Controlling Terrorism

N. Korea is an issue of gross violations of nonproliferation and pre-existing treaties where that nation agreed to suspend nuclear weapons research in exchance for financial aid from the US.

N.Korea has also stated their official position as any economic sanction being construed as an act of war. This being the case, they have basically rendered the UN as any kind of arbiter of the issue, as the UN uses sanctions first in almost any rogue nation scenario.

N.Korea has abandoned all existing agreements, has stated that the normal diplomatic pressures will escalate the situation, and stated that their response will be war.

N.Korea is also a major exporter of weapons to all types of terrorist nations, including Syria and Iran.

This is brinkmanship of the highest order. There is no realistic expectation that there will be a diplomatic solution, as there is no mechanism of enforcement that will not result in war. For all intents and purposes, the die has been cast. Either the world lets this nutcase do as he pleases, or war will result. This being the case, the economic situation in N.Korea makes conflict inevitable because N.Korea will almost certainly sell such weapons when they reach production.

This situation is unprecedented. Unless there is regime change from within in N.Korea, Kim Jong-Il will force the world's hand. If he is prepared to blackmail the world with conventional war, then we must not allow him the nuclear option for the next stage.

Is the world ready to deal with him now? If not, the world will suffer greatly later...

NOK is a prime example of why our government cannot be complacent. It was the actions of our former policies that have allowed this situation to escalate to the state it is at today. I am not content with the idea that an unrestricted fire sale of nuclear material could reach the hands of a would be terrorist or wanna be dictator. I agree that this is brinkmanship, I also think the underlying current is one of age. Kim Jong Ill is old, declining in his grasp on a country that has long been burdened with his maniacal grasp at the world stage. In the grander scheme of things one could say that yes NOK is not a threat directly to the USA, then a Dong Feng missle shoots into California and the rest is history.
We have to face facts; the world is a lot smaller than it used to be. We are the last remaining superpower from the cold war era, the tactics of brinkmanship are no longer applicable on this stage. IF a terrorist organization gains access to fissile material and we are the target that would be really bad. But what happens when they decide to hit Russia, or China, or Germany? Will those countries show restraint? What happens if Trafalgar square is turned radioactive? 9/11 was a wake up call folks, the world we all grew up in is gone and an even greater threat is before us. If a country is willing to whore itself out to gain financial aid from the highest bidder then they must be dealt with in a manner that will remove the possibility completely.
It is impossible to gauge the magnitude of this situation without taking into consideration that this stage is a WORLD stage and the USA is not the only target Britain, Canada, you too are lands full of Infidels, lets not forget who stirred the pot to begin with. We are all in this together like it or not the USA has the Balls to call a spade a spade and you must admit all political BS aside someone has to take the point and do something before it is too late.

You can only protect what you control 100% - So I want my government to protect the boards of this country - I want the government to protect the citizens from foriegn powers - Period.

For them to protect me and my family - they need to control 100% of the citizens and that will not happen.

Sorry - I will take my risks - and accept my freedoms - over the illusion of safety and security provided by the government ...

The people of North Korea have very little risk of terror, because they have a certainty of it, perpetrated by their government. WMRC may mean that they have a low risk of terror from foreign governments or NGOs. The word "terrorism" was invented to characterize the behavior of the First French Republic, which had a "reign of terror" lasting only a fraction of the time that NOK folk have now been experiencing such a reign.

Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Dependent Territory, against the will of the inhabitants, all British Citizens. This was deemed to be an act of war and so Britain responded accordingly. The Falkland Islanders themselves were not the target of Argentinian aggression and no declaration of war was ever made by Argentina against the inhabitants. Britains in general had no beef with the Argentinians...we even had a famous Argentinian footballer (Oswaldo Ardiles) playing in the English FA league. Our biggest issue was that the Argentinians had been supplied with military hardware by the French, contrary to arms control agreements and NATO membership regulations. The Super Etandard jet fighter armed with Excocet II missiles were responsible for many British casualties and did the tenuous relationship between Britain and France no favours at all. The Argentinian army was 80% conscript, with most of their ground forces being aged between 19 and 23 and with little or no formal military training. In every encounter on land, especially at the Battle of Port Stanley, the Argentinian conscripts simply surrendered...preferring to face the consequences as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention to the retributions that would ensue in the hands of their own military leaders. This didn't necessarily make them cowards...but being faced with the SAS and SBS as well as several regiments of Royal Marines, they knew which side their bread was buttered.

Three argentinian ships returned to port. Lloyds refused to pay out as 'Acts of War' were one of the exclusions in the policy.

The Argies only had Third Party, Fire and Theft insurance....and who's gonna steal a burning warship?!!!!

A couple of jokes from the time...

For Sale:Argentinian Assault rifles...never fired...dropped once.

For Sale: Argentinian Army Surplus uniforms....trousers may be soiled

Survival of the human species has always been a tenuous matter. And yet, despite the vagaries of nature, natural disasters, disease epidemics and wars, we have now reached a position where the size of the world?s population is perhaps the biggest threat to survival of the species. We are rapidly destroying and polluting our home, the planet Earth. If current technology were applied where it is most needed, perhaps we could re-establish a balance with nature. But that is not the way the world works. Individual desire (call it greed or gratification) does not consider the cost to other humans, nations or the planet. I have painted this scenario in an attempt to show that, all things considered, terrorism is at this stage no more of a threat to the continued survival of the species, or the balance of power in the world, than any of a number of other unavoidable factors. However, quite a different scenario can be projected if terrorists resort to non conventional weaponry. North Korea is the first instance where this much more terrible outcome is confronting us. Prime Minister John Howard has been holding talks with the Chinese leadership encouraging them to use their influence to negotiate a peaceful settlement. A few days ago the director general of ASIO, Dennis Richardson, said that it was "only a matter of time" before there was a "catastrophic" - chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear - terrorist attack in Australia. Let us pray that this prediction is not fulfilled, either in Australia or anywhere else on the globe.

...was not a terrorist, nor did he encourage terrorism. He preached "non-violence" or "ahimsa", which can be very annoying to whoever's path you're blocking, with violent reactions. He also taught self-sufficiency, e.g. weaving for everyone, partly in reaction to an earlier government-sponsored monopoly on weaving. He ostentaitously made salt fro msewater when salt production was a protected monopoly. There were politicians within the Indian electoral system working for change, e.g. the Nehru family, and these were the ones who took power at Partition - keeping, be it noted, such foolish institutions as government-sponsored monopolies and other restrictions on productivity until the 1980s. There were terrorists, such as Chandra Lal and his "Indian National Army", who tried to do a deal with Japan, but they seem to have no major political descendants.

You mean Gerry Adams, the Irish politician and leader of Sinn Fein...

Yes he sits in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but he has NEVER sat in the British Parliament! Until the Northern Ireland Peace Accord was signed, he was even prevented from entering mainland Britain itself!

Getting back to Oldefar's original posting and the points he was trying to make:

North Korea apparently has the lowest risk of terrorist attack. Why?

Terrorists generally cannot operate in totally closed societies. North Korea at present probably has the most oppressive government on the planet.

One must also understand that traditionally, terrorism has been a political act with political goals. What are those goals?

1. To make the target population feel vulnerable.
2.