To be exact, North Korea argues that the launch was legally permitted within the context of the Outer Space
Treaty, which stipulates that all nations have the right to the
peaceful exploration of outer space. In accordance with its stated compliance with that treaty, North Korea notified the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization of its intention to launch the satellite.
The kind of provision that you are describing, therefore, is already in place in international law, but as usual these matters are subject to interpretation. The West insists that satellite launches are in violation of resolutions aimed at preventing North Korea from gaining nuclear weapon capabilities because of the dual-use nature of space launch vehicles. But there is always an element of plausible deniability in such matters, as you yourself appear to be suggesting in talking about North Korea wishing to advance its technical capabilities.
I am not sure what an exploratory missile launch would look like, but perhaps the most constructive area for global leaders to work on here is the full implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Ominously, the United States is one of the handful of countries that has resisted ratifying it (notably under Bush), but Obama already seems to be making positive noises about this.

There, this should bring a tear to KMB’s eye. Yep, mitna ta’ xejn. Mitna ghal ideologija falluta.

[Daphne – Somebody like Fleur Balzan or Paul Giordmaina would assess this video purely on its musical merits.]

Hmmm this is interesting. I’m not against the stockpiling of nuclear weapons since they would be useful in a last resort defence against external threats to our existence. However, I think that an international law should be drafted that states that if a nation uses a nuclear projectile to attack human targets then all the other nations MUST unite in vengeance against this aggressor. Anyone not willing to cooperate in the neutralization of such a rogue state, will be obliterated as well. I think that should keep everyone in check.

However, I still think that keeping such devastating weaponry is vital for humanity’s survival.

Now, about the North Korean presumed satellite launch. I’d be wary of taking their word for it. In 1998 they also said they had launched a satellite, but it turned out the final stage in the launcher blew up, destroying the satellite.

And just to reply to eros’ comment about allowing nations to develop their technology, I’d say the bottom line is that you must feed your people first before endowing the nation with nuclear weapons. That’s what western nations did.

One last word about bad taste in the Gensna Group of Nations. The first Chinese satellite to be launched had transmitted the revolutionary song “The East is Red” over and over again as it orbited the earth.

“a UN resolution that allows only scientific or exploratory missile launching”

So the launch of a radio satellite broadcasting propaganda is out of the question then?

I do, kind of, agree with you. A major problem we are facing at the moment is the toothlesness of the United Nations, which will always be dragged down by having member states who completely ignores its regulations (and this goes for both western and other nations).

It’s true that the western nations have a superiority in this regard, which might seem undemocratic, but what are the options? To allow nuclear profileration throughout the middle east? To allow states such as North Korea to have intercontinental ballistic rockets? Even if it’s “unfair” that western nations are “allowed” these kind of weaponry, these nations are the most important players in the struggle for democratic values and a major detoriation in their arsenal could (would) give rogue nations the capacity to spread tyranny through our parts of the world as well.

Feeling a bit apocalyptic this morning.

The North Korean missile launch must have made that statement a lot easier to say.

Note: The Obama administration is trying to reduce the increase in defence budget to a mere 4% over 2008 figures, down significantly from Bush’s 14% planned increase. This could result in a corresponding “decrease” in Russian and Chinese military spending. This is the reality of the situation.

Turkey? I think you mean Iran or Syria.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68a5baae-218c-11de-8c4b-00144feabdc0.html