Why does the article quote North Korea's "right" to explore space in a peaceful manner?
Just wondering.
It's not like plenty of other states are putting military satellites in orbit without asking anyone for permission.
Because if you run through the street, it's normal. If you run through the street shouting that you're exercising your right to run through the street in a peaceful manner, it's being super suspicious. (like naming state-controlled newspaper "The Truth") Also because everyone is aware they're experimenting with serious weapons and act as if they are disconnected from consequences, so it's worth paying attention.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/07/asia/north-korea-rocket-launch...
One suspects that pretty much everybody in the NK leadership is aware of the last few decades of international sanctions.
Because most countries view it as a cover for an ICBM program. Anything that can launch a satellite into orbit can carry a nuke to the other side of the world.
>Why does the article quote North Korea's "right" to explore space in a peaceful manner?
Doesn't it have that right? Who is to say North Korea can't launch satellites?
This is a tricky thing for other countries to navigate. We really don't have the right to tell them they can't have satellites or nuclear power. Other countries collectively launch satellites every week or so, and there are 438 operating nuclear reactors.
On the other hand... nobody trusts the Norks, and with good reason. I guess it's like interpersonal communications - reputation matters.
And for everyone sarcastically wondering why the US gets a pass, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of criticism at the time over the US's (and Soviets') nuclear buildup.
I was asked, very straightforwardly, by a woman I met,"Why does Ronald Reagan want to destroy the world with nuclear weapons?"...I replied that I doubted very much that he did...
The U.S. has certainly received scrutiny abroad...
Particularly after Libya. When the US invaded Iraq the Libyans decided the best way to avoid the same fate was to accede to demands from the West. They gave up their nuclear program, paid compensation for Lockerbie, and generally stopped messing with other countries.
And when it was convenient, we (mostly the UK and France, but the US too) provided the air power to overthrow the Libyan government. Kadaffi himself was tortured to death.
If you're Kim Jong Un, what lesson do you draw from that sequence of events?
I'm sure it hasn't been handled well, but the answer isn't to just welcome them into the community of nuclear nations and applaud every time they conduct a weapons test.
All things being equal, the choice is between the US' nukes, and the US' nukes aimed at NK's nukes, and NK's nukes aimed who knows where (not necessarily just as the US.)
As mentioned in one of the other replies -- sure, I can't fault a government for wanting to pursue nukes and space-launch capability. History has shown that you're either a US-ally, a nuclear power, or largely powerless over your country's destiny.
That doesn't mean I want adversaries to have the same tech as I do. So, the condemnations make perfect sense. It's all a game.
There hasn't been much trouble getting other countries to put pressure on North Korea. The trouble is that North Korea is already so isolated that it just doesn't work. Their whole national philosophy is based around self reliance.
...other countries except China, the important one. North Korean products (legal plus things like drugs and counterfeit cash and weapons) are shipped overland and out through China's ports. The Chinese sell oil to North Korea at below market rates. Plus luxury items for the people in charge. If China decided to play ball the North Korean government could not survive.
Because 18 million reasons.[1] When so many people are always on the brink of famine, you can stop "playing war" and you can help your people in need.
[1]http://reliefweb.int/report/democratic-peoples-republic-kore...
As for the "it's an ICBM test!" crowd - bollocks. That's like saying the Boeing 747 was a test to see if manned flight is possible - total overengineering.
Also, for context, what exactly do folks think soyuz goes into space on? A magical peace rocket? No. It goes up on an R-7, which is an ICBM - the very first developed, in fact. That nasty ICBM technology has kept the ISS running.
The Mercury programme redstone rockets that put Americans in space - also ballistic missiles that had had warheads replaced with crew capsules.
Should America and Russia have been condemned by the world? By the standards being applied here, yes.
So, shake your fist all you like, but regardless of their politics this is a technical coup, and I congratulate them on a successful launch.
Not true. The North Koreans aren't at the point yet where they can miniaturize nuclear bombs, so if they're going to make a system that can deliver nuclear warheads, it's going to need to be something like this.