NationStates Jolt Archive

N. Korea prepares for attack by U.S.

By Jeremy Kirk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

SEOUL — A manual approved by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il calls for his nation's citizens to hide in bunkers shielding portraits and statues of himself and other leaders if the United States attacks, according to Korean news reports.
The 33-page manual, dated April 7, 2004, and marked top secret after it came into the hands of the South Korean government, issues specific instructions for the mobilization of military and government officials in the event of hostilities.
In what amounts to a top priority in the manual, North Korean citizens are advised to move portraits of famous generals and "revolutionary historical material" underground and abide by a 10 p.m. curfew.
The manual was detailed in the Kyunghyang Shinmun, a Seoul newspaper, but the report did not indicate how the newspaper obtained the handbook. The newspaper ran a photograph of what it said were pages of the manual, which included Mr. Kim's name written in Korean along with his official stamp.
A South Korean intelligence official said last night that no information could be provided about the report or its veracity, although other news media reported that the National Intelligence Service obtained the manual in September.
The instructions say satellites and unmanned surveillance planes would be used to gather information. Missiles, it said, would be readied, but biochemical units would remain in defensive positions.
Other details include the operation of a military-run bank to house the "enemy's jewelry," such as stocks and currency, and use them for the party and the government, the manual read.
"The U.S. has fabricated the possibility of a nuclear threat and is trying to suffocate and cause us to collapse," according to the first chapter. "If it doesn't work, they may try to attack us using the excuse of the nuclear problem."
Weapons will be stored in underground bunkers or caves if military facilities aren't available, the instructions say. North Korea is thought to have an extensive network of underground tunnels and storage areas, including artillery pieces mounted on rail tracks that can slide out from mountain shelters.
The manual identified Mr. Kim as head of the country's Central Military Committee of the Workers' Party, a position he was long thought to have assumed after the death of his father, Kim Il-sung, in 1994.
A six-member U.S. congressional delegation will visit Pyongyang next week in an attempt to engage North Korea in further discussions over its nuclear program. Three rounds of six-nation talks have not resulted in an agreement, but North Korea indicated in November that it would resume discussions.
Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, will lead the bipartisan House delegation.
•Moon Hyun-joo contributed to this report.

See how easy it is for a government to establish an irrational view of an enemy? A government can do more to control its people with a piece of paper than it can with a gun.

I don't know any other country who might practice this sort of stuff. :rolleyes:

the pen is mightier than the sword, especially at close quaters

North Korea have always been prepared for an attack, they have the highest % of military population of all the countries in the world.

North Korea have always been prepared for an attack, they have the highest % of military population of all the countries in the world.

But America has the highest per capita spending.

But America has the highest per capita spending.

I suppose that the tsunami victims who are getting aid via US military planes, helicopters, and ships are quite happy about that.

While these things can also be used to other, more unhappy aims, they are merely implements - it's only people that do bad things.

"The U.S. has fabricated the possibility of a nuclear threat and is trying to suffocate and cause us to collapse," according to the first chapter. "If it doesn't work, they may try to attack us using the excuse of the nuclear problem."

As if the US would pretend a sovereign nation had weapons capable of enormous destruction in order to give it an excuse to invade? Oh. Disregard.

Big difference here.

Saddam always denied that he was trying to obtain WMD, or had ever possessed them, or still possessed them. Always a denial.

North Korea is quite vehement in their talk about having a nuclear reactor full of plutonium, and quite open about their plans to extract enriched uranium and plutonium. Open might not be quite the word. Brazen.

Brazen about firing missiles over Japan and making threats at the same time.

And they constantly assert their "need" for nuclear weapons to defend against the US.

Fine. Then we have constant political talk about their right to have nuclear weapons. We have seen their missiles fly over Japan while they make threats. We have seen (and so has the IAEA and UN) their nuclear reactor. We have seen the nuclear material go through extraction.

There was even a tour for reporters, where the North Koreans claimed that they already had a bomb.

Saddam never did anything that stupid. Make threats yes. Claim he had a bomb, and have a pile of plutonium that everyone has seen - No.

It's probably a safe bet that they have at least one. Of course, you would rather wait until they actually blow up a city in Japan before you believe it.

Big difference here.

Saddam always denied that he was trying to obtain WMD, or had ever possessed them, or still possessed them. Always a denial.

North Korea is quite vehement in their talk about having a nuclear reactor full of plutonium, and quite open about their plans to extract enriched uranium and plutonium. Open might not be quite the word. Brazen.

Brazen about firing missiles over Japan and making threats at the same time.

And they constantly assert their "need" for nuclear weapons to defend against the US.

Fine. Then we have constant political talk about their right to have nuclear weapons. We have seen their missiles fly over Japan while they make threats. We have seen (and so has the IAEA and UN) their nuclear reactor. We have seen the nuclear material go through extraction.

There was even a tour for reporters, where the North Koreans claimed that they already had a bomb.

Saddam never did anything that stupid. Make threats yes. Claim he had a bomb, and have a pile of plutonium that everyone has seen - No.

It's probably a safe bet that they have at least one. Of course, you would rather wait until they actually blow up a city in Japan before you believe it.


My point was actually more about taking a look at yourself before you start commenting on others, particularly if we're going to talk about people dropping nuclear weapons on Japanese cities. I think you get what I mean. But never mind.

I'm quite well aware of the ludicrous situation in Korea. Their head of state has been dead for 10 years, but they've still decided not to replace him. They have about 5% of their entire population in the army. Their economy is so badly screwed that they'd probably do better scrapping money altogether.

However, I think the thing most likely to get them to use their bomb is if the idiot President of the United States proclaims them to be on his hit list.

My God, this will be like Vietnam.
America went to war with Iraq because they had some information that they might have arms but they know that North Korea has nukes, if they do not go to war with N. Korea they are saying that they went to war with Iraq for no good reason.

Look, let's not get into another discussion of the Iraq war; we're not going to convince the other person of our way of thinking.
As for North Korea, it's like the other person said; they've always been prepared because they are a very militaristic society.

My God, this will be like Vietnam.
America went to war with Iraq because they had some information that they might have arms but they know that North Korea has nukes, if they do not go to war with N. Korea they are saying that they went to war with Iraq for no good reason.

Not completely sure I see the comparison there.

I don't understand why the US is making this so hard. The most important thing North Korea wants is the US to gaurantee they won't declare war. Why don't they just agree on conditions that North Korea disarms their program and won't instigate war in Asia?

It is clear that Colin Powell did not say the truth at the U.N. about "Iraq's nuclear weapons" and yet they still went to war.
The U.S. and the world knows that North Korea has a nuclear arsenal, it's a fact. So what I am saying is that if America does not go to war with North Korea they are basically saying that they did not go to war with Iraq for a good reason.

I don't understand why the US is making this so hard. The most important thing North Korea wants is the US to gaurantee they won't declare war. Why don't they just agree on conditions that North Korea disarms their program and won't instigate war in Asia?

If you ever get to read their demand, I suggest you do so.

They want the US to guarantee that we won't declare war - even if North Korea attacks South Korea or Japan.

I don't understand why the US is making this so hard. The most important thing North Korea wants is the US to gaurantee they won't declare war. Why don't they just agree on conditions that North Korea disarms their program and won't instigate war in Asia?

Because there's not a hope in hell of North Korea doing that. Clinton managed to talk them into halting their nuclear programme, and got them to stop selling cheap scuds to various middle-east dictatorships, and indeed even got them to speak to the outside world. Bush has managed to completely destroy that (somehow familiar). The moment the Afghan war started, N. Korea immediately announced it was re-starting it's nuke research. Sigh. Well done George. You've proven right-wing power-play doesn't work once again.

I still don't believe the US are stupid enough to attack a nation that can actually hit them back. Hence the invasion of Iraq, and the tough talk but no military action against N. Korea.

It is clear that Colin Powell did not say the truth at the U.N. about "Iraq's nuclear weapons" and yet they still went to war.
The U.S. and the world knows that North Korea has a nuclear arsenal, it's a fact. So what I am saying is that if America does not go to war with North Korea they are basically saying that they did not go to war with Iraq for a good reason.

Now I'm with you. I get the feeling that they don't really care anymore. They've more or less admitted it anyway, and given Bush's attitude to Osama bin Laden ("I have no idea where he is, and I don't much care. I don't really think about him any more"), I doubt his attention span will hold up.

My God, this will be like Vietnam.
America went to war with Iraq because they had some information that they might have arms but they know that North Korea has nukes, if they do not go to war with N. Korea they are saying that they went to war with Iraq for no good reason.
Actually tac nukes will probably be used if we ever try to take down NK. If they aren't the amount of SK civvies killed would end up being well above 1 mil.

Because there's not a hope in hell of North Korea doing that. Clinton managed to talk them into halting their nuclear programme, and got them to stop selling cheap scuds to various middle-east dictatorships
Actually the program started up again well before he left office, and I don't know about you, but I'm unwilling to be blackmailed by an asshole like dear old Kimmie.

Isn't the US working on new nuclear weapons that penetrate deep into earth and stone before detonating? Kind of like a bunker buster with on steroids. Maybe we're just waiting unill we perfect those before attacking.

With our technologies, a more "tactical" war with NK will be alot different than the one with Iraq.

Those are really small nukes. Not much use against military units, just against point targets.

The plan on what to do with NK was formulated during the Clinton Administration and practiced out of Seymour Johnson AFB. It involves nuking the daylights out of North Korea - wholesale.

One Pentagon official at the time joked about turning NK into a glass plain.

I don't imagine the plan has changed.

Actually the program started up again well before he left office, and I don't know about you, but I'm unwilling to be blackmailed by an asshole like dear old Kimmie.

No, it re-started in October 2002, when they re-started their one nuclear reactor capable of making weapons-grade uranium. They might of re-started the programe earlier, but it would be completely useless and a total waste of time and money without that reactor. This does not, of course, mean that Kim didn't. In fact, it means he probably did. But he didn't start making weapon-grade uranium again until Bush started fucking around. In fact, it was just after Bush had named them as part of the Axis of Evil that the US was going to destroy.

And Clinton wasn't blackmailed by Kim. Clinton managed to get Kim to talk to the rest of the world, rather than just to sit about doing shit all. Bush killed that. He's taken a Bull-in-a-china shop attitude to it that isn't a good idea with a country like North Korea. North Korea is totally insane, has nukes, and has nothing to loose. Also, their new Taepodong III missiles can reach San Francisco. Doesn't worry me, I'm in Britain. I'm safe. But Bush is going to get a lot of Californian killed.

Probably because they always vote Democrat.

But America has the highest per capita spending.
unless the us has managed to implant drivers in dollar bills and make them fight and die for their country, that doesnt matter that much

unless the us has managed to implant drivers in dollar bills and make them fight and die for their country, that doesnt matter that much
Untrue. A small well trained and well equipped force can massacre a large poorly trained and poorly equipped force. In fact, all through the cold war the US knew their military was outnumbered by the soviets, they developed technology and tactics to overcome that numerical disadvantage.

And Clinton wasn't blackmailed by Kim. Clinton managed to get Kim to talk to the rest of the world, rather than just to sit about doing shit all. Bush killed that. He's taken a Bull-in-a-china shop attitude to it that isn't a good idea with a country like North Korea. North Korea is totally insane, has nukes, and has nothing to loose. Also, their new Taepodong III missiles can reach San Francisco. Doesn't worry me, I'm in Britain. I'm safe. But Bush is going to get a lot of Californian killed.

Probably because they always vote Democrat.
Actually I sort of consider that if someone threatens the SK's with invasion if we don't keep giving them money, especially when they're one of the biggest counterfieters of american money in the world, to be extortion and blackmail. Actually thinking about it, it's not blackmail, just extortion.

Untrue. A small well trained and well equipped force can massacre a large poorly trained and poorly equipped force. In fact, all through the cold war the US knew their military was outnumbered by the soviets, they developed technology and tactics to overcome that numerical disadvantage.
still, the point is pure outputtage of money is irrelevant. it matters what its spent on.

Actually I sort of consider that if someone threatens the SK's with invasion if we don't keep giving them money, especially when they're one of the biggest counterfieters of american money in the world, to be extortion and blackmail. Actually thinking about it, it's not blackmail, just extortion.

Yes, but a slight slackening of their economic restrictions, which cause vast amounts of harm to the actual North Korean PEOPLE, in exchange for their government not rattling about like a small psychotic time bomb isn't extortion, really, is it? Since we were demanding they shut down one of the few reactors in their country, and so halving their energy production and forcing them to purchase it off the chinese at inflated prices, I think a slight flexiblity in trade restrictions was a good deal, and not extortion at all.

Hey, does anybody read North Korean newspapers? I used to (there was a great clearing-house site), but my office blocked access. Something about "axis of evil" and "company image."

Anyway, the headlines were always things like:

"New Computer Genius Training Center Opens Today"
or
"Imperialist Wardogs Commit New Travesty, Invent iPod Consumerist Trash"

Though occasionally there'd be an article about new cartoons to teach children about how a clever and thrifty communist chipmunk could survive a tough winter while the spendthrift capitalist coyote froze and starved.

It's kind of like Pravda, except someone did a search-and-switch of "American" and "Wardog" and also for "Korean" and "Genius," "Patriot," or "Princess."

Quite entertaining.

EDIT: Pravda. Ruskies, not fashion.

Yes, but a slight slackening of their economic restrictions, which cause vast amounts of harm to the actual North Korean PEOPLE, in exchange for their government not rattling about like a small psychotic time bomb isn't extortion, really, is it? Since we were demanding they shut down one of the few reactors in their country, and so halving their energy production and forcing them to purchase it off the chinese at inflated prices, I think a slight flexiblity in trade restrictions was a good deal, and not extortion at all.
Why did they build a breeder reactor that produces plutonium instead of a more peacefull type? It's a nuclear weapon. Shut it down.

BS there is way too much coal in that country for there to be an energy shortage. That and about 99.9% of the money we give them never gets anywhere near the civvie population. It goes to the government and to the military.

BS there is way too much coal in that country for there to be an energy shortage. That and about 99.9% of the money we give them never gets anywhere near the civvie population. It goes to the government and to the military.

Coal is raw material. Reactors are what process raw material. Coal does not provide energy without a coal power plant. It's really very simple. The Romans had tonnes of coal, but as they had no power plants they had no electricity. Understand?

And the Korean government used a lot of the money to buy power off China. Which is what it was for. Not a lot made it to the military, and all that did would have been going there anyway.


"Why did they build a breeder reactor that produces plutonium instead of a more peacefull type? It's a nuclear weapon. Shut it down."

They made it to make weapons. We didn't like it, so we asked them shut it down. They couldn't afford to buy or generate power without it. We made a bargin with them, so that they could afford it. It's reasonably fair.

Russia has breeder reactors. We haven't run in and shut them down. Ditto Pakistan and India, the two countries in the world perhaps most likely to lob nukes at each other. So, intriguingly, does the US, currently run by an out-of-control crackpot dictator who throws people into prison camps and detains them there without trial.

Coal is raw material. Reactors are what process raw material. Coal does not provide energy without a coal power plant. It's really very simple. The Romans had tonnes of coal, but as they had no power plants they had no electricity. Understand?

And the Korean government used a lot of the money to buy power off China. Which is what it was for. Not a lot made it to the military, and all that did would have been going there anyway.


"Why did they build a breeder reactor that produces plutonium instead of a more peacefull type? It's a nuclear weapon. Shut it down."

They made it to make weapons. We didn't like it, so we asked them shut it down. They couldn't afford to buy or generate power without it. We made a bargin with them, so that they could afford it. It's reasonably fair.

Russia has breeder reactors. We haven't run in and shut them down. Ditto Pakistan and India, the two countries in the world perhaps most likely to lob nukes at each other. So, intriguingly, does the US, currently run by an out-of-control crackpot dictator who throws people into prison camps and detains them there without trial.
Russia, India, and pakistan aren't run by one crazy little man. They are more stable. More worthy of trust that they won't nuke people on a whim. I have my doubts about pakistan though. Especially since they have sold nuclear secrets.

Russia, India, and pakistan aren't run by one crazy little man. They are more stable. More worthy of trust that they won't nuke people on a whim. I have my doubts about pakistan though. Especially since they have sold nuclear secrets.


Pakistan IS run by one crazy little man, who's also just declared that Pakistan 'isn't ready for democracy yet'. Hmm. Interestingly, when George Bush was asked what his name was, he could only reply "General". Several times. It's nice they have pet names for each other.

Glad you didn't include the US in your list of 'Safe' nations.

And don't get me wrong, something must be done about Korea. But NOT military action. They have absolutely no reason at all not to launch nukes if provoked. The answer is trying to talk them round, in the manner that has been working so well with China so far. Naming them as part of the Alliance of Darkness that must be destroyed by the US in the grace of God is not the best way to keep them from going kookoo.

Pakistan IS run by one crazy little man, who's also just declared that Pakistan 'isn't ready for democracy yet'. Hmm. Interestingly, when George Bush was asked what his name was, he could only reply "General". Several times. It's nice they have pet names for each other.

Glad you didn't include the US in your list of 'Safe' nations.

And don't get me wrong, something must be done about Korea. But NOT military action. They have absolutely no reason at all not to launch nukes if provoked. The answer is trying to talk them round, in the manner that has been working so well with China so far. Naming them as part of the Alliance of Darkness that must be destroyed by the US in the grace of God is not the best way to keep them from going kookoo.
Musharraf isn't crazy. The US can be trusted with nukes. N. Korea can be trusted to sell them or the technology behind them for hard currency. Osama bin laden has hard currency. I was against a war on Iraq. I am all for a war on N. Korea. So are most of my countrymen. Bush is not too bright.

Musharraf isn't crazy. The US can be trusted with nukes. N. Korea can be trusted to sell them or the technology behind them for hard currency. Osama bin laden has hard currency. I was against a war on Iraq. I am all for a war on N. Korea. So are most of my countrymen. Bush is not too bright.


Musharraf HATES India. He's also a military dictator. He has sold nuclear secrets and would probably be happy to sell the weapons. There is very little difference between him and Kim, other than the side he's on. And he has more to loose.

North Korea's nuclear arsenal consists of between one and three untested nuclear weapons. The would almost certainly like to keep them. Pakistan has no reason to.

The US has sold Nuclear weapon to both the British and the French. No country can be trusted with them. Some men can be. Bush is not one of them.

Osama bin Laden, if he was to use a nuclear weapon in the US, would simply steal one that was already there. Trying to smuggle one into a country is very hard. Why bother, when there's already so many in the country you're going to?

Attacking North Korea is a clumsy cack-handed method to deal with it, particularly the way Bush has handled it. He announced that they were in the Axis two years ago, and has done nothing with them since. It's hardly catching them off-guard, is it? He's threatened them, and then let them re-start their nuke programe and get another 2 years out of it. Nice work, George. Oh, and why hasn't he brough Osama to us yet? Why, in fact, did your president say he didn't think about him any more? And what the hell was he doing in Iraq, for no reason at all?

Musharraf HATES India. He's also a military dictator. He has sold nuclear secrets and would probably be happy to sell the weapons. There is very little difference between him and Kim, other than the side he's on. And he has more to loose.

North Korea's nuclear arsenal consists of between one and three untested nuclear weapons. The would almost certainly like to keep them. Pakistan has no reason to.

The US has sold Nuclear weapon to both the British and the French. No country can be trusted with them. Some men can be. Bush is not one of them.

Osama bin Laden, if he was to use a nuclear weapon in the US, would simply steal one that was already there. Trying to smuggle one into a country is very hard. Why bother, when there's already so many in the country you're going to?

Attacking North Korea is a clumsy cack-handed method to deal with it, particularly the way Bush has handled it. He announced that they were in the Axis two years ago, and has done nothing with them since. It's hardly catching them off-guard, is it? He's threatened them, and then let them re-start their nuke programe and get another 2 years out of it. Nice work, George. Oh, and why hasn't he brough Osama to us yet? Why, in fact, did your president say he didn't think about him any more? And what the hell was he doing in Iraq, for no reason at all?
Nuclear weapons in the US are very well guarded. It's easier to kill off the president, vice president and the congress all in one shot.

Nuclear weapons in the US are very well guarded. It's easier to kill off the president, vice president and the congress all in one shot.


Yes, I didn't imagine he'd nip into a corner shop and pinch one while the clerk's back was turned. Luckily, Osama and his followers are CIA trained. And, more importantly, why didn't Bush do the job properly and find him, rather than running off into Iraq?

Yes, I didn't imagine he'd nip into a corner shop and pinch one while the clerk's back was turned. Luckily, Osama and his followers are CIA trained. And, more importantly, why didn't Bush do the job properly and find him, rather than running off into Iraq?
No argument here. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning.

Russia, India, and pakistan aren't run by one crazy little man. They are more stable. More worthy of trust that they won't nuke people on a whim. I have my doubts about pakistan though. Especially since they have sold nuclear secrets.
india and pakistan wil lstart nuking each other at the drop of a hat and putin is a madman

india and pakistan wil lstart nuking each other at the drop of a hat and putin is a madman
No, putin is a wannabe dictator. Also India and Pakistan both know they have too much to lose in a nuclear war. India is starting to take it's place as a global power and Pakistan is starting to get a level of international respect and recognition it never had.

Yes, I didn't imagine he'd nip into a corner shop and pinch one while the clerk's back was turned. Luckily, Osama and his followers are CIA trained. And, more importantly, why didn't Bush do the job properly and find him, rather than running off into Iraq?

For the same reason that Bush ran off and in the first two years post-911, assassinated or captured 75 percent of the al-Q hierarchy.

As for CIA training, that's a laugh. We're not talking about characters in the Bourne Identity, now, are we?

North Korea have what some might call "Little Guy Syndrome"

Some of the most brazen, aggressive people in the world are short men (short compared to others around them).

They want attention. Their budget is drained by defense spending while the people starve -- and this is a Communist country, so it is the government's responsibility to feed its people.

I hope they're not stupid enough to try anything.

No, putin is a wannabe dictator. Also India and Pakistan both know they have too much to lose in a nuclear war. India is starting to take it's place as a global power and Pakistan is starting to get a level of international respect and recognition it never had.

Both of those reasons give India and Pakistan a good reason to nuke each other, really. Think about it.

Putin's safe enough, really. I wouldn't want to live under him, but he's not a maniac. He's ex-KGB, and firmly believes in State control, but he won't run about nuking people without being nuked first. Otherwise he would have got more serious when the US invadaed Iraq.

Both of those reasons give India and Pakistan a good reason to nuke each other, really. Think about it.

Putin's safe enough, really. I wouldn't want to live under him, but he's not a maniac. He's ex-KGB, and firmly believes in State control, but he won't run about nuking people without being nuked first. Otherwise he would have got more serious when the US invadaed Iraq.
No, countries that are moving up in the world have better things to do than nuke eachother. Like getting rich and dominating weaker countries.

I suppose that the tsunami victims who are getting aid via US military planes, helicopters, and ships are quite happy about that.

While these things can also be used to other, more unhappy aims, they are merely implements - it's only people that do bad things.

Fighter aircraft have a specific purpose. It is not designed to airlift civilians. Tomahawk missiles are pretty useless in providing disaster releif. Military hardware is designed for the battlefield.

The fact that it may have other uses is purely incidental to its major purpose. If you want to be realistic, compare the amount spent on the military with the amount spent on aid to the same tsunami victims, and a very different picture emerges.

How much is actually spent on acquiring and maintaining real weapons of mass destruction?

Who can really be happy about a high level of military spending? Apart from the corporations involved?

For the same reason that Bush ran off and in the first two years post-911, assassinated or captured 75 percent of the al-Q hierarchy.

And Iraq featured in this where? And Osama ceased being public enemy no.1 when? And your terror alert remains constantly at 'elevated' (as if that really means anything other than your government is a bunch of scaremongers) WHY?

As for CIA training, that's a laugh. We're not talking about characters in the Bourne Identity, now, are we?

No, because those people are fictional. We're talking about the training that allowed a bunch of backward Islamic fundamentalists armed with third-hand AK-47s to drive off a superpower in '76. That kind of training can't be that bad.

Fighter aircraft have a specific purpose. It is not designed to airlift civilians. Tomahawk missiles are pretty useless in providing disaster releif. Military hardware is designed for the battlefield.

The fact that it may have other uses is purely incidental to its major purpose. If you want to be realistic, compare the amount spent on the military with the amount spent on aid to the same tsunami victims, and a very different picture emerges.

How much is actually spent on acquiring and maintaining real weapons of mass destruction?

Who can really be happy about a high level of military spending? Apart from the corporations involved?
I like the fact that my country outspends every other country's military. As long as we get a good bang for our buck it means we have little to fear from enemies. They can commit a terrorist act here and there, but they can't bring down our nation.

If North Korea were ever to attack South Korea or Japan, North Korea would cease to exist.

This is just a floater, but... what does China think of North Korea?

And Iraq featured in this where? And Osama ceased being public enemy no.1 when? And your terror alert remains constantly at 'elevated' (as if that really means anything other than your government is a bunch of scaremongers) WHY?



No, because those people are fictional. We're talking about the training that allowed a bunch of backward Islamic fundamentalists armed with third-hand AK-47s to drive off a superpower in '76. That kind of training can't be that bad.
It's not that hard for a guerilla force supported by the local population to slowly bleed a superpower. It happened over and over again in history. American revolution, Vietnam, It doesn't take much special training. You learn on the job. Those who learn quickly survive the idiots die. Soon you end up with a pretty strong guerilla army.

No, countries that are moving up in the world have better things to do than nuke eachother. Like getting rich and dominating weaker countries.

I actually agree with you in India's case, but Pakistan? I dunno. A third of the country is still ruled by tribal warlords, it produces about 20% of the world's opium and 8% of the world's hashish, and I think you seriously underestimate Musharraf. He's not a good dude. He's a damn loon. And if India is becoming a major power? On his doorstep? While he can only rely on about half his country, since the rest are too busy growing, smuggling and using drugs? He'd REALLY hate that. He wouldn't use them yet. But he might well use them still.

India prides itself on being independent.

Were Pakistan to nuke them, would India close its doors to outside help and fight Pakistan straight-up?

And Iraq featured in this where? And Osama ceased being public enemy no.1 when? And your terror alert remains constantly at 'elevated' (as if that really means anything other than your government is a bunch of scaremongers) WHY?


I'm sure we'll never know the real reason for the war in Iraq. I think it was interesting to hear today that on al-Jazeera, a terrorist group announced that it had brought 30,000 foreign fighters to Iraq.

Now, if you ask me, turning a remote location into a very attractive place for insurgents to show up, and then offing them after they arrive, is a very good idea. But I'm just guessing.

I suppose that you have access to the ultimately true intelligence about whether or not any terrorists are planning any activities at all in the US, so you'll be glad to declare the whole thing safe. Please show us the evidence, and we'll be glad to stop looking.

Why? Because if 911 happens again, it will be politically untenable for the party in power (whether that would be Republican or Democrat would make no difference). Because extremely bad things would happen here afterwards that would make the Patriot Act look like the Magna Carta. Because the US would then go on a rampage that makes the Iraq War look like a Red Cross visit.

No, because those people are fictional. We're talking about the training that allowed a bunch of backward Islamic fundamentalists armed with third-hand AK-47s to drive off a superpower in '76. That kind of training can't be that bad.

It helps if the people who invaded Afghanistan really didn't want to be there (troop morale was shot before they even arrived). It helps that the insurgents didn't care if they lived or died.

The training they received was less than the typical infantryman would receive in the US.

For most of the insurgents who liberated Afghanistan from the Soviets, it was a fatal experience.

It's not that hard for a guerilla force supported by the local population to slowly bleed a superpower. It happened over and over again in history. American revolution, Vietnam, It doesn't take much special training. You learn on the job. Those who learn quickly survive the idiots die. Soon you end up with a pretty strong guerilla army.


Your Guerillas CAN win, it's true; I didn't dispute that. It's actually half my point. Superpowers train these guerillas to fight, and since they've beaten superpowers in the past, what's to stop them doing it again? The Veit Cong recieved training and aid from China. The Koreans got it from Russia and China. The colonials in the US revolution got it from the French; in fact, you got a load of troops as well (it wasn't the colonial troops that won it, really, it was the intervention of another Great power). And the Afghans got it from the US. Isn't it deliciously ironic the use it to such effect?

Since the guerillas are so effective (and they are. Four hijackings and 3,000 deaths prove that), they don't fanny about trying to smuggle nukes, they'll plot a clever means of pinching them.

Your Guerillas CAN win, it's true; I didn't dispute that. It's actually half my point. Superpowers train these guerillas to fight, and since they've beaten superpowers in the past, what's to stop them doing it again? The Veit Cong recieved training and aid from China. The Koreans got it from Russia and China. The colonials in the US revolution got it from the French; in fact, you got a load of troops as well (it wasn't the colonial troops that won it, really, it was the intervention of another Great power). And the Afghans got it from the US. Isn't it deliciously ironic the use it to such effect?

Since the guerillas are so effective (and they are. Four hijackings and 3,000 deaths prove that), they don't fanny about trying to smuggle nukes, they'll plot a clever means of pinching them.

The problem with guerillas is one of logistics. Read your Mao.

Only about 1/3 of Iraq (the Sunni Triangle) is a place where the fish can swim. Other places are very probably a fatal place for a guerilla (especially the Kurdish areas).

Next, the victorious guerillas in these cases received a great deal of logistical support from outside sources.

I suppose if the French supplied the former Iraqi regime, we shouldn't be surprised if they would like to fund the Sunni insurgents and their foreign friends.

Your Guerillas CAN win, it's true; I didn't dispute that. It's actually half my point. Superpowers train these guerillas to fight, and since they've beaten superpowers in the past, what's to stop them doing it again? The Veit Cong recieved training and aid from China. The Koreans got it from Russia and China. The colonials in the US revolution got it from the French; in fact, you got a load of troops as well (it wasn't the colonial troops that won it, really, it was the intervention of another Great power). And the Afghans got it from the US. Isn't it deliciously ironic the use it to such effect?

Since the guerillas are so effective (and they are. Four hijackings and 3,000 deaths prove that), they don't fanny about trying to smuggle nukes, they'll plot a clever means of pinching them.
I thought the VC got aid from Russia. I wasn't aware the Vietnamese and Chinese liked each other.

It helps if the people who invaded Afghanistan really didn't want to be there (troop morale was shot before they even arrived). It helps that the insurgents didn't care if they lived or died.

The training they received was less than the typical infantryman would receive in the US.

For most of the insurgents who liberated Afghanistan from the Soviets, it was a fatal experience.

Yes, but the Soviets were in hostile territory and at least expected to be attacked. The typical infantryman gaurding a missle silo on US turf isn't expecting anyone to show up at all, and isn't going to shoot on sight most of the time anyway.

And it's the same damned insurgents that don't care if the live or die in our little scenario. You underestimate your enemies, just like your government. That's why you're still stuck in Iraq, and why you'll not win there ever.

Yes, but the Soviets were in hostile territory and at least expected to be attacked. The typical infantryman gaurding a missle silo on US turf isn't expecting anyone to show up at all, and isn't going to shoot on sight most of the time anyway.

And it's the same damned insurgents that don't care if the live or die in our little scenario. You underestimate your enemies, just like your government. That's why you're still stuck in Iraq, and why you'll not win there ever.
Yeah, but if someone shoots him they still have to make their way accross a large military base that's now on alert to shoot them on sight, find where the nukes are stored, break in, and leave the base, once again without being shot.

The problem with guerillas is one of logistics. Read your Mao.

Only about 1/3 of Iraq (the Sunni Triangle) is a place where the fish can swim. Other places are very probably a fatal place for a guerilla (especially the Kurdish areas).

Next, the victorious guerillas in these cases received a great deal of logistical support from outside sources.

I suppose if the French supplied the former Iraqi regime, we shouldn't be surprised if they would like to fund the Sunni insurgents and their foreign friends.

I think you'll find your own government has given the most aid to terrorists over the years, mate. You're the ones who topple democracies to put anti-commie dictators in power.

And your government funded Saddam for quite a while too. right up 'til 88, if you remember reading your contras. You even supplied him the gas he used on the Kurds.


Oh, and Veitnam and China don't like each other. But better the devil who follows your ideology, ca va?

Yes, but the Soviets were in hostile territory and at least expected to be attacked. The typical infantryman gaurding a missle silo on US turf isn't expecting anyone to show up at all, and isn't going to shoot on sight most of the time anyway.

And it's the same damned insurgents that don't care if the live or die in our little scenario. You underestimate your enemies, just like your government. That's why you're still stuck in Iraq, and why you'll not win there ever.

A missile silo is what the military terms "an exclusion area" or in more common parlance, "the X area".

Rules of engagement in the X area (I guarded an X area in Germany in the late 1980s).

Shoot any non-US military personnel on sight without warning. Shoot to kill.

Shoot any single person (i.e., someone violating the two-man rule) on sight without warning. Shoot to kill.

Shoot anyone who gives an illegal order concerning any material in the X area without warning. Shoot to kill.

Shoot anyone who is not authorized to be in the X area, even if they are accompanied. Shoot without warning, and shoot to kill.

The Air Force rules are the same, since these are handed down from the National Command Authority, and not the service in particular.

A missile silo is what the military terms "an exclusion area" or in more common parlance, "the X area".

Rules of engagement in the X area (I guarded an X area in Germany in the late 1980s).

Hate to butt into the quote here, but wasn't that the point in the cold war where you guys were successfully killing one of your own troops every month? That's very impressive considering the enemy weren't even firing at you.

Shoot any non-US military personnel on sight without warning. Shoot to kill.

Shoot any single person (i.e., someone violating the two-man rule) on sight without warning. Shoot to kill.

Shoot anyone who gives an illegal order concerning any material in the X area without warning. Shoot to kill.

Shoot anyone who is not authorized to be in the X area, even if they are accompanied. Shoot without warning, and shoot to kill.

The Air Force rules are the same, since these are handed down from the National Command Authority, and not the service in particular.

So you'll guarantee, right now, that all US bases are completely impervious to any form of attack? Do you guys EVER LEARN?

I'll admit right now that I'm not an international terrorist. I didn't see the whole idea of flying jumbo jets into buildings coming at all (shame I'm not the only one, really...). You're facing an enemy you can't see, who you can't fight properly, and who your government can't even understand yet. You keep trying to take terrorists on in nation-to-nation warfare. It doesn't work like that. There were probably more Al-Q'aeda cells in the UK and US than there were in Afghanistan. They all operate almost completely autonomously. And they are extremely inventive, and have been trained by your own people for exactly the kind of fight you're giving them. A missile silo in the middle of Utah is not not as likely to be expecting infiltrators as one in a hotspot. It's that simple.

Besides, I reckon bin Laden'd go for something more original than a nuke anyway. That's what he does. He likes suprises.

Hate to butt into the quote here, but wasn't that the point in the cold war where you guys were successfully killing one of your own troops every month? That's very impressive considering the enemy weren't even firing at you.


US troops deaths are, and have been, at several hundred per year - in accidents. A few shooting accidents (usually at the range - which happens at the same rate with police and civilians at ranges). And a lot of vehicle accidents.

Living, just living, entails risk of dying. During the Cold War, you're saying that 1 death per month out of 3.5 million troops is an excessive number?


So you'll guarantee, right now, that all US bases are completely impervious to any form of attack? Do you guys EVER LEARN?



Well, let's see. We constantly had Special Forces try to infiltrate - and that was with us with live ammunition and not having any warning that they were coming. They never got in.

Long before you get to where the human guards are, you have to get *in*.

That's not easy. For a silo, it's even more difficult than it was in Germany.

Assuming that you get into the area where the silo is located in, you're going to be detected by multiple automated systems that do not rely on humans to watch them.

Then you have to get down into the silo.

Even if you get down in there, you can't fire a missile, even if you have the physical keys.

You'll need the two PAL codes - which you won't have and the system does not allow you to guess.

Without those PAL codes, the warhead is essentially useless.

Additionally, if you plan on dismantling the warhead, and you don't know the exact design plan, they are salvage-fused to blow non-nuclear. Your team will be killed and a bit of plutonium will be spread around the silo area, but that's it.

The people who design these systems have designed an incredible number of layers, and assume that the people involved in the steps WILL make mistakes. These systems were designed in a time of even greater paranoia than we have today.

US troops deaths are, and have been, at several hundred per year - in accidents. A few shooting accidents (usually at the range - which happens at the same rate with police and civilians at ranges). And a lot of vehicle accidents.

Well, that makes me feel safer already. Good to know the guys protecting the world are capping themselves, mostly because they're incapable of driving without murdering each other in the process. This is probably why you had to appoint yourselves world police, since no-opne else wanted to.

Well, let's see. We constantly had Special Forces try to infiltrate - and that was with us with live ammunition and not having any warning that they were coming. They never got in.

How many of them did you shoot dead without warning? And how much did this contribute to the above friendly murder figures?

Long before you get to where the human guards are, you have to get *in*.

That's not easy. For a silo, it's even more difficult than it was in Germany.

Assuming that you get into the area where the silo is located in, you're going to be detected by multiple automated systems that do not rely on humans to watch them.

Then you have to get down into the silo.

Even if you get down in there, you can't fire a missile, even if you have the physical keys.

You'll need the two PAL codes - which you won't have and the system does not allow you to guess.

Without those PAL codes, the warhead is essentially useless.

Additionally, if you plan on dismantling the warhead, and you don't know the exact design plan, they are salvage-fused to blow non-nuclear. Your team will be killed and a bit of plutonium will be spread around the silo area, but that's it.

The people who design these systems have designed an incredible number of layers, and assume that the people involved in the steps WILL make mistakes. These systems were designed in a time of even greater paranoia than we have today.

Yep. But I'll bet it can still be done, though. it'd be a lot more likely that terrorists would do it (or at least try to do it)that way, rather than buying an untested bomb from a crackpot government that isn't likely to be selling one anyway, and then trying to find some means of deploying aforementioned bomb (it's not going to come with a missle attached, after all, and they probably don't have a launcher hidden in that vast non-existent cave complex), and THEN they have to get it into the states past the much-vaunted Star Wars system, extreme border controls, general distrust, etc. etc. I doubt they'd succeed, but I think they'd try stealing one from you sooner than they'd try buying one from the Koreans. Which is the root of the argument anyway.

Hate to butt into the quote here, but wasn't that the point in the cold war where you guys were successfully killing one of your own troops every month? That's very impressive considering the enemy weren't even firing at you.
What HAVE you been drinking? If you're going to make outlandish statements like this, don't you think you should make at least a GESTURE in the direction of SOME sort of source? Hmmm? :rolleyes:

Probably easier to steal a Russian warhead. But they use PAL systems as well.

I would be interested to know why you believe that a PAL system can be bypassed.

Outside of the factory, with no knowledge of how the internals work, you can't open the warhead to play with the wires within. If you do, you'll die instantly.

So, you get to tell the missile computer the answer to two PAL codes. Which means that you have to run the launch program up to that point - which requires a lot of specialized information. It's called beginning a count. When you begin a count, the other silos are notified. The count can take 20 to 40 minutes. So you've taken the silo - and for some reason, no one is ever checking that things are ok - for some stupid reason, there is no constant communication with the crew of the silo. People who know each other. And if you cut off the communication, an alarm will go off in the other silos.

And you're going to have to guess two six-digit numbers.

If you guess the wrong two numbers, it's not going to tell you. The only indication you'll get is that nothing happens.

When you try that, and you get it wrong, the other silos are notified.

You get to try two more times - if the silo that controls your silo gives permission. After the third wrong guess, the system is locked out and has to be reset at the factory.

Yeah, easy as pie. Easy easy.

Hmm. And to get to the silo area aboveground, you have to bypass sensors that have never been bypassed in history.

And then you have to get the upper hatch open.

And then you have to get the elevator to work - provided you have the key and the code.

And then you have to get the people inside to believe you're the real thing - or you're going to have to burn through a two meter thick reinforced steel door.

Oh, yeah, any CIA trained terrorist could do it...

Fair enough. No-one could ever steal anything from a US base.

Remind me again, how many tonnes of explosives was it that they stole from that secure lockup in Iraq? :)

Fair enough. No-one could ever steal anything from a US base.

Remind me again, how many tonnes of explosives was it that they stole from that secure lockup in Iraq? :)
Way to change your argument in midstream. We were discussing whether someone could steal a nuclear weapon from the US military. Not conventional explosives.

And Iraq featured in this where? And Osama ceased being public enemy no.1 when? And your terror alert remains constantly at 'elevated' (as if that really means anything other than your government is a bunch of scaremongers) WHY?
Since you would whine about imperialism and empire if we went looking for him with our armies it's purely an intelligence op at this point. Therefore for Bush to draw attention to exactly what is being done is just dumbfuck stupid.

Remind me again, how many tonnes of explosives was it that they stole from that secure lockup in Iraq? :)
You need to keep up with things. Given the sat. imagery of that area pre invasion, it's almost certain it was taken away by Saddam.

I'm just illustrating a point with it. Overconfidence is always the biggest weakness, and it doesn't matter what the target was. The argument did start out as being that I don't think Osama would buy nukes off North Korea, after all, and we did kinda hijack the thread to start talking about stealing US WMDs (and has anyone noticed that when we refer to them and they belong to Britain, or the US, or France, or anyone on the 'goodies' side, they aren't refered to as WMD? Just out of interest.) I also wasn't being entirely serious, as the smiley might show.

I never said it would be easy to steal one, but I did say it wouldn't be impossible and I still don't think it is. There'll be a way, but it'll involve lateral thinking rather than running around with blow torches. And I also still think terrorists will continue to use weapons that aren't ACTUALLY weapons. It's the best way. Getting a nuke into the US will be hard regardless of how it's done, and will be a lot easier to hunt down than a bunch of guys with a clever plan, but they'd rather just find a way to do similar damage with something that's completely legal. That was the point of 9/11. Osama pulled off an air raid without needing to own an airforce, or even a damned runway. So why would he buy a nuke from Korea?

Since you would whine about imperialism and empire if we went looking for him with our armies it's purely an intelligence op at this point. Therefore for Bush to draw attention to exactly what is being done is just dumbfuck stupid.

No, I whine about imperialism when you attack countries that had nothing to do with it. I've never been against the Afghan war. I thought it was entirely justified, and the Taliban were a bunch of shits.

The one in Iraq, on the other hand, was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, never harboured Al-Qaeda, and the attack was carried out before Bush had finished the job he was meant to be doing. That one was imperialism.

You need to keep up with things. Given the sat. imagery of that area pre invasion, it's almost certain it was taken away by Saddam.


That's very interesting, since there were explosives in the bunker on April 18 when the 101st Airborne visited. Pearson, the man who claims it was all gone, also claimed he took out all the explosives and destroyed them on April 13. So someone's lying, and since the 101st had a camera crew with them who turned up video evidence of the explosives, it's not them.

The area was then left alone until May 8th, when it was thoroughly searched and found to be empty. So I don't think it was Saddam after all.

The US has sold Nuclear weapon to both the British and the French. No country can be trusted with them. Some men can be. Bush is not one of them.
As far as I know the French developed theor own nukes. Unlike the British who abandoned their nuclear program in favor of US polaris missiles.

That's very interesting, since there were explosives in the bunker on April 18 when the 101st Airborne visited. Pearson, the man who claims it was all gone, also claimed he took out all the explosives and destroyed them on April 13. So someone's lying, and since the 101st had a camera crew with them who turned up video evidence of the explosives, it's not them.
Ah, yes, your video evidence. Cept for one small problem, there was 380 tons of the stuff. Not nearly enough barrels in you video evidence for 380 tons. That and if I remember correctly the designation on the warning labels of the supposed barrrels was for somehting else entirely, I'll have to find the article.


Found it. http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004107.php

Heey, this one's good too. http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004108.php

But America has the highest per capita spending.
that's israel.


it was a question on jeopardy the other day.