General Question

Tropical_Willie's avatar

What do you think Obama's response to North Korea's Nuke test should be?

Asked by Tropical_Willie (22054points) February 12th, 2013

Should it be ” I sorry you feel like we’re being hostile, just because you are testing Nuclear explosive.” Or just the moving of the Pacific fleet Sea of Japan and giving them the silent treatment.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

21 Answers

the100thmonkey's avatar

Obama’s response should be cast in consultation with the nations the test really affects – China, South Korea, Japan.

A unilateral ‘response’ would be stupid.

zensky's avatar

Should it be ” I sorry you feel like we’re being hostile, just because you are testing Nuclear explosive.”


SamandMax's avatar

You’re not the only one @zensky.

KNOWITALL's avatar

This is what he did say if that helps:

Obama said the test “undermines regional stability, violates North Korea’s obligations under numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, contravenes its [international] commitments … and increases the risk of proliferation.”

“North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs constitute a threat to U.S. national security and to international peace and security,” Obama said.

Obama on Tuesday said that “the danger posed by North Korea’s threatening activities warrants further swift and credible action by the international community,” adding that the U.S. would work with the international community to “pursue firm action.”

The president will speak about North Korea during his State of the Union address Tuesday night, emphasizing that “the only way North Korea will rejoin the world community is if they stop these threats,” a senior administration official said.

gambitking's avatar

stop giving them m(b)illions of dollars of aid so they will actually have to help their own people instead of letting them starve while they put all their money into nuke tests.

muhammajelly's avatar

North Korea is a Chinese pawn. They play bad-cop for China and we won’t respond to China’s aggression because we are not in a position to. In short, Obama’s response will be whatever his PR department tells him but nothing to upset his ability to borrow which would in turn interfere with his buy-votes approach.

Our response should be to reduce Chinese influence by passing a balanced budget amendment… but won’t be.

flutherother's avatar

What did we do the last time an evil dictator was thought to have weapons of mass destruction? Well this time it’s real.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@flutherother That is partly why it’s so interesting with Obama in office this time. :)

muhammajelly's avatar

@KNOWITALL @flutherother Obama wants to clear the way for Iran to have nuclear weapons. His North Korean response gives a bright glowing green strong GO! light to Iran. (sorry Israel—you are no longer an ally).

KNOWITALL's avatar

@muhammajelly Welcome!

Just anticipating Obama in Jerusalem is spooking Israeli politics. You do the math: Netanyahu could, if he wanted to, build a tight, rightist coalition very much like the one he had for the past four years, albiet with 61 seats—63 if you include Shaul Mofaz—not the 65 he had before. (Menachem Begin had 61 in 1981.) But Netanyahu, by all accounts, is simply afraid of sitting in a room with Obama and telling him that settlements cannot be scaled back, or Jerusalem cannot be discussed, because this will cause Moshe Feiglin or Naftali Bennett to pull the plug on his government. Like it or not, Obama is a kind of coalition partner, too. All expect Netanyahu to concede just about anything to get Yair Lapid into the coalition, just to prove he has a proxy for U.S. interests and sensibilities.

Yesterday morning, “informed sources” told Israeli radio correspondents that Obama will “seek assurances” from Netanyahu that Obama will be able to pursue negotiations, public and otherwise, with Iran without “military surprises” from Israel. In a heartbeat, Arye Golan shifted to Palestine, wondering aloud whether, by conceding a non-strike on Iran, Netanyahu might deserve less pressure on curtailing settlers—as perfect an example of the narcissism of the Israeli “consensus” as you’re likely to hear.

mattbrowne's avatar

China is key. Obama should give the Chinese something they want in return for concrete actions to be undertaken by them.

muhammajelly's avatar

@mattbrowne North Korea didn’t do anything. North Korea can’t do anything. China took the action via North Korea and now people suggest to reward them for this bad behavior? If my pit-bull eats kids running to the school bus should someone reward me if I do something about it?

mattbrowne's avatar

What do you mean by North Korea didn’t do anything?

zensky's avatar

I find it very difficult to pay any serious attention to his comments, both on their (lack of) merit and on his chosen user-name. How unfortunate.

muhammajelly's avatar


North Korea did not build that. North Korea did not accomplish that. It took decades of assistance and support from the Chinese government, who knew where the money was going, to build and accomplish that.

mattbrowne's avatar

It was North Koreans who ignited the recent nuclear detonation. That’s different from “didn’t do anything”. Slowly the Chinese are beginning to realize that their past assistance was a mistake. China has no interest in further escalation between North and South Korea. That’s why I said Obama should make a deal with China.

muhammajelly's avatar

@mattbrowne When you say “Slowly the Chinese are beginning to realize that their past assistance was a mistake.” Do you really think that they believe it was a mistake? I wonder if even you believe this. If they had to do it all over again they would not assist North Korea? I think instead preferring not to escalate tensions between North and South Korea is balanced against their support. They do not want a war between the North and South (we will ignore the fact that they already are technically at war) but there was not any “mistake”.

mattbrowne's avatar

@muhammajelly – The Chinese prefer to have full control over the nuclear arsenal. What does China gain when North Korea has their own nuclear weapons?

muhammajelly's avatar

@mattbrowne China needs North Korea to threaten the world in ways it could never get away with from a political standpoint. They gain the same thing I gain when someone goes out to collect a debt for me. If I had full control over what someone who collects a debt for me does the debt could never be collected because I cannot be seen doing the things necessary. If I hire a contractor and that contractor hires illegal aliens why didn’t I just hire them directly? It is because the arms length distance provides deniability. The Chinese have this deniability arrangement going with North Korea and you are too smart to fall for it!

mattbrowne's avatar

@muhammajelly – Interesting viewpoint.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther