so n. korea dismantled their nuclear powerplant last year, the "free" world heralded it as a great step forward. question is, at what cost and is it even really forward? we just saw a moving speech here in america by our president where he called for a vast expansion of renewable energies so that we can move away from the fossil-based fuels that contribute the co2 we all know and love. so then why undermine those efforts by giving n. korea heavy fuel oil (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080123/97581982.html) to burn instead and encouraging them to use their natural resources? instead of continually penalizing them and treating them like kids, more direct engagement and possibly aiding them should be looked into. (now i understand that was policy of last administration, remember "axis of evil". so verdict is still out, obama administration might do things a little differently.) i don't see the n. koreans being able to build icbms en masse anytime soon and we here in america have not only our own extensive arsenal (nuclear-powered subs packed with missiles each carrying multiple nuclear warheads included), but we have defense systems as well to shoot down incoming missiles. so is america scared? if we're not, then hopefully the new administration will take a more direct approach with n. korea and engage them more than before, and the emphasis needn't be on getting them to stop nuclear power in exchange for hfo. if we must have them stop nuclear, then give them greener incentives such as better tech or assistance on their hydroelectric plants. we can't deride fossil fuels here and vow to quit using them then just export them elsewhere.
why so serious?
By snoopyloopy - Posted on February 27th, 2009
Tagged: Environment
• North Korea
• nuclear power
• Obama
• Shared responsibility
• Effective government
• Personal freedom
• Better future
I think you're mixing green policy with security policy. The North Korean government is a rogue state. It's not worth having a couple extra green power plants in North Korea at the risk of them building a bomb (or, to put it more accurately, building more bombs). They may have tested only one bomb so far, but it only takes one bomb to kill everybody in and around Los Angeles, disrupt the US food supply, and poison American soil for generations.
i actually live in la area, so assuming they can even get a missile here, i guess that'd be me as one of the first. but last i heard, their longest-range missiles can maybe hit hawai'i or alaska (not to say they're less of citizens). and yes i am mixing green policy with security since they both impact us. but i don't see how a nuclear n. korea is any more of a threat than a nuclear russia is, especially since russia can actually hit us. and if we don't want them to have nuclear, give them hydroelectric or other green alternatives, not more hfo. but keep in mind that when pakistan and india both went nuclear a decade ago, we were very much against it. last i heard, we were sharing nuclear tech with india. so clearly, all one has to do is prove they have nuclear capability then they get treated fairly.
Just an FYI Japan is a lot closer to N Korea then America and so is India. We are not the only people on this planet that would have to worry if n. Korea got there hands on some Nukes.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
There are talks of a missile that could reach the west coast of the US in development now. I'd start to get worried if I were you.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!