jross

Hah.. sorry. Maybe we should do this more often? I'd be glad to do a discussion of China's modular pebble-bed nuclear reactor technology & development, or similar. Anything nuclear, actually...

Give it a few months, and then what? We'll just pretend it didn't happen? Some of it may be my distain for the current administration, but if we're going to send out soldiers on a trumped up WMD charge, we should at least follow up a real WMD case. At least this time, they can claim WMDs without lying. (Me no likey hypocrits)

Is anyone else getting frustrated by the continued "it may be a nuke test, but we don't think it was, but we're waiting on results" stuff that is all over the news wire? I mean, I hate to say it, but we've got satellites specifically designed to detect nuke tests. Everyone keeps saying "well, we can't tell if it's a mushroom cloud", but a nuclear detonation is actually a double-detonation, and it's signature is NOT the mushroom cloud, but a double-flash. Cloud cover can dick slightly with observation, but there's all sorts of emissions that wouldn't be interefered with by cloud cover. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it sounds like N. Korea has detonated a nuke, and we're just trying to play it down. After all, N. Korea is part of Shrub's "Axis of Evil", so IF they have successfully tested a WMD, according to Shrub's arguments for invading Iraq, we need to now invade N. Korea, which the adminstration apparently does not feel up to doing at this time (probably because N. Korea is not Iraq, Shrub's daddy didn't start a war there, and there's no oil involved.. not to mention we're already perilously overstretched, not that that's stopped Shrub before in committing our armed forces).

I think culturally, N. Korea and China are diverse enough that China would not want the added complications of attempting to integrate the Koreans. China seemed to have a rough enough time integrating Hong Kong (which was Chinese-populated), so I can't seem them wanting to take on backwater (and ethnically Korean very different) N. Korea. It would be interesting to see if they try and play through the UN to garner international support, however, I honestly don't see them going this route for domestic reasons (they would then be seen by the populace as pandering to the US). I think the Chinese wouldn't feel the need to burden-share, since they have their own nuclear arsenal and large military, but somehow I think they will more or less ignore their small southern neighbor.

I'm not thinking that China is going to support them; China, as you said, has enough problems as is. However, a nuclear test near a border is generally a sign of aggression-- witness the geographic location(s) of the Indian and Pakistani bomb tests (which as I recall, were somewhat close to the contested region). Traditionally, any military activity on a border is a sign of aggression; look at both our behavior in Berlin, and that of the Russians, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Other examples include the Sino-Soviet frontier, or in pre-WW II history, the Manchurian conflicts between the Russians and the Japanese garrisons/ invading force. N. Korea may be trying to apply pressure on China, which is in many ways in a teniable position internationally; China is, itself, in an interesting position economically. While China is a new player on the international stage (at least economically) they already have alot of clout; witness the growing imports from China here in the US. While some of the things coming in are still the old crappy stuff, an increasing amount of our food and electronics are coming from Chinese fields and factories; China also has now has what looks to be the most advanced nuclear power industry in the world taking shape (witness the recent construction of a 10 MW pebble bed nuclear reactor, prototype to a series of 200-500 MW modular units). China is in a unique position to apply economic pressure on the US on the behalf of N. Korea (due to the imbalance of trade and the increasing amount of US currency on the world market in Chinese control); should China choose to dump the dollar on the international market, it has the potential to ripple into a domestic economic crisis that will could rival the Great Depression. Since I know this sounds overtly reactionary, so I'll try and see if I can't spell out why and how this works. Current balance of payments between US and China favor China; we import much more than we export. This means US dollars are accumulating in China's foreign currency reserves; these dollars are then used to buy goods from America and certain other countries. Should China decide to dump their dollar reserves, which would in the short term require them to take a loss, the dollar would rapidly devalue on the international market. An example of this happening recently (to a certain extent) comes in the meltdown of the Southern Cone economies, most dramatically in Argentina and Brazil. Should the value of the dollar drop on the international market, it would translate to higher prices on all imported products, and since most of the means of production have been shifted overseas, this directly translates to higher prices across the board for all products bought and sold in the United States. The importance of this is best underlined by pointing to one of the predominant theories amongst the economics circle as to why the US went to war in Iraq: Saddam had discussed pegging oil prices to the Euro. Oil is currently priced in dollars/barrel, which gives the US a natural advantage in the petrolum business, since the price of oil coming to the US would, as such, remain more or less constant. Currencies not pegged to the dollar (ie, those which did not have a fixed exchange rate) were directly affected by this, as their price for petrol products was tied to their exchange rate with the US dollar. If oil was to be pegged to the Euro, we would then be vulnerable to currency fluxuations-- and given the increasing strength of the Euro, we would be put over a barrel (no pun intended). In some ways, China already has incentives to dump the dollar; it destabilized the US in the international and economic arenas, and, perhaps more importantly, it gives OPEC good reason to change their oil pricing policies. OPEC has already discussed pegging oil to the Euro instead of the dollar, and if the dollar were to rapidly devalue on the international market, it could concieveably hurt OPEC severly unless they changed over to the Euro (since they are then forced to buy oil with dollars, which will be essentially otherwise worthless). China has a fairly large domestic petrol industry, so the damage to OPEC would probably not affect it. In fact, they may be able to usurp part of OPEC's role in international oil production in this way, since China is increasingly focused on nuclear power (and other so-called "clean" energy sources). However, the US is dependant upon OPEC oil (as well as South American, but with the collapse of the Southern Cone, and due to our political behavior in the region, this may not be oil we can continue to count on), so we would be dead in the water. China would then be able to move into those production roles still occupied by the US (what few are left), and would probably make a handsome profit from continuing to supply the US with our essentials (since things like farms can't suddenly start producing again overnight). There are other arguements as well, I just can't recall them at 1 AM (or most of the words I intended to use.. I apologize if my rhetoric seemed repetitive). I don't know that N. Korea's possible bomb test will mean much in the long run, nor that China will choose to excercise it's economic position of strength relative to the US in the manner described, but it's worth remembering that these things ARE possible, and that these actions ripple. I know I've undoubtably skipped a few of the ripples which would result from China dumping the dollar, but mebbe I'll look over this drivel in the morning and rework it as neccisary.

Personally, I'd be more worried about N. Korea and China, and how they interact. The placement of the test was probably no accident...

Well, even if they do, how is it a problem? I mean, just because a major state sponsor of terrorism has possibly tested a nuclear weapon, it doesn't really affect us. I mean, we're winning the war on terror... ()

did they? Score!!!

Here's a fun quote, appeared in an article by the Associated Press, and in the Guardian (in Britain): "whoops" (not to mention, that ear of corn you see him eating? Raw. Not a huge deal, but methinks there is supposed to be an intermediary step, called "cooking")

Awesome new look! Let us know if you want help, I know I've got time to kill of late...

I hope you're not calling me a hippy :P

Preach on, brotha! I agree with you on everything.. except the death penalty. I don't think they're going to worry about getting caught, neh? I'm more a pro-"well armed & trained populace" but whatever...

As much as I hate the Bush Admin. and the war, and as cynical as I am... even I can't buy that that's the only reason it go so much air time. However, it is depressing... havn't heard anything else about this set of sickos. Part of that is that our news media doesn't like to show Americans doing wrong (remember those skinheads with the chemical weapons just after 9/11? Didn't think so...).

I've got my own take on things, I suppose. Part of it is the unforgiving sadist in me saying that death is too good for them. Part of it is that I don't believe the state has the right to take a life, and I don't believe killing is right under any circumstance. I've gotten flack before for that, and I think the arguement I've heard the most is either "well, you've never lost someone like that" or, "what if someone killed someone really significant to you". Normally I prefer to keep personal details to myself, but people tend to assume that I was really shook up my the loss of my grandparents/dog/whatever, and gloss over it, so I'm heading this one off at the pass. My first memory is my mother being crushed to death in front of me in a car accident, killed by a drunk driver. I'm not even going to go into the effect that's had on me, and I'd prefer that we not touch upon that further. She's also not the last person close to be to pass away (which is more than sufficient information). I just don't think that killing is right. Sure, the people that commit crimes like that may be sick, twisted, amoral monkeytards, but there's no reason we have to stoop to their level. It's not even "take the high road", since there's a large part of me that says "let that gnaw on their mind for the rest of their lives". If they're so devoid of humanity as to not feel remorse, fine, they're at least locked away and won't do it again. And it's not like people who dick with kids (in the sense of what they did, or in the literal sense) are exactly popular folks in prison...

<-- does not support the death penalty. That's some twisted stuff... talk about sick bastards. Kind of makes you wonder about the rest of humanity...

With all due respect, how has Bush done anything that respected the military? Like I've said before, alot of my family is in the military, and I can tell you that he has shown the armed services absolutely no respect. Never has, never will.. but I guess we can't expect more from a deserter.

I think the answer to #2 depends on the presence of #1...

I nominate them for cabinet-level posts. I think we need a woman at the reins for once; the current candiates show that men aren't fit for the job.

Dude, you gotta say who/what you're calling stuff on, especially in a political thread... to much stuff floating in the first place

He ain't screwin' me! Yet another benefit to Jenna :-p (she won't screw me either, but she's easier on the eyes )

I'll take a civilian over a deserter. Which puts Kerry over Bush, for me.

Okay, I'm guessing there's going to be some strong words said on the subject of politics as this election approaches, since we seem to be split between Bush and Kerry supporters. However, after thinking about how much I hate both candiates, and how many other people seem to, I have come up with the following idea: Let's all write in Jenna Jameson for President. Think about it. Everyone already knows who she is -- we won't need to explain who she is. She's a woman. I think we can all agree this would be a good thing for our country at the current point. She's cute. I know I'd be more interested in politics, as would probably most other young males, and hopefully having a prominent female political figure will draw more women into politics. That's just my idea... but I think I've found my candidate!

I think I'll preface this with: I hate both Bush and Kerry. That being said, I don't want to see any flames about how I'm affiliated with either party, or unfairly attacking a candiate. That being said, I really hope Bush loses this election. I don't care to who at this point, just so long as he's out of the White House. Why? Of all the people who have occupied the Office of the President of the United States of America, he is probably the worst. He has consistantly lied to the American people, misled the public, and has done nothing good for how other countries see us. His term of office has brought about some of the greatest reductions in civil liberties to occur in the history of our country, and I can't see it getting any better if he somehow gets back into office. His attacks on labor laws and the enviornment are absolutely disgraceful -- and I say that as a small-business owner, a member of the segment that his "reforms" were meant to help as the expense of common Americans everywhere. This alone would be, for me, as good a reason to remove him from office as any. However, this pales in comparison to the lies he has told, and the cost incurred by the everyday, flesh-and-blood members of the Armed Services, and by normal, everyday civilians. There is a mounting wave of evidence that suggests that the administration had information about the Twin Towers bombing before it happened, but did nothing, costing untold thousands of deaths. In and of itself, that is disgraceful. The response of the Bush administration, to attack and overthrow the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the calamity this has caused in those countries, is unforgivable. Afghanistan is no better off now, with the bickering of warlord factions, than it was under the Taliban; in fact, it's getting measurably worse. Iraq has spiralled out of control, to the point that as of yesterday morning, the casualty count of American soldiers in Iraq for the month of April surpassed the casualty count of the entire "invasion" up to the current year. Compounding this is the fact that the administration seems hell-bent on turning "control" of Iraq back to a coalition government by some arbitrary date, which is rapidly approaching; of course, that government still hasn't been formed. The question now becomes, what will be left to hand over? Compounding his military expansionism is the so-called "Universal Service Act", which is something that I suspect will directly affect everyone on this board if passed. The Act is a twin bills S 89 and HR 163, and will 1) reinstate the draft, 2) make service manditory, regardless of sex and 3) require a term of service from all citizens ages 18 to 26. Several other changes have been made; if you are selected for duty while in college, your military terms begins at the end of your then-current quarter/semester, unless it's your senior year, in which case you will be first allowed to graduate. Minimum service is 2 years, which can be arbitrarily extended by Executive Order -- which has already occured to keep combat troops in Iraq months after they were scheduled to be rotated back. The Bush Administration has shown a shocking disregard for human life, both that of our citizens and the citizens of countries we feel we have the right to invade. His continual blending of church and state is something that belongs far, far in the past. The crimes he has perpetuated on our country are unmatched by any previous individual or administration. From the moment he first used the phrase "You are for me, or you are against me", he should have been removed from office. With that being said, I can't be sure Kerry will be any better. He has the potential, which is almost enough for my vote at this point. What sickens me is this perpetual "evil of two lessers". Democracy is not a two party system. We are the only "democracy" in the world to have only two parties. A true democracy does not allow for professional politicians, but instead drafts citizens into civil service for short terms, running the beaurocracy almost like the military. This would be the most ideal solution, but even having multiple parties would be a great start. I don't expect everyone here to agree with me; I realize alot of you probably won't. I'm just stating what I feel. I've got alot of family already in Iraq, so maybe it just hits me different that it does everyone else, I don't know. I'm sure alot of people will flame me for what I think, but I'm not really one to care. In my eyes, Bush is the Stalin or Pol Pot of our country; his only saving grace is he hasn't started executing political prisoners (though he seems to try and execute just about everyone else, included mentally deficient prisoners). [edit: I forgot to add, the Selective Service has already worked to fill most of the draft board slots, and if the Universal Service Act passes, the infrastructure is already in place to implement it by Spring 2005.]