Pro/Forums - View Single Post

TerraMex · 03-21-2003, 08:24 PM

First you need to classify each country when it comes to WMD. Each have different agendas, needs, fears and economical and political situations. A general rule can be applied but each has a different reality.

Take North Korea for example. It's know that they have missile and nuclear programs, but not know to what extent the nuclear program goes. It could be next to nothing for what we know, but i dont think it is. They are not willing to have UN or other agencies look at their facilities and access the programs. However, you cant just bomb your way through.

It's a military country, driven by an out of date policy from the Cold War, and fearfull from its neighbours. The nukes (as an example) serve as a dissuasion to others, but it also makes a paranoid government feel safe, and less prone to conflicts, due to the nature of their arsenal.
Its your standard "dont mess with me, and i wont mess with you". Of course, this , however, makes other countrys jumpy, as has been noted in several UN discussions, including of the security council. For them, it is simply a reflection of the regime's inherent aggressiveness and ongoing efforts to prosecute the Cold War on the Korean peninsula.

Now you know what the problem is. How to solve it? Its not easy. You need several key factors.

One has to be through diplomatic relations between countrys, specially between North and South Korea. Having a good relationship stabilizes that particular peninsula and drops the agressiveness. Two, aid, changing the financial and economical status of the country can effectively change their policy on WMD. Three, make an example out of yourselfs. Good examples were made by the US and Russia by destroying a good deal of WMD. Four , maintain a good deal of information through the country. If people have access to information, a slow , but steady change of mentality usually occurs, and for the best. Currently they are very closed countrys.

Use inspectors. The inspectors who are there today have a far better chance of finding nuclear materials as well as other infrastructure related to weapons of mass destruction than an occupying army. The United Nations-led inspections of Iraq between 1991 and 1998 led to the historic accomplishment of completely dismantling Iraq's illegal nuclear weapons infrastructure . Its a good example, that it can work. If the inspectors needed armed protection, as well they might, they should get it should be provided by a police force with United Nations authorization. Small task force, not composed directly by members of the security council.

These need to backed by the countrys who make up the UN , and maintain enough pressure to be effective.

Quote :

"If possession of power is not to become a proof of virtue, then nuclear weapons states need to attend to their own obligations and allow permanent independent inspections of their nuclear installations as well. "

Most of the components of WMD can be tracked and can be discovered by a good use of intelligence. And then dismantled. Most countrys that have them rely on misinformation to hide them.

Continuous development of usefull and efficient countermeasures against those types of attack. If you cant use them, then they have no pratical use.

The worse case scenario is not if they have WMD, is when they use them, or minimum of miniums directly threaten a country with them , this does not include the dissuasion type events much seen during the cold War. Then you're in full justification of using armed force. A country with WMD, willing to use them, that has used them against other countrys, or with an agressive policy against other countrys based on those WMD, threatning them to use them instead their demands are met, yes, IS dangerous.

No corrolation have been made with countrys, because currently it has not reach that type of events. Fortunately. It may or may not be in the near future, but that usually depends on diplomatical and political affairs and not as much as military might.

Unregistered: Fair enough?

03-21-2003, 08:24 PM	#27
TerraMex Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal, Europe Posts: 870	First you need to classify each country when it comes to WMD. Each have different agendas, needs, fears and economical and political situations. A general rule can be applied but each has a different reality. Take North Korea for example. It's know that they have missile and nuclear programs, but not know to what extent the nuclear program goes. It could be next to nothing for what we know, but i dont think it is. They are not willing to have UN or other agencies look at their facilities and access the programs. However, you cant just bomb your way through. It's a military country, driven by an out of date policy from the Cold War, and fearfull from its neighbours. The nukes (as an example) serve as a dissuasion to others, but it also makes a paranoid government feel safe, and less prone to conflicts, due to the nature of their arsenal. Its your standard "dont mess with me, and i wont mess with you". Of course, this , however, makes other countrys jumpy, as has been noted in several UN discussions, including of the security council. For them, it is simply a reflection of the regime's inherent aggressiveness and ongoing efforts to prosecute the Cold War on the Korean peninsula. Now you know what the problem is. How to solve it? Its not easy. You need several key factors. One has to be through diplomatic relations between countrys, specially between North and South Korea. Having a good relationship stabilizes that particular peninsula and drops the agressiveness. Two, aid, changing the financial and economical status of the country can effectively change their policy on WMD. Three, make an example out of yourselfs. Good examples were made by the US and Russia by destroying a good deal of WMD. Four , maintain a good deal of information through the country. If people have access to information, a slow , but steady change of mentality usually occurs, and for the best. Currently they are very closed countrys. Use inspectors. The inspectors who are there today have a far better chance of finding nuclear materials as well as other infrastructure related to weapons of mass destruction than an occupying army. The United Nations-led inspections of Iraq between 1991 and 1998 led to the historic accomplishment of completely dismantling Iraq's illegal nuclear weapons infrastructure . Its a good example, that it can work. If the inspectors needed armed protection, as well they might, they should get it should be provided by a police force with United Nations authorization. Small task force, not composed directly by members of the security council. These need to backed by the countrys who make up the UN , and maintain enough pressure to be effective. Quote : "If possession of power is not to become a proof of virtue, then nuclear weapons states need to attend to their own obligations and allow permanent independent inspections of their nuclear installations as well. " Most of the components of WMD can be tracked and can be discovered by a good use of intelligence. And then dismantled. Most countrys that have them rely on misinformation to hide them. Continuous development of usefull and efficient countermeasures against those types of attack. If you cant use them, then they have no pratical use. The worse case scenario is not if they have WMD, is when they use them, or minimum of miniums directly threaten a country with them , this does not include the dissuasion type events much seen during the cold War. Then you're in full justification of using armed force. A country with WMD, willing to use them, that has used them against other countrys, or with an agressive policy against other countrys based on those WMD, threatning them to use them instead their demands are met, yes, IS dangerous. No corrolation have been made with countrys, because currently it has not reach that type of events. Fortunately. It may or may not be in the near future, but that usually depends on diplomatical and political affairs and not as much as military might. Unregistered: Fair enough? __________________ "we need more cowbell."