https___www.bbc.com_news_world-asia-41150291.xml
https___www.bbc.com_nepali_news-41787170_1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 16.1 16.2 17.1 17.2 17.3 18.1 18.2 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 22.2 23.1 23.2 24.1 25.1 26.1 26.2 27.1 27.2 28.1 28.2 28.3 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 30.1 31.1 31.2 32.1 32.2 32.3 33.1 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 35.1 35.2 36.1 37.1
North Korea: Does latest nuclear test mean war? South Korea says that North Korea could be preparing more missile launches after details of the isolated nation's latest test - equivalent to a 6.3 magnitude earthquake - emerged over the weekend. US Secretary of Defence James Mattis says any threat will be met with a "massive military response". President Donald Trump has previously promised "fire and fury". Is there a diplomatic solution? Or is the crisis heading to an inevitable war? Defence and diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus answers your questions on North Korea and how the situation might be resolved. Will there be war? One certainly hopes not. It is hard to imagine any conflict breaking out since the risk of escalation to all-out war would be very likely in these highly-charged times. The US is signalling strongly that the North Koreans should do nothing that might risk a conflict. All-out war would be catastrophic in terms of lives lost. It might potentially involve the use of nuclear weapons - the first time since the closing stages of the Second World War - which could set a terrifying new precedent in international affairs. At its close, after terrible destruction, North Korea would no longer exist. That is a given, hence the hope that the Pyongyang regime is rational and understands the risks involved. Its behaviour, though, amounts to very, very high-stakes brinksmanship. Who would be the key players and what role would they play? Initially it would be North Korea versus the rest - South Korea and the US certainly. Quite what Japan's precise role would be is hard to say unless it had been attacked directly, but there are large numbers of US troops and bases in Japan. The US would seek diplomatic support from the UN Security Council and, failing that, also from its allies. How far they might be involved in practical terms is hard to say. We hope this is just an academic question. Could armed conflict trigger a global nuclear war? Unlikely. A regional conflict would be bad enough. Russia, Washington's NATO allies and so on are not directly implicated. However the big question is if there was conflict, what might China do? Would it effectively intervene as it did in the 1950s to ensure the survival of the North Korean regime or would it remain on the sidelines? It is linked to Pyongyang by a defensive treaty but this does not guarantee Chinese involvement. Again, one hopes that this question is academic. Why can't the US accept North Korea as a nuclear power? For practical purposes, North Korea is already a nuclear power and has had a small nuclear arsenal for some time. What makes the current crisis more serious is that Pyongyang is now making rapid headway towards a capability to threaten the continental United States with a nuclear-armed missile. Rolling back North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes may no longer be possible. In the future the emphasis may be upon deterrence and containment. Practically, the world may have little choice but to reluctantly accept North Korea as a nuclear power. But experts fear the impact this may have on the wider question of nuclear proliferation. Is there a diplomatic solution? The exact pace of North Korea's technical progress is hard to determine. More tests may be necessary and it is hard to know if a North Korean missile and warhead could survive the force upon re-entry into the earth's atmosphere. So they are not there yet but they are moving ever closer. Until now, the emphasis has been upon rolling back North Korea's nuclear programme. For all the talk about seeking a diplomatic avenue - and that would presumably mean multi-national talks with Pyongyang - it is not clear what the goals of such talks would be. Is the idea to freeze North Korea's activities? To get it to halt further nuclear and missile tests? And what are the Americans in particular willing to give diplomatically (and probably economically) in return? There have been talks with Pyongyang in the past. Deals were struck and they were implemented, at least in one case, albeit for a period. It is wrong to assert that there have never been negotiations with Pyongyang, nor that they cannot have a positive outcome. This current North Korean leadership, though, may be another problem. What about China? China is key but it is a conflicted party. On the one hand it does not want to see a nuclear-armed North Korea and it has made its view clear to Pyongyang on many occasions. However, it does not want to see the North Korean regime swept away. This would result in millions of refugees flooding into China and would probably result in a unified Korea very much in the US orbit. This is seen in Beijing as worse than having a difficult nuclear neighbour. If China were to take the view that the coincidence of a rapidly advancing North Korean nuclear programme and the uncertainties of the Trump Administration's diplomatic capabilities means that there is a very real risk of misunderstanding and catastrophe, then maybe it might bring much greater pressure to bear on Pyongyang. North Korea is a very isolated country and China is both its major ally and economic prop. There is a lot more that China can do. North Korea's recent testing has been as much an embarrassment to China as it has angered the US. But the Chinese have a difficult diplomatic calculation to make. China and Russia together have tabled a diplomatic roadmap that proposes the de-nuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and a peace deal to end the Korean War. In the interim, they say that North Korea should suspend its nuclear and missile testing and that the US and South Korea should suspend large scale military exercises. North Korea has not shown any interest in this proposal, at least publicly, and the Americans have dismissed it - in the words of US UN Ambassador Nikki Haley - as "insulting". Produced by Chris Bell, UGC and Social News team
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1
‘परमाणु शक्ति सम्पन्न स्वीकार्य हुँदैन’ अमेरिकी रक्षामन्त्री जेम्स म्याटिसले आफ्नो मुलुकले परमाणु शक्ति सम्पन्न उत्तर कोरिया कहिल्यै स्वीकार नगर्ने बताएका छन्। सोलमा दक्षिण कोरियाका अधिकारीहरुसँगको भेटवार्तापछि जनरल म्याटिस बोल्दै थिए। उनले प्योङपाङका परमाणविक तथा क्षेप्यास्त्र कार्यक्रमले उसको सुरक्षालाई बलियो नभई कमजोर तुल्याउने दाबी समेत गरे। रक्षामन्त्री म्याटिसले उत्तर कोरियाली संकटको वाशिङटनले कूटनीतिक हल खोजेको दोहोर्याए। एक पाइला पनि पछि हट्दैनौँ: उत्तर कोरिया ‘कसैसँग नहार्ने परमाणु शक्ति सम्पन्न देश’ के किम जङ-अन विदेश भ्रमणमा जान डराउँछन्? चेतावनी तर राष्ट्रपति डोनल्ड ट्रम्पसँग स्वर मिलाउँदै म्याटिसले अमेरिका वा उसका साझेदार मुलुकविरुद्ध पारमाणु अस्त्रको प्रयोग गरिए त्यसको 'व्यापक रुपमा' र 'कडा' सैनिक जवाफ दिइने बताए। एक हप्ताअघि मात्रै एकजना उत्तर कोरियाकी कूटनीतिज्ञ च्वे सन-हीले उत्तर कोरियालाई परमाणु शक्ति सम्पन्न राष्ट्रका रुपमा स्वीकार्न अमेरिका 'तयार हुनुपर्ने' बताएकी थिइन्। प्योङयाङको परमाणु अस्त्र कार्यक्रमबारे वार्ता गर्न नसकिने बताउँदै उनले भनेकी थिइन्, "कोरियाली प्रायद्वीपमा शान्ति सुनिश्चित गर्नका निम्ति यो एकमात्र विकल्प हो।" उत्तर कोरियाले यसअघि नै अमेरिकाको जुनसुकै स्थान आफ्नो क्षेप्यास्त्रको पहुँचमा रहेको बताइसकेको छ। उत्तर कोरियाबारे जान्नुपर्ने ९ कुरा प्रतिबन्ध उत्तर कोरियाली अधिकारीहरुले "परमाणु अस्त्र उत्तर कोरियाका लागि जीवन र मृत्युको विषय" भएको बताउँदै आएका छन्। यसै वर्षको शुरुदेखि उत्तर कोरियाले क्षेप्यास्त्र परीक्षणमा तीव्रता दिएपछि प्योङयाङविरुद्धको आर्थिक प्रतिबन्ध पनि बढाइंदै लगिएको छ। सुरक्षा परिषद् र अमेरिका लगायतका मुलुकको प्रतिबन्धका बावजुद उत्तर कोरियाले आफ्नो क्षेप्यास्त्र कार्यक्रमलाई निरन्तरता दिंदै आएको छ। हालैका महिनामा उत्तर कोरियाले छैटौं पारमाणविक परीक्षण गरेर र जापानी आकाशमा दुईवटा क्षेप्यास्त्र प्रक्षेपण गरेपछि अमेरिका र जापानसहितका मुलुकहरु उत्तर कोरियासँग क्रुद्ध छन्।