WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- North Korea is believed to have completed fueling a long-range ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States, raising the likelihood that it will soon conduct a test launch, U.S. officials said on Sunday.
The United States plans to join Japan in a sharp response if the test goes forward. Washington warned Pyongyang against the test in a message passed on Friday through North Korean diplomats at the United Nations, but there was no response, U.S. officials said.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Pyongyang could decide to scrap the launch. But they said that was increasingly unlikely given the complexity of siphoning fuel out of a missile once it has been fueled.
The launch is expected to involve a Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile with an estimated range of 2,175 to 2670 miles (3,500 to 4,300 kilometers) that could hit the United States.
Pyongyang stunned the world in August 1998 by firing a Taepodong-1 over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean.
White House spokesman Tony Snow, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," said that in 1999 North Korea declared a moratorium on missile testing and had signed a memorandum in September 2005, which committed it to pursuing peace and security within the region.
"We certainly hope they're going to continue to abide by their agreement," Snow said.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said in a television interview his country would seek an immediate meeting of the U.N. Security Council if Pyongyang went ahead with a test.
He voiced concern about the possibility of a missile landing on Japan, but toned down a remark made in an earlier interview that Japan would automatically regard this as an attack.
"We will not right away view it as a military act," he said.
Aso stopped short of saying what Japan and the United States would do in the event of a launch.
But he said: "The responses will be rather harsh".
Reports of test preparations come as six-country talks on Pyongyang's nuclear programs are locked in a stalemate and attention has shifted to concerns about Iran's atomic ambitions.
I don't know what everyone's so worried about. It's just a little intercontinental ballistic missle test from a country itching to use nuclear weapons to show it's power.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
IP: Logged
11:24 PM
proff Member
Posts: 7401 From: The bottom of the world Registered: Oct 2004
North Korean Missile Found In Alaska Updated April 12, 2004
The White House has not commented on a report in The Korea Times that the warhead of a “long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the state of Alaska.”
The discovery of the missile warhead was reported to South Korea’s National Assembly and was culled from “a U.S. (presumably intelligence) document,” the paper said.
If the report is accurate, the warhead could be from a North Korean three-stage Taepo Dong 3 ICBM, which is, according to U.S. intelligence sources, capable of striking targets about 9,300 miles away.
03-04-2003 The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.
"According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,’’ former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s missile capabilities.’’
[link to times.hankooki.com]
IP: Logged
11:42 PM
Jun 19th, 2006
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
nobody mentioned this, but the one they want to test now that can reach america, cannot carry a warhead... so what are they going to do?
By launching one that can reach a certain distance, but cannot yet carry a warhead, they imply their future intentions. While I don't know if a non warhead missle landing somewhere would be viewed as an act of war, the implied intention would be that they have plans to equip a future one with a warhead when possible.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
IP: Logged
01:55 AM
proff Member
Posts: 7401 From: The bottom of the world Registered: Oct 2004
I firmly believe it's time for the US re-examine it's propensity to go stomping all over the planet dictating policy, identifying (alienating) "enemies" and saber ratteling. When considering the trend of US invaision of other countries combined with threats of force for failure to comply with it's commands, it's becoming apparent to me that some countries are taking bold steps to defend themselves of if you like, ignore the US. I'm not trying to say that these countries are or are not "bad guys" because to me that is not the issue I'm confronting you with. The issue (as I see it) is one of aggression and defence from aggression. Does a country (Iran, N. Korea) have the right to defend itself from a precieved aggression from another country that (regardless of how well intended or warranted) has aggressed other countries? More over, is it reasonable to assume that a country ( any country regardless of who it is) will fight back when pushed?
Now I know some of you meatheads will post the big red mushroom cloud and say turn them into carbon particles or talk big the big bad talk but the fact is setting off nukes is not an acceptable plan in the global scheme of things. Simply put it WILL start WWIII mainly because I don't think China will take it lightly. So nuking N. Korea as a preepmtive action is for a lack of a better word suicidal big talk which quite frankly nobody but a psychomaniacle maniac is really willing to actually do cept maybe N. Korea. Similarly it would be suicidal for N. Korea or Iran to do the same.
The question is should the US keep pushing the issue? If N. Korea / Iran says FU we are going to do it anyway what options does the US and allies really have?
Okay.. so the US pushes the issue with these countries diplomaticly and comes up dry.. then what? Amass armies on the boarder in preparation for invasion and give them a bonified reason to set off a nuke? Something has got to give here and givien the US "no tolorance" "stay the course" policy, I feel that this alone will give an "enemy" more reason than ever to use whatever means it has at it's disposal to stop any "precieved" aggression regardless of weather or not we see it that way.
I know that one of the issues concerning North Korea is that they signed treaties outlining that they wouldn't create nuclear weapons. But I believe that the real concern with both Iran and North Korea is that they may be just crazy enough to use what they have and not limit things to just a show of force and power. With the threats that both countries have made, North Korea to Japan and China and Iran to Israel, to use nuclear weapons once they have them, the threat is viewed as real and can't just be left alone. It's a real possibility that, if one warhead is launched, more will be launched in retaliation. The possibility of a nuclear war would then become an instant possibility.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
IP: Logged
10:09 AM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
Originally posted by 84Bill: Does a country (Iran, N. Korea) have the right to defend itself from a precieved aggression from another country that (regardless of how well intended or warranted) has aggressed other countries? More over, is it reasonable to assume that a country ( any country regardless of who it is) will fight back when pushed?
You pose an interesting question... Imagine if the world had developed differently, and China was the world power. They have all the electronics, know-how, and man-power. They have nukes and start the UN, where they demand everyone to stop making weapons.
Would we, the weak US, home of expensive products that nobody wants and unintelligy, not say "FU!" and build nukes? I think we would. Just because we happened to develop an arrogance and have the means to back it up, doesn't mean it's right. I'm sure the world would think Dubya is just as crazy as Kim Jong-il....
IP: Logged
10:58 AM
RandomTask Member
Posts: 4547 From: Alexandria, VA Registered: Apr 2005
I firmly believe it's time for the US re-examine it's propensity to go stomping all over the planet dictating policy, identifying (alienating) "enemies" and saber ratteling. When considering the trend of US invaision of other countries combined with threats of force for failure to comply with it's commands, it's becoming apparent to me that some countries are taking bold steps to defend themselves of if you like, ignore the US. I'm not trying to say that these countries are or are not "bad guys" because to me that is not the issue I'm confronting you with. The issue (as I see it) is one of aggression and defence from aggression. Does a country (Iran, N. Korea) have the right to defend itself from a precieved aggression from another country that (regardless of how well intended or warranted) has aggressed other countries? More over, is it reasonable to assume that a country ( any country regardless of who it is) will fight back when pushed?
Now I know some of you meatheads will post the big red mushroom cloud and say turn them into carbon particles or talk big the big bad talk but the fact is setting off nukes is not an acceptable plan in the global scheme of things. Simply put it WILL start WWIII mainly because I don't think China will take it lightly. So nuking N. Korea as a preepmtive action is for a lack of a better word suicidal big talk which quite frankly nobody but a psychomaniacle maniac is really willing to actually do cept maybe N. Korea. Similarly it would be suicidal for N. Korea or Iran to do the same.
The question is should the US keep pushing the issue? If N. Korea / Iran says FU we are going to do it anyway what options does the US and allies really have?
Okay.. so the US pushes the issue with these countries diplomaticly and comes up dry.. then what? Amass armies on the boarder in preparation for invasion and give them a bonified reason to set off a nuke? Something has got to give here and givien the US "no tolorance" "stay the course" policy, I feel that this alone will give an "enemy" more reason than ever to use whatever means it has at it's disposal to stop any "precieved" aggression regardless of weather or not we see it that way.
I'm very concerned about this.
Excellent point. I think as a world leader it is our duty to keep world peace. This being said, theres a very vague line between keeping the peace and policing other nations. I can see how the world views america as a bunch of hyporcites, "Don't build nukes! We have thousands of them!" It is other nations right to develope. To them, its a form of pride for themselves. Some things I do disagree with is that N.Korea is spending all of this money on military research when a large percent of their population is starving. I think america, instead of punishing other countries should in essence, take them under our wing. Not aid in the developement of these things (nukes) but pretty much welcome them and bring in a treaty.
IP: Logged
11:21 AM
proff Member
Posts: 7401 From: The bottom of the world Registered: Oct 2004
"Russian Military and Intelligence analysts are both reporting today that North Korea is in preparations to launch strategic ballistic nuclear missiles against what they believe to be an imminent invasion by the United States as evidenced by the massive American Naval Armada launching what is called their ‘Valiant Shield’ exercise in the Pacific Ocean today, and as we can read as reported by South Korea’s Chosun News Service in their article titled "U.S. Keeps Mum on Warships in East Sea", and which says:
"The U.S. has declined to tell the South Korean military if one of its Aegis destroyers is plowing the East Sea with a view to intercepting a long-range ballistic missile North Korea is allegedly planning to launch.
Washington normally gives Seoul due notice when an aircraft carrier or Aegis ship is headed into Korea's maritime operational zone, but it sometimes keeps quiet about ships it sends into international waters off North Korea. Military insiders say there is a good chance the U.S. already has an Aegis vessel in the East Sea.
Meanwhile, the U.S. started the largest military exercise in 10 years. The operation codenamed "Valiant Shield" takes place in waters surrounding Guam, with three aircraft carriers joining drills from Monday until Thursday."
North Korea, reacting swiftly to this perceived invasion threat from the United States, and further angered by the massive increase in American spy flights over its territory has issued a stern warning to the Americans, and as we can read as reported by the MSNBC News Service in their article titled "U.S.: North Korean missile fueling complete", and which says:
"[A] Russian editorial on the subject and said the North “has the due right to have a missile that can immediately halt the United States’ reckless aerial espionage activity.”
The North has repeatedly complained in recent weeks about alleged U.S. spy planes watching its activities. Some of the North Korean reports put the alleged espionage off the country's northeast coast and in the area where reports say preparations for a long-range missile launch are continuing."
These reports further These reports further state that the greatest concern to the United States Military Leaders remains the 'unknown' capability of North Korea's Taepodon-2 missile, and which: "According to a former director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, a two-stage Taepodong-2 could theoretically strike "portions of US territory" and a three-state version could strike "most of the continental United States.", as reported by Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies.
The North Korean plans for an invasion of its country by the United States has been longed planned according to these reports, and include not only a nuclear attack against the main American invasion fleet, but also attacks against American Military bases in Japan, Guam, Hawaii, as well as American West Coast cities, to include the massive shipping ports of both Los Angeles and Seattle."
The plan of the neocons starts to make sense, in all it´s senselessness. I really hope the North Koreans can keep their kool in all this madness !
IP: Logged
10:30 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
It almost sounds like North Korea is looking for a reason to lob a warhead somewhere. Ironic isn't it? We may end up protecting Japan from the very thing we started over sixty years ago. I think there's a lot more to it than we're being told. Surprise! I wonder if the U.S. thinks that a nuclear attack on another country by North Korea is imminant. If that happens, we're already in possision to retaliate. A nuclear attack by one country on another cannot go unanswered.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
You guys have no idea what is going on! I work in the missile business, yes the big boys with nukes, and let me tell you the North Korean situation is not a good thing. Let me preface this with a little history. First the nuclear arms race started off because of bad intelligence, sound familiar, about the Soviet Unions possibly having a massive amount of nukes pointed in our direction, at least building toward that. We responded by having our own massive amounts of nukes. The Soviet Union and the US only did this as a postruing tactic to let the other know that if an attack was launched then they can be assured that there will be a mutual lauch of the same proportion, which would leave total devestation and nobody wins, They call it assured mutual destruction. Soon after that they decide to try and limit the rest of the world from going down this path because the more that can play this game the more likely an accident will happen. Now we also started the SALT treatys to lower the number of nukes because the yields were getting better and we don't need as much to cover the same damage and as a political tool. In order for this posturing tactic to work you must have a lot of nukes, even with todays yields, one or two will just causes a little bit of problems, especially with the size of a country like the US or the Soviet Union. Know take a country like N. Korea and now they want nukes. How could they possible build enough nukes to posture against us. Well with today technology they can't, yields arn't that good. They don't have the land mass either. So why are they building one? In my opinion, they want to use it for major concessions. It would be a powerful tool to get things they need, while showing their own country that they are a force to be reconed with. OR they may feel they can use it if they are attacked for any other stupid thing they try, like a get out of jail free card. Either way the dictator they have is unstable and I have no doubt in my mind that he would use it to make a point. Nukes are a big responsiblity, look how many close calls we have had. We have a system in place that helps eliminate a knee jerk reaction, do they? The soviets did as well. Our nations were mature enough to handle the tremendous risks involved, I don't beleive the N. Koreans have that maturity. They have something to prove and that can be dangerous. At this time I don't fear for the US, it will take 5 to 10 years for them to become good enough to hit the US, barring outside tech help. But we have Allies within their reach and plenty of bases. And just looking at the facts what is there to gain by N Korea having a nuke, please tell me!
IP: Logged
11:55 PM
Jun 20th, 2006
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by Grim001: So why are they building one? In my opinion, they want to use it for major concessions. It would be a powerful tool to get things they need, while showing their own country that they are a force to be reconed with.
good analysis.
Just over 50 years ago, there was a little tussle called the Korean Conflict. some call it a war, some a "police action", i leave the linguistic distinctions to those with the desire. at the end of WW2, japanese-occupied Korea was partitioned into north and south, administered respectively by the USSR and US. About 1950 The US and USSR began withdrawing troops, but the soviets left a bunch of hardware behind, which the North used to invade the south. they ran our few remaining troops along with the South's tiny poorly equipped army into the far corner of the country, near Pusan. The US took the issue to the UN to organize an international response, and by chance on the day of the vote the Soviets were boycotting. so the UN authorized troops, and the US and other countries pushed the North Koreans back to very near the Chinese border. China then sent its troops in and pushed us back to where the whole thing started, and we spent the next 2 years fighting over one hilltop or another while brave men died on both sides. Macarthur was sacked because he openly advocated using nukes on the chinese, and it looked like Monolithic Communism was on a roll.
all the while we were trying to negotiate peace. The North Koreans, very nearly destroyed on the battlefield, proved very adept at stalling, bluffing, propagandizing, and playing bait and switch. and our negotiators never really seemed able to come to grips with them.
The US has apparently never learned to deal with North Korea. to us they seem irrational, dont respond well to the normal persuasions, they gladly sieze the carrots we offer them and pretend to be willing to comply with the attached conditions, but when we show them the stick they hunker back into their den and nurse their resentments, or posture. except for their shaky relations with china and the Soviets, they've been isolated internationally for 50 years, yet North Koreans occasionally attempt to escape into the Disneyland that is Communist China.
i wold be delighted to welcome them into the community of mature nations, even if we continue to argue over fishing rights, trade relations and economic systems, just like we do with everyone else.
but first they must demonstrate some maturity. theyve made a point of ignoring the rest of the world, while their people starve. they beg the world for food assistance, playing on our humanistic sympathies, but waste resources building weapons they dont need and cant use without facing armageddon.
so now they appear to have nuclear weapons, and are openly working (very openly, perhaps too openly) on a delivery system that can reach the US. Let's assume some raw animal cunning on their part, i think that's a safe bet. they have got to know that if one of their nukes goes off anywhere near the US, we will cook them. unlike our good friends in Iran, these are not religious fanatics, and have no desire to die, especially when whatever admirers they may have will die with them. so there is no benefit to actually using the missles they so proudly display.
but there is a benefit to having them and waving them about. much like the US and Soviets during the cold war, the government (of North Korea this time) gets to proclaim to the world and its own people how technologically advanced they are, and how brave they are, facing down the worlds only remaining superpower. which permits them to repress and starve their own people for a little longer. why this would appeal to a nation's leaders eludes me, but it is not necessary to agree with a thing to understand it.
My take on the current situation? do not offer Korea any negotiations, inducements or room to move. you cannot talk these people into good sense. simply draw a line in the sand, and never, never back away from it. willingness to compromise is weakness. let them build their missles and bombs. if a missle comes into US or Japanese or South Korean airspace (China and Russia can reach their own arrangement, it's not our concern.) from North Korea or a north korean vessel or there happens to be a north korean standing off to the side, it's an act of war, and some or all of north korea ceaces to exist. we must be deadly serious about this, and the koreans must know that we are deadly serious about this. if A then B. the gun is the only law these folks understand. people living on the west coast have my sympathies, because you are in the line of fire, but the world is not, and never has been, a safe place. maybe one day, but not in my lifetime.
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 06-20-2006).]
While I tend to agree with your take it is the fact that the US will "not let them have any <insert demand here>" which is prompting their rebelliousness. Lets face it, N. Korea will do whatever it wants to do regardless of the US. I have NO DOUBT in my mind that N. Korea feels exactly as you do Lurker. IE giving in is weakness.
So the question is who is going to make the first move? Granted the US will obliterate N. Korea in one fell swoop but it WILL be at the cost of how many American lives if they get off just one shot? I don't want to die because you won't let N. Korea do whatever it wants to do. The way I see it, the USG is taking carte blanch liberty in "dictating" to the world what it should or should not do. Kinda like it does with it's very own citizens. I duno.. but history is litered with the ruins of dictatorships.
Nuclear threat is not a bargining chip, it's a gun used to hold people hostage.
quote
Originally posted by lurker: My take on the current situation? do not offer Korea any negotiations, inducements or room to move. you cannot talk these people into good sense. simply draw a line in the sand, and never, never back away from it. willingness to compromise is weakness. let them build their missles and bombs. if a missle comes into US or Japanese or South Korean airspace (chian and Russia can reach their own arrangement, it's not our concern.) from North Korea or a north korean vessel or there happens to be a north korean standing off to the side, it's an act of war, and some or all of north korea ceaces to exist. we must be deadly serious about this, and the koreans must know that we are deadly serious about this. if A then B. the gun is the only law these folks understand. people living on the west coast have my sympathies, because you are in the line of fire, but the world is not, and never has been, a safe place. maybe one day, but not in my lifetime.
But if left to do whatever it want's to do, wouldn't NK end up nuking Japan, China, and whomever else they want to get what they want? Here's the way I see it. The world complains that the U.S. involves itself in too many of other countries' affairs. However, many of those same countries would be the first to ask why we didn't do something if something terrible happens. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. Kind of like wondering why the cops weren't there when the guy was breaking into your house, but grumbling because they were there when you timed the red light wrongly.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
Thats just "speculation." You can't really make an assumption when dealing with other countries or other people. Thats like saying muslim extriemists want to kill americans. The fact is they really don't care about the average american. They DO very much hate the american government and since they feel we control the government (and we are very easy targets by comparison) it doesn't require rocket science to figure out who they will choose to target.
quote
Originally posted by whadeduck: But if left to do whatever it want's to do, wouldn't NK end up nuking Japan, China, and whomever else they want to get what they want?
That was the point of my initial post. We just sink deeper and deeper between the peverbial "rock and a hard place" until there is no way out. Eventually someone somewhere will come along and take advantage of this situation. When it happens we will be left standing there wondering just how the hell this could have happened. Naturally it won't be our fault.... isn't that how it usually goes? Just out of the blue on a nice sunny day... BOOM!!! our world just changes forever.
quote
Here's the way I see it. The world complains that the U.S. involves itself in too many of other countries' affairs. However, many of those same countries would be the first to ask why we didn't do something if something terrible happens. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
IP: Logged
11:19 AM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
But if left to do whatever it want's to do, wouldn't NK end up nuking Japan, China, and whomever else they want to get what they want?
NK nuking Japan would be a problem for us because it's been our responsibility to defend japan since WW2. in this context, i suggest we honor that commitment, and treat an attack on japan as an attack on the US. as for NK attacking China, i suspect china can take care of itself. as can the CIS. not our problem. why china and russia dont seem more concerned about this i dont know, but again, not our problem. besides, the value of nukes is not in using them, but in threatening to use them.
quote
Originally posted by whadeduck: Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
true. since we're not going to be popular no matter what, maybe we need to take a lesson from the NKs, ignore world opinion and do what we need to do.
IP: Logged
11:20 AM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by 84Bill: The way I see it, the USG is taking carte blanch liberty in "dictating" to the world what it should or should not do.
bill, i agree that the US has a tendency to try to tell other countries how to run their business. some of it is legitimate, and some is not. if we invaded cuba in 1898 to end spanish abuses that was legitimate. if we invaded to assure our sugar companies control of the sugar market, eeeehhhhh... the real problem is that it's difficult to distinguish between legitimate causes and illegitimate, especially when everyone is putting their spin on the situation. Remember the Maine.
same argument can be made for any number of incursions into central america, and might be made for our current involvement in the middle east. but it's a complex situation, and leaping at simple answers does everyone a disservice.
this does not mean it's a good idea to stand around discussing and debating a situation until the cows come home. this would be as dangerous as knee-jerking. there are certain provocations which demand immediate and forceful response, like bombing pearl harbor or flying airliners into skyscrapers. but it's important to select the proper target, so as not to waste effort, not make more enemies, and actually address the problem.
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 06-20-2006).]
I suppose that I shouldn't have said that NK will actually nuke anyone. But if they know that no one is going to do anything about it, wouldn't that end up giving them carte blanc for invasions or attacks? Do you wait until your child's hand is already in the cookie jar or stop him as he's climbing the counters to get at the cookies? While an assumption, NK has made threats to both Japan and China in the past and now they may have nuclear capability. Their past and their current situations don't make for a good outcome. If they're threatening with nukes, a wait-and-see policy is not the way to go.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
IP: Logged
11:44 AM
PFF
System Bot
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by whadeduck: I suppose that I shouldn't have said that NK will actually nuke anyone. But if they know that no one is going to do anything about it, wouldn't that end up giving them carte blanc for invasions or attacks? Do you wait until your child's hand is already in the cookie jar or stop him as he's climbing the counters to get at the cookies? While an assumption, NK has made threats to both Japan and China in the past and now they may have nuclear capability. Their past and their current situations don't make for a good outcome. If they're threatening with nukes, a wait-and-see policy is not the way to go.
you make good points and refreshing dialogue, thanks.
it is hard to know what goes on in the mind of the current incarnation of kim il sung, and waiting until he kills 60,000 people in Los Angeles or Seattle is a bad idea. but what if he's not as crazy as he seems, and is bluffing? sanctions dont work, persuasions dont work, and appeasement doesnt work. shall we let the nuclear genie out based on a suspicion of what they might do?
we can look at this several ways. NK has shown a propensity to oppress its own people, and invade its neighbors. The US has the power to end the situation, but there is debate on whether we have the will, or the right, to take decisive action. being a more-or-less democracy, we have to respect difference of opinion, and the possibility that the other guy has a point.
if we assume for the moment that NK were to attack China, and China "solved" the problem, then would we really care? would we condemn those dirty commies for killing innocent farmers who are just out in their paddies trying to feed their families, or praise the peace-loving progressives who eradicated a threat to peace and security? perhaps both.
The US has a curious history of success and failure in thes matters. most americans love peace, and rightfully so. second to liberty there is nothing better. it takes a lot to rile us, like pearl harbor or a 9-11. when a clear threat manifests itself, debate ceases and we put our differences aside. and thus far we've been unbeatable.
but when we get involved in something like korea or vietnam where there's been no attack on US soil, or a 9-11 scenario where it's not entirely clear who the enemy is (despite attempts by interested parties to delineate a demon), we dont do so well. opinion and the national will remains divided, and a determined enemy knows that at some point we'll cut our losses and bail.
korea is just jealous of the deal being given to iran - iran doens't even HAVE nuclear capability yet and they are getting all sorts of incentives to stop..
korea is making a move to try and get the same treatment since they already the technology
It's a tricky situation no matter what you do. Go in there and put a stop to their nuclear programs and we end up looking like the bully on the block. Stand by and do nothing and thousands of innocent lives could be lost just so someone can show off their political balls.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
IP: Logged
12:48 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I firmly believe it's time for the US re-examine it's propensity to go stomping all over the planet dictating policy, identifying (alienating) "enemies" and saber ratteling. When considering the trend of US invaision of other countries combined with threats of force for failure to comply with it's commands, it's becoming apparent to me that some countries are taking bold steps to defend themselves of if you like, ignore the US. I'm not trying to say that these countries are or are not "bad guys" because to me that is not the issue I'm confronting you with. The issue (as I see it) is one of aggression and defence from aggression. Does a country (Iran, N. Korea) have the right to defend itself from a precieved aggression from another country that (regardless of how well intended or warranted) has aggressed other countries? More over, is it reasonable to assume that a country ( any country regardless of who it is) will fight back when pushed?
Now I know some of you meatheads will post the big red mushroom cloud and say turn them into carbon particles or talk big the big bad talk but the fact is setting off nukes is not an acceptable plan in the global scheme of things. Simply put it WILL start WWIII mainly because I don't think China will take it lightly. So nuking N. Korea as a preepmtive action is for a lack of a better word suicidal big talk which quite frankly nobody but a psychomaniacle maniac is really willing to actually do cept maybe N. Korea. Similarly it would be suicidal for N. Korea or Iran to do the same.
The question is should the US keep pushing the issue? If N. Korea / Iran says FU we are going to do it anyway what options does the US and allies really have?
Okay.. so the US pushes the issue with these countries diplomaticly and comes up dry.. then what? Amass armies on the boarder in preparation for invasion and give them a bonified reason to set off a nuke? Something has got to give here and givien the US "no tolorance" "stay the course" policy, I feel that this alone will give an "enemy" more reason than ever to use whatever means it has at it's disposal to stop any "precieved" aggression regardless of weather or not we see it that way.
I'm very concerned about this.
In other words, Bills arguement is along the lines of, "The b**** desereved it! Walking around in heels and a mini skirt like that. She totally wanted to be raped".
Bill you surpass yourself yet again. Blame the victim. Bravo.
quote
Originally posted by Grim001they want to use it for major concessions
I worked at the Duluth missle systems division of Rockwell back in the 80's and moved into submarine development until 1993. I hear you! But I wouldn't use the word 'concession'. It makes it sound like this is some sort of civil discourse in a mutually beneficial negotiation. This is "PROTECTION MONEY", pure and simple. North Korea is saying pay me and I WON'T send a nuke your way.
This is a country with NO industry outside of the military. It is like East and West Berlin in the 80's. The North Korean people are unwilling to continue to live for the state and change MUST come soon. They are locked into a 1970's mentality in a 21st century world. Kim Jung IL feels the pressure after seeing his contemporaries fall by the wayside. He also believes that power comes from the point of a gun and not through to free expression of ideas of a propserous population. Kim Jung IL is a psycho in the same mold of Saddam Hussein, Iran's President - Mahmar Headuphisass, Stalin, etc. He can't be reasoned with, he needs to be toppled. I say we continue to pressure the populous of NK to rise up and demand re-unification and let the country heel.
As for the immediate problem of the missle, I say we position have the Ballistic Naval fleet off North Korea's coast, let IL know they are there, and dare the MF to launch his missle.
As for the immediate problem of the missle, I say we position have the Ballistic Naval fleet off North Korea's coast, let IL know they are there, and dare the MF to launch his missle.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if we already have a few subs lurking in the waters over there.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
I never said that or even implied it. Once again you come off as being able to make some kind of "irrational" analogy from something I said, twist and contort it into something it never was to suit your slanderous bullshit ways.
If you can't JOIN the discussion without being critical of everything I say then how about suffing a sock in your face and go play on the railroad tracks.
quote
Originally posted by Tarddster: In other words, Bills arguement is along the lines of, "The b**** desereved it! Walking around in heels and a mini skirt like that. She totally wanted to be raped".
Bill you surpass yourself yet again. Blame the victim. Bravo.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-20-2006).]
I agree with you to a point. It's like sitting in a bar talking with an attractive woman you have never seen before and suddenly some guy is coming at you from nowhere geting up in your face about you trieng to hit on his woman. Having been in those situations more than once and using a variety of tactics I have found that getting RIGHT up in his face without hesitation and having the intent to rip his god damn head off is far better than playing submissive and affirming his superiority over you. However I don't make it a practice to "intrude" onto another guys space (talking with women who I know are with guys) IE make myself a constant target in this manner. Though I'm sure I could (because I'm not a puny guy by any means) get away with the same approach to defeating anyone I see as an aggressor, there will come a time when one will inevitably push us both to the point of going at it. I DO walk softly but I also carry a big stick. I just don't go (waiving it all around the place) doing this because I can. Instead I only "go off" or become agressive when I need to, not just because I'm a big guy and can do it. I only meet force with force when I absolutly have to, I minimize the oppertunity and reason for someone to come at me and I always leave the "option" open for the other guy to set the tone for what will happen next.. whatever that may be. Either way I really don't care and that is the gods honest truth.
Again, US policy has aggressed N. Korea in the past (not my words but theirs so who am I to argue?) and now the US is up in their face again and they are in ours. This time it may require more than words because we know they have a stick too. I say let them set the tone of what happens next. If they want to build nukes I say let them because I can garen god damm T if they ever decide to use them it will be their last. Simply put N. Korea will simply cease to exist. I have 100% confidence in US capabilities and I won't have a problem with deploying that capability if they aggress the USA. Japan has a well funded well supported army, they have everything the United States has as far as equipment so I have the utmost confidence that Japan can take very good care of themselves without us being directly involved.
quote
Originally posted by lurker: This does not mean it's a good idea to stand around discussing and debating a situation until the cows come home. this would be as dangerous as knee-jerking. there are certain provocations which demand immediate and forceful response, like bombing pearl harbor or flying airliners into skyscrapers. but it's important to select the proper target, so as not to waste effort, not make more enemies, and actually address the problem.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-20-2006).]
I just don't know think it's a good idea to wait for someone to use a nuclear warhead if the whole thing can somehow be prevented from happening at all. I do not cherrish the thought of thousands of people who have no say in the situation being instantly vaporized and countless other sufferring and dying from radiation poisoning because someone wanted to wait and see what happens. There's a bully with a big stick out there and he's trying to show the world that he's willing to use it. Maybe if someone comes along and shows a whole heapin' bunch of sticks waiting off shore in case he uses his, he'll put the stick down and walk away. At that point, eveyone goes home and no one was obliterated. Don't you love my metaphorical expertise?
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario
[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 06-20-2006).]
Actually I don't view N. Korea as a bully at all. I view them as a potential advasary that when push comes to shove they will regret it. So they have a gun... We've got a few thousand so the fact that they have one or even a thousand is not a problem. Many of you fail to realize that Pakistan has nukes. That government is not the most stable of governments by far, yet I don't recall such sabre ratteling when they chose to build their nukes. Same with India though their government is a tad bit more stable. In fact India and Pakistan are not the best of friends either, even more reason to be concerned when they chose to build their nuclear capabilities.. yet the US never took such a hard line approach against it.
N. Korea aint squat. Twenty miles in any direction of the capital is jungle and villagers who could care less about anything the "modern world" is pooping themselves over and neither do I for that matter.
quote
Originally posted by whadeduck:
I just don't know think it's a good idea to wait for someone to use a nuclear warhead if the whole thing can somehow be prevented from happening at all. I do not cherrish the thought of thousands of people who have no say in the situation being instantly vaporized and countless other sufferring and dying from radiation poisoning because someone wanted to wait and see what happens. There's a bully with a big stick out there and he's trying to show the world that he's willing to use it. Maybe if someone comes along and shows a whole heapin' bunch of sticks waiting off shore in case he uses his, he'll put the stick down and walk away. At that point, eveyone goes home and no one was obliterated. Don't you love my metaphorical expertise?
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-20-2006).]
Let the two schoolyard bullies duke it out while you walk off with their girlfriends.
