialism is basically being used as a meaningless word here. Why are some people here so idiotic as to defend a bourgeoisie state on the basis that its being 'oppressed' by imperialism. We hold too much stock with imperialism, exploitation is epxloitation and its the same for me no matter where it is and whose doing it. North Korea is as oppressive as the US anyway, so stop begging it trying to defend a regime just because its not the US and claims to be socialist.

[Pogue]

They have no right to spend money on nukes when conditions in that nation are shit. And no one has the right to create something which risks the lives of millions of people. Nuclear self-defence? Having loads of nukes faced across the globe is 'defence'? Bollocks, fuck North Korea.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Imperialism is basically being used as a meaningless word here. Why are some people here so idiotic as to defend a bourgeoisie state on the basis that its being 'oppressed' by imperialism. We hold too much stock with imperialism, exploitation is epxloitation and its the same for me no matter where it is and whose doing it. North Korea is as oppressive as the US anyway, so stop begging it trying to defend a regime just because its not the US and claims to be socialist.

Iraq was hardly a worker's paradise, yet I opposed it's invasion by the world's premier imperialist power all the same. Even if Iraq DID have WMDs, it would still have been imperialism to invade.


They have no right to spend money on nukes when conditions in that nation are shit. And no one has the right to create something which risks the lives of millions of people. Nuclear self-defence? Having loads of nukes faced across the globe is 'defence'? Bollocks, fuck North Korea.

The US is guilty of all these things, but is the primary imperialist power in the world. That is a very important difference.

[Pogue]

But like I said, Imperialism is of minimal concern. I oppose Iraq because of the death toll and the fact its fucked things up. I didn't really have much of an informed position on that war before it started because I was young and politically uneducated, but I now base my opposition, as I said, on the fact its caused instability, death, suffering and also mass profit for oil companies. Not on some theory of 'Imperialism'.

Say the US invaded Iraq, ousted Saddam and then gave full power immedaitely to the Iraqis who then liberalised the country, giving much more equality and equal rights for all citizens, and it genuinely became a stable and more prosperous country, and the US then left Iraq, all in the space of a few years, would it still have been an unjustifiable act of Imperialism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But like I said, Imperialism is of minimal concern. I oppose Iraq because of the death toll and the fact its fucked things up.

So your reasons for opposing it were basically the same as the bourgeouis liberals'? Fair enough, but remember that not everyone has the same analysis.


I didn't really have much of an informed position on that war before it started because I was young and politically uneducated, but I now base my opposition, as I said, on the fact its caused instability, death, suffering and also mass profit for oil companies. Not on some theory of 'Imperialism'.

How nice. But haven't you considered any overarching reasons why the US would go to such lengths to fuck up a country so badly?


Say the US invaded Iraq, ousted Saddam and then gave full power immedaitely to the Iraqis who then liberalised the country, giving much more equality and equal rights for all citizens, and it genuinely became a stable and more prosperous country, and the US then left Iraq, all in the space of a few years, would it still have been an unjustifiable act of Imperialism?

No, it would be a complete fantasy, which is what it is. That sort of thing only happens in comic books.

[Pogue]

Ok fair enough then. I guess I was kinda shortsighted. I'm just a bit confused about what imperialism is. I should rephrase - the most harsh condemnation I have for the Iraq war are the casualties. And in hindsight if I analysis it I don't like the fact the US was being imperialistic and invading a country for profit and all that. But my condemnation of imperialism fits into my general condemnation of authority and power and capitalism I guess. But yeh you're right NoXion.

[Pogue]

I still however condemn North Korea as much as I do the US.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I still however condemn North Korea as much as I do the US.

I don't see why. To my knowledge, the DPRK doesn't have a well-documented and massive history of interfering in other countries against the will of both their governments and people.

[Agrippa]

To deny a nation the ability

North Korea is not a "nation", it's a state. A nation is "an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages". The inhabitants of the territory that the DPRK and the Republic of Korea claim as their own are part of one nation, segregated from each other and denied their basic right to freedom of movement by both regimes and their inter-imperialist rivalry



I believe that this force magnification via nuclear weaponry will be an essential weapon in the armoury of a post-revolutionary society. With the increased miniaturisation of computers since the Cold War, designing adequate targeting systems will be a relatively small challenge, and even if we produced nuclear warheads for everything from ballistic missiles all the way down to recoilless riflesassigned to every battalion, supplies of uranium and other fissionables for civilian purposes would not be significantly affected - and even less so if most of our energy comes from renewables. Also, we can avoid impoverishing ourselves by making the most of dual-use technologies such as civilian vehicles that can be rapidly retro-fitted for military purposes, civilian space programs, GPS networks etc.

A "post-revolutionary" society that produces nuclear weaponry (or any other weapons of industrial-scale slaughter) is, in my mind, no more desirable than our current capitalist society. The ability to instantaniously massacre millions and irreperably contaminate the planet Earth is no less a threat to our existence in the hands of members of a "post-revolutionary" society than our current one.

I doubt very many residents of North Korea have any love for the u.s. state which massacred millions of their brothers and sisters less than 60 years ago. At the same time I doubt very many residents of North Korea have any love of the current regime, which has shown the exact same degree of willingness to torture and imprison thousands in the name of maintaining class rule as any other capitalist regime.

Note that your very own forum signature (quite eloquantly) reads "our judge is not God or governments, but nature". It is an affront to nature to maintain the current system of commodity-production that exploits the resources of humanity and the planet and gives birth to horrors that you advocate building

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

North Korea is not a "nation", it's a state. A nation is "an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages". The inhabitants of the territory that the DPRK and the Republic of Korea claim as their own are part of one nation, segregated from each other and denied their basic right to freedom of movement by both regimes and their inter-imperialist rivalry

Nation, country, whatever. The fact of the matter is that the DPRK is a nominally autonomous entity under threat from world imperialism. The argument could be made that SK is also a victim of imperialism, and by extension the entire Korean peninsula.


A "post-revolutionary" society that produces nuclear weaponry (or any other weapons of industrial-scale slaughter) is, in my mind, no more desirable than our current capitalist society.So weapons of personal-scale slaughter (such emotive language by the way, serves nothing to bolster your argument) are just dandy with you then?

The only thing that concerns me with regards to weapons is who they're pointed at and who controls them. There's no reason that a ballistic missile system or other strategic nuclear system could not also have a cellular structure along with the rest, where each unit is autonomous in terms of command but co-ordinates as part of a larger organ. In fact, having no centre of power would only benefit such a setup as it would not be vulnerable to "decapitation strikes" intended to disrupt C&C.


The ability to instantaniously massacre millions and irreperably contaminate the planet Earth is no less a threat to our existence in the hands of members of a "post-revolutionary" society than our current one.A) Most militaries do not number in the millions and besides, it's expected of them to die defending their imperialist masters. What real difference does it make if they die from a bullet wound or from being incinerated by a nuclear device?

B) Nuclear detonations do not "irreperably" contaminate the Earth, the couple of thousand nuclear tests that have been performed are a testament to that fact. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? As dreadful atrocities they were, people still live there today.


I doubt very many residents of North Korea have any love for the u.s. state which massacred millions of their brothers and sisters less than 60 years ago. At the same time I doubt very many residents of North Korea have any love of the current regime, which has shown the exact same degree of willingness to torture and imprison thousands in the name of maintaining class rule as any other capitalist regime.No doubt. But I am unwilling to condemn the DPRK on the same level as the US.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

No, they were not wrong.
If the US, the UK and France have to right to have nuclear weapons, so has the DPRK.

[BobKKKindle$]

Imperialism is of minimal concern.Only someone living in an oppressor nation who has no direct experience of living under imperialist occupation would be able to make this comment. Imperialism is the major concern for millions of people around the world today and the struggle against imperialism is inextricably bound up with the struggle against capitalism. Prior to the invasion and the imposition of economic sanctions Iraq was one of the most progressive states in the Middle East in terms of the provision of healthcare and the social status of women, but because of the invasion more than half of Iraq's citizens now lack access to something as basic as clean water and the country is in a state of utter chaos, and there is no indication that things are about to get much better in the near future, as long as the occupation remains, and continues to terrorize and intimidate the Iraqi people. Iraq is but one example of the damage that imperialism has caused, and the impact of imperialism can be witnessed in every country, even in countries which have never fallen under occupation, as imperialism exists both in the form of direct military intervention, and the unequal trading relationships which relegate oppressed nations to a state of permanent dependency and underdevelopment.


Not on some theory of 'Imperialism'. Without a coherent understanding of what imperialism is, how it came into existence, and how it operates, it is impossible to understand what is needed to abolish war and dependency. If events such as the invasion of Iraq are seen as resulting from the actions of an individual leader or the influence of a small number of companies on the government, it is easy to fall under the illusion that these events can be stopped through limited campaigning within the framework of capitalism, and calling for the election of a "peaceful" capitalist government. This is the view held by many liberals in countries such as the United States, as seen from the jubilation surrounding the recent election of Obama, who has emphasized throughout his campaign that he opposed the decision to invade Iraq and so has been able to pose as an anti-war candidate, despite the fact that he has threatened to invade Pakistan and aims to strengthen the occupation of Afghanistan. Marxists however, are armed with a detailed theoretical understanding of imperialism as developed by Lenin and so are able to recognize that imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism, and the only way to eliminate imperialism is to overthrow capitalism and thereby end the economic dynamics which give rise to imperialism. You fall into the liberal-opportunist category.


Say the US invaded Iraq, ousted Saddam and then gave full power immedaitely to the IraqisThe fact that you even make these kinds of comments shows how woefully ignorant you are. Imperialist powers always use pretexts such as the need to spread democracy or combat the danger of communism to justify their military adventures and obscure the fact that these adventures are invariably based on the interests of monopoly finance capital and the threat posed by crises of overproduction. Imperialism is never based on a genuine desire to relieve the suffering of the global south.


I still however condemn North Korea as much as I do the US. Further evidence of your absolute lack of understanding. Claiming that all countries are the same and should be treated equally by external observers in terms of how we judge their actions is a bourgeois idea which fails to acknowledge the reality of geopolitics. North Korea is an oppressed nation facing the threat of imperialist invasion and they have chosen to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves and deter military invasion. The United States is an oppressor nation which has refused to reduce its stock of nuclear weapons despite its obligation to do so under the terms of the NPT, is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons during a military conflict, and continues to use its nuclear arsenal as a tool for intimidation and oppression. The defeat of North Korea in an imperialist conflict would be a grave defeat for the international working class as it would intensify the suffering of the Korean people and allow the imperialist powers to enhance their interests in the surrounding region and ultimately conduct more attacks. If North Korea is invaded, communists should hope for the utter defeat of all invading forces.

[Revy]

No it wasn't wrong. Strategically it probably was the best thing to do.
And money won't be spent on the people regardless if they're building missiles or not. The Kim monarchy cares more about power than anything else. King Kim II rules over to be replaced by one of his sons. For the DPRK's state capitalist bureaucracy, the people are to be ruled, and to quiet and silent and obedient.

[Robespierre2.0]

The DPRK was right to test nuclear weapons. Deterrents are useful.
Obviously the Korean people decided that it was worth the (rather large) cost in time and resources.

If you don't support the DPRK, at the very least, in an anti-imperialist sense, you are counterrevolutionary.

[lvl100]

Nukes , no nukes ,it doesnt matter anyway, the USA already won there




Obviously the Korean people decided that it was worth the (rather large) cost in time and resources.
.

When was that, when KJI was elected with 120% of votes or something like that ? :rolleyes:

[trigger]

I recon it was wrong. No one should have wepons of such massive destrction. One day some one will have one big enough to wipe out the planet and will possibly use it. Having these wepons creates a dangeres world to live in.

[Sankofa]

I recon it was wrong. No one should have wepons of such massive destrction. One day some one will have one big enough to wipe out the planet and will possibly use it. Having these wepons creates a dangeres world to live in.

The point is, nations already have nuclear weapons and have had them for some time now. North Korea has the right to construct nuclear weapons if they want...who the fuck is the United States to say what's right and what's wrong?

Especially, since in the history of the world, the United States is the only country to have used nukes i.e. "weapons of mass destruction" twice on another nation.

[eatmoreveggies]

In the sense that nuclear weapons are the tools of war hungry, oppressive nations...yes, they were wrong to test them. As is the United States, China, etc. for doing the same abysmal thing.

[Robespierre2.0]

Nukes , no nukes ,it doesnt matter anyway, the USA already won there

When was that, when KJI was elected with 120% of votes or something like that ? :rolleyes:

If the Dear Leader had no popular support, he wouldn't be in charge.

Nukes do matter. Even though the U.S. has a lot more, can't you see how spooked they get when a hostile regime posesses them? It's like they actually have to deal with them on equal terms!

[Sendo]

methinks survival of humanity is a bit more important than trump cards in this Cold War relic (the relic being the nuclear deterrent). If our best hope for anti-imperialism is to hope more states get nukes we are doomed.

[Saorsa]

It's all very well to moralistically condemn nuclear weapons (although I fail to see how a nuke is so special - how is it different from thousands of rifles or a huge amount of ordinary explosives?), and to make the idealistic argument that nukes should be gotten rid of entirely overnight and no new ones should be made. However, we live in the real world, and that has to influence what we do and why we do it. The US has thousands of nukes and has shown that it is willing to use them, and any nation that doesn't have nuclear missiles must live under the constant threat of the US nuclear arsenal.

It is a victory for the DPRK to test nuclear weapons, as it was when China did it decades ago and the USSR before it. The DPRK may not be a shining example of socialism, but it is a nation that refuses to bow down to US imperialism, and personally I'm very pleased when I see it making advances in the production of nuclear weapons.

[BIG BROTHER]

To be honest I really hate nuclear weapons, and for all I care nobody should have them.

Now North Korea is a horribly deformed workers state, but as such I support its right to defend itself against imperialism. And of course at the same time support for a political revolution to get rid of the parasite, privileged bureaucratic caste that rules north Korea.

[KurtFF8]

I wouldn't say it was "wrong" per se, but I hardly see how more nuclear proliferation can be a good thing in general.

[lvl100]

If the Dear Leader had no popular support, he wouldn't be in charge.

Popular suport its one thing. 100% in elections its another thing.


Nukes do matter. Even though the U.S. has a lot more, can't you see how spooked they get when a hostile regime posesses them? It's like they actually have to deal with them on equal terms! Yeah one small detail tho. You can not deal on equal terms with a superpower.
Castro understood this. Thats why the embargo becomes more and more weak or dissapeared already , the military expenses are low and Cubans live better.
For a pocket size country "anti-imperialism" is ( or should be) an ideological struggle (prove to the whole world your model is a success and export your success) not a race to physically outgun your "big as a continent economic powerhouse" enemy.

And opposed to that little island near the American shores, DPRK always was under China`s umbrella. USA would never dare to start blowing the shit up on Chinese borders .

So those are cheering how the mighty USA its scared by the DPRK`s nukes are cheering for nothing.
A isolated country who barely is able to feed its citizens because all the resources are diverted in military. A regime that is maintained by cult of personality and mad nationalism (i`v read some shit from their own sources that would give Hitler a hard on in his grave).
Sorry bu those nukes are not to protect the korean workers , those nukes are to protect KJI and his regime