Therefore we can't think of the utilisation other than 100% military purposes as to what uranium concentration technique by North Korea is aiming at.
Technically speaking, you are very correct, but it is also true that the very utilisation of military purposes allows the countries concerned to have equilibrium of powers, and eventually contributes to peace in the region.
-- Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
The reason is first off we have had no detente in history by holding nuclear weapons.
I don't raise any questions as to your assertion. All right, but can't we say that you see we have had war in history by not holding nuclear weapons?
Even if North & South Korea held nuclear weapons, and even if we could achieve negative peace in the region, that does not lead to detente.
Don't you think that the negative peace is equal to detente?
The third point is that even if nuclear weapons kept a military balance in the peninsula, in fact military threat to the surrounding countries makes the balance of force in whole East Asia collapsed.
Very true. Good point.
East Asia Nations would fall into pessimistic situations of the incessant military expansions if the military expansion by North Korea, especially the holding of nuclear weapons were in reality.
For the first time in several months, I encountered very sober analysis as to the military circumstances in the region. Excellent, but the problem is North Korea already has two or three nuclear warheads, and of course in the South, the US forces have nuclear weapons. The fact is East Asia is already a nest of nuclear weapons. That is why I think current peace is the result of power politics. Negative peace is from point of view in peace and detente is from point of view in conflict, they are similar and enough for us all.
-- Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
We were able to prevent war by having the willingness to hold nuclear weapons or holding the weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. We can find those cases as many as the cases we were unable to prevent war.
This is a very important point. Normally we tend to believe that we have to start war because they have already developed weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. But the fact is that because they have already developed weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons, we are unable to start war, thus preventing further conflict between them and us. This is an irony of history, though, it's true.
Sadam Hussein lost a nuclear facility which was purchased from France and Germany (in 1980s) by bombing of Israel (in 1980s).
I didn't know that, though I've got to look it up when the purchase and bombing were taken place.
Korean peninsula seems under high tension regardless of whether there're nuclear weapons.
It depends on how we see the situation there, I don't believe both current administrations are antagonistic to one another.
-- Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Eventually Leads To Peace In The Region (スコア:1)
Technically speaking, you are very correct, but it is also true that the very utilisation of military purposes allows the countries concerned to have equilibrium of powers, and eventually contributes to peace in the region.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Eventually Leads To Peace In The Region (スコア:1)
第一に、核兵器を保有することによって、緊張が緩和したことは歴史上存在しないことだ。確かに、冷戦期には米ソは巨大な核戦力を保有することによって、直接対立することはなかった。しかし、それは単に戦時ではないという消極的な平和に止まり、ベルリン危機からマルタ会談までの約50年間に渡って両国は緊張関係にあった。1969年には、お互いに核兵器を保有しているソビエトと中国は、ダマンスキー島を巡り大規模な戦争を行っているし、冷戦期であっても米ソは第三世界において、代理戦争を繰り広
Re:Eventually Leads To Peace In The Region (スコア:1)
I don't raise any questions as to your assertion. All right, but can't we say that you see we have had war in history by not holding nuclear weapons?
Even if North & South Korea held nuclear weapons, and even if we could achieve negative peace in the region, that does not lead to detente.
Don't you think that the negative peace is equal to detente?
The third point is that even if nuclear weapons kept a military balance in the peninsula, in fact military threat to the surrounding countries makes the balance of force in whole East Asia collapsed.
Very true. Good point.
East Asia Nations would fall into pessimistic situations of the incessant military expansions if the military expansion by North Korea, especially the holding of nuclear weapons were in reality.
For the first time in several months, I encountered very sober analysis as to the military circumstances in the region. Excellent, but the problem is North Korea already has two or three nuclear warheads, and of course in the South, the US forces have nuclear weapons. The fact is East Asia is already a nest of nuclear weapons. That is why I think current peace is the result of power politics. Negative peace is from point of view in peace and detente is from point of view in conflict, they are similar and enough for us all.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Eventually Leads To Peace In The Region (スコア:1)
核兵器を含む大量破壊兵器を保有、または保有の意思を持ったことによって戦争が防げたという例は、戦争を防げなかった例と同じくらい多い。例えば、サダム･フセインは1980年代にフランスとドイツから購入した核施設をイスラエルの爆撃によって失っているし、イラク戦争においても(ブッシュ政権の大量破壊兵器の有無の主張は別としても)、開戦の動機は大量破壊兵器の保有であった
核兵器を保有していることによる勢力均衡は、単に一方の勢力が核兵器を保有しているだけでは達成できない。核兵器の保有数、運搬手段、都市の人口密度、反撃手段、外交関係などの要素から総合的に導かれる。例えば、冷戦期において米ソの核均衡が達成されたのは、1950年代にソビエトがICBM(SS-7 "Sapwood")を配備した時期か、1960年代初頭にソビエトがSSBN(Hotel Class)を配備した時期である。それまでは、ソビエトは米国の戦略爆撃機による核攻撃に対して、有効な反撃手段を持っていなかった
1990年代以降の研究では、SS-7やHotel Classは実際には米国による核の先制攻撃に対して有効な阻止能力を持つほどの性能を持っていなかったことが判明している。しかし、重要なのは、単に大量破壊兵器を保有することが勢力均衡に繋がるのではなく、戦争という政治的な意思を打ち砕くほどの破壊力を相手側が持っているという認識が存在すれば、核兵器による勢力均衡は達成できるという点である
大量破壊兵器を保有していると疑われたイラクやリビアに対して、アメリカやイスラエルが軍事攻撃を行えた理由は、イラクやリビアが保有する大量破壊兵器がアメリカやイスラエルに対して使用される可能性がほとんどなかったからだ。これらの対立する二つの勢力は、地理的にも離れた場所に存在するし、イラクやリビアの兵器技術の信頼性が低いと推測されたこともある。また、1970年代以降にはアメリカ軍の精密爆撃技術が進歩し、兵器生産手段だけを破壊することが軍事的に可能になったことも、地上兵力を動員する大規模な軍事作戦ではなく、空軍力による小規模な軍事作戦によって問題を解決できたことも大きい。しかし、北朝鮮と韓国の関係では、韓国の首都であるソウルは、北朝鮮側軍の長距離火砲の射程範囲に入るくらい近接している。それだけでなく、ソウルは韓国全体の人口の50%近くが集中する大都市である。つまり朝鮮半島は、核兵器の有無に関わらず高度な緊張関係にあると言え、常に戦争の危機を抱えているのである。そして、北の核開発は、その情勢を悪化させる危険を伴う
>Don't you think that the negative peace is equal to detente?
この点については次の機会に
Re:Eventually Leads To Peace In The Region (スコア:1)
This is a very important point. Normally we tend to believe that we have to start war because they have already developed weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. But the fact is that because they have already developed weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons, we are unable to start war, thus preventing further conflict between them and us. This is an irony of history, though, it's true.
Sadam Hussein lost a nuclear facility which was purchased from France and Germany (in 1980s) by bombing of Israel (in 1980s).
I didn't know that, though I've got to look it up when the purchase and bombing were taken place.
Korean peninsula seems under high tension regardless of whether there're nuclear weapons.
It depends on how we see the situation there, I don't believe both current administrations are antagonistic to one another.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters