Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
NoKo announces pending nuke test
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Meanwhile in Cloud Cuckooland:
North Korea said Tuesday it will conduct a nuclear test in the face of what it claimed was "the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war," ratcheting up tensions amid international pressure to return to negotiations on its atomic program.

The United States warned a North Korean nuclear test "would pose an unacceptable threat to peace and stability."
South Korea raised its security level, and Japan promised a severe response if the threat was carried out.

The statement from Pyongyang gave no precise date for a test, but the prospect that North Korea could soon take a major step forward in its nuclear weapons development triggered alarm and condemnation in foreign capitals, including Russia and the European Union. North Korea has a recent history of making provocative statements while refraining from an all-out confrontation with its chief enemy, the United States.
And China?
China, North Korea's neighbor, ally and chief benefactor, had no immediate comment.
Of course, per NoKo, this is nothing for others to become bothered about because:
The North said Tuesday its ultimate goal is "to settle hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and to remove the very source of all nuclear threats from the Korean Peninsula and its vicinity," accusing the U.S. of posing a nuclear threat in the region.

The North, however, said it will "never use nuclear weapons first and strictly prohibit any threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear transfer."
Somehow I'm not quite able to draw from this the warm fuzzy feeling I think it should warrant given who is doing the assuring.

One other note: I'm really interested, given Japan's new PM (the first one born after WWII), to see how Japan reacts to any such test.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
One other note: I’m really interested, given Japan’s new PM (the first one born after WWII), to see how Japan reacts to any such test.
They may be making this threat solely to feel out Japan’s new PM.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
A GENUINE QUESITON:

What is the libertarian’s reasoning re China?

Since trade wtih China and the embrace of China markets by US businesses, all OFFICIAL criticism of China has come to screeching halt. No mention of human rights issues. No reprimand for failng to back the US on Iran and N>K. No nothing. We talk to China very gently.

Is the message that if you do business with us, we’ll shut up?

I’ll say it first: I don’t get it, and I would genuinely like to know what the thinking is.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Since trade wtih China and the embrace of China markets by US businesses, all OFFICIAL criticism of China has come to screeching halt. No mention of human rights issues. No reprimand for failng to back the US on Iran and N>K. No nothing. We talk to China very gently.

Is the message that if you do business with us, we’ll shut up?
So we’re supposed to stand on principle with regard to China, but we should roll over and show our underbelly to France and Friends, despite the actual circumstances of the situation, so that they’ll think better of us?

Remember the National Security and the Democrats thread yesterday where you said:
I don’t admire the French, either, but they’re there. You can’t just wish them off the face of the earth. The question is not about their worthiness but about not cutting off our nose to spite our face.

France, along with the rest of Europe, blames the US for the increasing threat from extremist Muslims. They may be totally wrong on this, but you can’t just order them to think otherwise. You’ve got to deal with the perception. Stamping your foot and walking out of the room will not win any argument.

What is it you’d like us to do with China, Laime? It almost sounds like you want to start something ugly with them.

Oh, and that criticism that has come to a screeching halt? Someone forgot to tell Bush to cheese it.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
What is the libertarian’s reasoning re China?
In what way?

In reference to this post, I’d like to see what their reaction is to the impending test. Best case I’d like to see them pressure NoKo to call it off.
Since trade wtih China and the embrace of China markets by US businesses, all OFFICIAL criticism of China has come to screeching halt.
By whom?

Libertarians?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
DON’T BE SO TOUCHY

I wasn’t prpposing anything, and I wans’t criitcising anything.

I WAS ASKING A QUESTION.

Since the WH, State Dep’t, etc. language re China changed after the acceleration of trade, I was curious how you saw that, since your philosopny concerns markets so much.

If you’re saying there is no connection. Fine.
If you think everything is hunky-dory, Fine.
If you want to ignore the question. Fine.
IT WAS JUST A QUESTION. iT WON’T EAT YOU.

 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Since the WH, State Dep’t, etc. language re China changed after the acceleration of trade, I was curious how you saw that, since your philosopny concerns markets so much.
Doctrinaire libertarians would say it’s none of our business what’s going on in China in reference to human rights.

Part of the "sovereign nations" principle which I discuss here.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
DON’T BE SO TOUCHY

I wasn’t prpposing anything, and I wans’t criitcising anything.

I WAS ASKING A QUESTION.
You mean like this one?
What is it you’d like us to do with China, Laime?
It won’t bite.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I want to take this moment to thank Jimmy Carter and the Clinton Administration for the nukes.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Part of the "sovereign nations" principle which I discuss here.
Interesting article.

Interesting counterpoint: how come you and the neolibertarian movement are so willing to embrace common-good arguments in the name of moralistic (i assume) intervention in international affairs - (or are they pragmatic arguments about the nature of modern reality?)

but so ideologically and axiomatically uninterested in considering the same common-good moral, as well as pragmatic-empirical arguments, against the elimination of regulatory, redistributive and macroenomic-management, government functions internally?

I mean, you’ve thrown the rights of nations under the bus (that’s not my personal judgement, just an assessment) for those reasons. Aren’t both the domestic and foreign spheres subject to empirical cost-benefit over revolutionary idealism?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Interesting counterpoint: how come you and the neolibertarian movement are so willing to embrace common-good arguments in the name of moralistic (i assume) intervention in international affairs - (or are they pragmatic arguments about the nature of modern reality?)
It isn’t moralistic intervention, it is intervention when vital US interests are at stake. If we happen to topple a totalitarian state as well, then that’s a bonus and most likely works in the long-term interest of the US anyway.
but so ideologically and axiomatically uninterested in considering the same common-good moral, as well as pragmatic-empirical arguments, against the elimination of regulatory, redistributive and macroenomic-management, government functions internally?
Well see, you began this thinking outloud based on a flawed premise so you can understand, now, how to answer your own question, no?


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Interesting counterpoint: how come you and the neolibertarian movement are so willing to embrace common-good arguments in the name of moralistic (i assume) intervention in international affairs - (or are they pragmatic arguments about the nature of modern reality?)

but so ideologically and axiomatically uninterested in considering the same common-good moral, as well as pragmatic-empirical arguments, against the elimination of regulatory, redistributive and macroenomic-management, government functions internally?
Actually, we have considered those arguments. Most lack merit. An example is wage controls. Economic theory goes against wage controls, and the emperical evidence wage control proponents push is junk science: modest minimum wage deltas and very noisy data.
I mean, you’ve thrown the rights of nations under the bus
I don’t believe in states’ rights. By that I mean, people have rights, states wield power.
Aren’t both the domestic and foreign spheres subject to empirical cost-benefit over revolutionary idealism?
Does emperical cost-benifit analysis favor your side anywhere? The only way that I see it does is that we wouldn’t want to, say, dump Social Security overnight.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Capitalism will convert the Chinese to democracy and human rights faster than criticism will.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://

"What is the libertarian’s reasoning re China?"

*THE* libertarian reasoning? Is there an official position?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Pablo
In answer to your question,

I entered this latest cat fight because two overseas friends from two different countries asked me about this, and I didn’t have the answer.

Talking to people of various persuasions here has, once again, shoeed me that hese days every topic is a hot topic.

A UN expert on the Middle East said that there people act on percetions rather than actualities.
That’s certainly true here in the US and on this website.

Personally, I draw an important distiction between being firm and being strident in diplomacy. I applaud the former and cringe at the latter, whether it relates to France or China or even Iran.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
A UN expert on the Middle East said that there people act on percetions rather than actualities.
Everyone operates on perceptions, because that’s all we have.

Even what you see is only a perception. The rods and cones of your eyes integrate the impacting photons, and your brain interprets the results.

Aside from that, relying on UN ’experts’ gives the perception that you are a tool.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider