NationStates Jolt Archive

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/08/international/i044221D19.DTL

Now there are eight AEGIS cruisers equipped with the SM-3 anti-ballistic missile system in Japan.

Considering that each carries up to 80 missiles in vertical launch cells, and can ripple fire them one every half-second under completely automated battle management by the computer (faster than any human can plan and react), and has demonstrated its ability to shoot down ballistic missile in mid-course as well as last-second intercepts of warheads coming down, I don't think that a better response to North Korean missile antics could be had.

Sure, they can fire missiles. And we can practice shooting them down.

No harm, no foul. Sure beats fighting a land war in Asia.

Nothing spells sanity like escalation.

I do love a good dick waving contest.

... <.< >.>

So...

We're going to start shooting down their test missiles?

... <.< >.>

So...

We're going to start shooting down their test missiles?

And the harm in that is?

And the harm in that is?

Be interesting if someone had done that to us.

I do love a good dick waving contest.

Who has the tape measure?

And the harm in that is?

Oh, I didn't say there was any harm in it. I just wanted to know if they were there to shoot down test missiles, or in case a non-test missile was launched.

I certainly don't get that "America, FUCK YEAH!" feeling from it and the whole thing really just saddens me, but really, what more could really be expected? It seems natural enough to not even really be news worthy, except maybe for military fetishists to stroke themselves to. Its bullshit posturing in response to bullshit posturing, but more or less a natural move.

Be interesting if someone had done that to us.
No one has the capability. Go figure.

I do love a good dick waving contest.

LOL are you gay or summat. Bet you love ass shaking and all.

LOL are you gay or summat. Bet you love ass shaking and all.

Perhaps you should look up what the euphemism "dick waving contest" means and then get back to me.

No one has the capability. Go figure.

Incidental.

No one has the capability. Go figure.

Try & picture if they did though. What would the reaction be?

Perhaps you should look up what the euphemism "dick waving contest" means and then get back to me.

Yes I know I took what you said out of context. It was crude but funny to do so.

Nothing spells sanity like escalation.
:) It's a party, and we're all invited.

Yes I know I took what you said out of context. It was crude but funny to do so.

Sorry, I'm out of coffee. Dumb it down for me until about noonish.

Try & picture if they did though. What would the reaction be?

Other than getting upset, I can't see much happenning if someone did.

The difference here is that the US would probably know it was intercepted.

The North Koreans probably don't know what happens to their missiles once they head downrange, especially if the telemetry is jammed (which is likely, since it makes their development program incredible difficult).

If we don't say we shot it down, there isn't any proof. We could just say, "your missile blew up 45 seconds downrange... I wonder why..."

Be interesting if someone had done that to us.


The moral equivalence you draw between N. Korea and the United States is very telling.

LOL are you gay or summat. Bet you love ass shaking and all.

I'll have you know Keruvalia does indeed like ass shaking and dick along with vagina. The latter is his only negative, but one easily lived with.

The moral equivalence you draw between N. Korea and the United States is very telling.

There are people who believe that North Korea is morally superior in every way to every other country on Earth. You missed some posts by Conscience & Truth yesterday.

Pretty ridiculous stuff.

There are people who believe that North Korea is morally superior in every way to every other country on Earth. You missed some posts by Conscience & Truth yesterday.

Pretty ridiculous stuff.

Just as there are people who think that the US is morally superior to every other country on earth. The US isn't in a very good place right now to be claiming the moral high ground on anything.

:) It's a party, and we're all invited.

You can't spell slaughter, without laughter.

Seriously, you can't. What's up with that?

There are people who believe that North Korea is morally superior in every way to every other country on Earth. You missed some posts by Conscience & Truth yesterday.

Pretty ridiculous stuff.


Yeah I know, most of them think Castro and Chavez ar benevolent, Stalin was a kindly old man and Pol Pot was misunderstood also.

Yeah I know, most of them think Castro and Chavez ar benevolent, Stalin was a kindly old man and Pol Pot was misunderstood also.

Wonder why they don't like Hitler then.

Just as there are people who think that the US is morally superior to every other country on earth. The US isn't in a very good place right now to be claiming the moral high ground on anything.


Bulshit. The lies the left has perpetrated have no bearing on whether or not we are justified in claiming the moral high ground. To make any comparison to a dictator that has enslaved an entire country is pure, unadulterated lunacy.

Wonder why they don't like Hitler then.

A lot of them did, until he attacked "uncle joe".

Their decision pretty much came down to: Gee Hitler allowed SOME private control of business, and Stalin absolutley forbade it - "lets go with Stalin."

Sorry, I'm out of coffee. Dumb it down for me until about noonish.


But......but.......its past noon where I am.

You don't know what it means to take a piece of writing/phrase/word out of context?

I still don't know why the USA hasn't simply threatened to turn that shithole into nuclear wasteland if the Norkies don't sit down, STFU, and destroy their missile production facilities under inspections by US, Japanese and South Korean troops. What's the point of maintaining a giant nuclear arsenal if you aren't going to use it? Sheesh.

I've been away from all civilized life for a week. What is all this shit about N. Korea?

I still don't know why the USA hasn't simply threatened to turn that shithole into nuclear wasteland if the Norkies don't sit down, STFU, and destroy their missile production facilities under inspections by US, Japanese and South Korean troops. What's the point of maintaining a giant nuclear arsenal if you aren't going to use it? Sheesh.


You're being sarcastic right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Bulshit. The lies the left has perpetrated have no bearing on whether or not we are justified in claiming the moral high ground. To make any comparison to a dictator that has enslaved an entire country is pure, unadulterated lunacy.

I made no comparison between North Korea and the US in terms of the extent of their human rights violations, I simply pointed out that the US is on dubious ground at the moment. You saw the shoe and decided it fit ;)

You're being sarcastic right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Bad Idea #1 - never assume someone is sarcastic if it's an idea you don't like.

People following this rule spend a lot of time flaming on NS.

I made no comparison between North Korea and the US in terms of the extent of their human rights violations, I simply pointed out that the US is on dubious ground at the moment. You saw the shoe and decided it fit ;)

You knew the topic was about N. Korea, so you did indeed draw the comparison.

Regardless of that, your insinuation that we are on dubious grounds is an insult to intelligent and informed people everywhere.

I've been away from all civilized life for a week. What is all this shit about N. Korea?


Ignore it man. Its just Kim-Jong-Il flexing his muscles to scare GWB at the expense of his own starving millions.

The moral equivalence you draw between N. Korea and the United States is very telling.

I've been a lot of places. People are people no matter where you go. Has nothing to do with morality, just human nature.

Ignore it man. Its just Kim-Jong-Il flexing his muscles to scare GWB at the expense of his own starving millions.
I would but I'm in the Army. So it's playing with my life.

You knew the topic was about N. Korea, so you did indeed draw the comparison.

Regardless of that, your insinuation that we are on dubious grounds is an insult to intelligent and informed people everywhere.

Do you read the news or just sail through life in an inpenetrable bubble formed by your sense of monumental self worth?

Bad Idea #1 - never assume someone is sarcastic if it's an idea you don't like.

People following this rule spend a lot of time flaming on NS.


I will try to keep to that rule in future, but when someone says something as drastic as what Tyrandis just said, it is a bit disconcerting. The US hasn't really got anything to gain by threatening to use its Nuclear arsenal on DPRK. Well please let me know if the benefits do outweigh the costs...........

You knew the topic was about N. Korea, so you did indeed draw the comparison.

Regardless of that, your insinuation that we are on dubious grounds is an insult to intelligent and informed people everywhere.
Seems to me you're just insulting intelligent people. ;)

Do you read the news or just sail through life in an inpenetrable bubble formed by your sense of monumental self worth?

Yes I read the news, THEN I look to the documents/reports/studies/interviews/etc. that the news "covers", and I find out that they cover stuff all right. What they "report" bears little resemblance to the facts of the case.

Yes I read the news, THEN I look to the documents/reports/studies/interviews/etc. that the news "covers", and I find out that they cover stuff all right. What they "report" bears little resemblance to the facts of the case.


Maybe you should do it the other way around, look at the documents etc...... then look at the news. Thataway the news will not jade your interpretation of the facts in any way. BTW, where/how do you get access to all these documents/reports.....................?

Yes I read the news, THEN I look to the documents/reports/studies/interviews/etc. that the news "covers", and I find out that they cover stuff all right. What they "report" bears little resemblance to the facts of the case.

Ahhh, so a war started over the death of 3500 people which has to date claimed well over 10 times that number of civilians in other countries is just media spin? Or do they just not matter because they're only darkies and sand-niggers?

How about the illegal detention of those people at Gitmo? Was SCOTUS being horribly left wing when it told dear Georgie that he was being very naughty with his decisions over that?

I would but I'm in the Army. So it's playing with my life.


I don't think the US will take any military action against DPRK - too much to lose finacially and politically.

Are you stationed in SK, near the DMZ? If not then thats even less reason to worried about your life being "played with". Hell are you even US military?

Maybe you should do it the other way around, look at the documents etc...... then look at the news. Thataway the news will not jade your interpretation of the facts in any way. BTW, where/how do you get access to all these documents/reports.....................?

Depends on the subject. In economics stuff, I have them directly sent to my office. On other topics, The UN, the net etc. Lots of sources.

Of course we're moving cruisers into the region. Imagine the outcry if the DPRK hurls a live round downfield at Japan, and we didn't interdict. (Hehe, I said dict.) Japan depends on us for security, and we are morally and legally obligated to uphold that treaty. If they were struck by a live missile (even conventional), and we did not even attempt to stop it, what would that say about our defense treaties?

No, there is not a single outcome other than movement of forces. Hell, expect some Patriots to show up in Japan as well.

If you've studied International Relations at all, there is only one response the US could be expected to follow in this situation, and that is intensification of response to protect allies and interests in the region. This entire situation is in DPRK's court, not the US's, as the US really has no choices other than "follow treaties with vital allies/don't follow said treaties with vital allies" (read: allies = Japan, far more than S. Korea, which is more soft-line on N. Korea).

(On this note, N. Korea's strategy is the most backassward approach to getting anything done. They're acting like a Great Power under the Nationstate (no, not this game, the theory) System, but they're a third rate. Shifting to Change of Power Theory: As their diplomacy is constantly trying to threaten the Hegemon (US) into compliance, the only outcome is escalation. Any US compliance is surrender, and the Hegemon's main role is stability and force in the System, so the DPRK is putting themselves (and everyone else) in a bad situation, and hoping the US is worried about sliding down the scale too much to act.)

I've got a buddy in Air Defense Artillery. Guess where he's going? S. Korea. Got another buddy doing maintenance on A-10s. Guess where he's going? Yep, S. Korea. Not fun.

I don't think the US will take any military action against DPRK - too much to lose finacially and politically.

Are you stationed in SK, near the DMZ? If not then thats even less reason to worried about your life being "played with". Hell are you even US military?
Yes, I am a United States Army Infantryman. It's just another place to send me. I've already seen Iraq. I wouldn't mind going, hell, I volunteered for Iraq. Just was curious.

Ahhh, so a war started over the death of 3500 people which has to date claimed well over 10 times that number of civilians in other countries is just media spin? Or do they just not matter because they're only darkies and sand-niggers?
How the heck can you expect anyone to rationally respond to this? Just asking. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, I used the infernal rolleyes at you. PH3AR!

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/08/international/i044221D19.DTL

Now there are eight AEGIS cruisers equipped with the SM-3 anti-ballistic missile system in Japan.

Considering that each carries up to 80 missiles in vertical launch cells, and can ripple fire them one every half-second under completely automated battle management by the computer (faster than any human can plan and react), and has demonstrated its ability to shoot down ballistic missile in mid-course as well as last-second intercepts of warheads coming down, I don't think that a better response to North Korean missile antics could be had.

Sure, they can fire missiles. And we can practice shooting them down.

No harm, no foul. Sure beats fighting a land war in Asia.
I agree. The military advised against a land war in Asia back before Vietnam. The politicians ignored them. We all know what the results were. :(

Nothing spells sanity like escalation.
It would be escalation if...

a.) This was a change from the normal US force deploment in the region. The arrival of the new ship has been scheduled for ages.

and

b.) If the weapons systems being deployed were offensive in nature, as opposed to the fact that the AEGIS system is a defensive measure, it should make no difference to the NKs.

<snip> Not fun.
Most salient point.

Of course we're moving cruisers into the region. Imagine the outcry if the DPRK hurls a live round downfield at Japan, and we didn't interdict. (Hehe, I said dict.) Japan depends on us for security, and we are morally and legally obligated to uphold that treaty. If they were struck by a live missile (even conventional), and we did not even attempt to stop it, what would that say about our defense treaties?

No, there is not a single outcome other than movement of forces. Hell, expect some Patriots to show up in Japan as well.

If you've studied International Relations at all, there is only one response the US could be expected to follow in this situation, and that is intensification of response to protect allies and interests in the region. This entire situation is in DPRK's court, not the US's, as the US really has no choices other than "follow treaties with vital allies/don't follow said treaties with vital allies" (read: allies = Japan, far more than S. Korea, which is more soft-line on N. Korea).

(On this note, N. Korea's strategy is the most backassward approach to getting anything done. They're acting like a Great Power under the Nationstate (no, not this game, the theory) System, but they're a third rate. Shifting to Change of Power Theory: As their diplomacy is constantly trying to threaten the Hegemon (US) into compliance, the only outcome is escalation. Any US compliance is surrender, and the Hegemon's main role is stability and force in the System, so the DPRK is putting themselves (and everyone else) in a bad situation, and hoping the US is worried about sliding down the scale too much to act.)

I've got a buddy in Air Defense Artillery. Guess where he's going? S. Korea. Got another buddy doing maintenance on A-10s. Guess where he's going? Yep, S. Korea. Not fun.
Excellent analysis. Good job. :)

How the heck can you expect anyone to rationally respond to this? Just asking. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, I used the infernal rolleyes at you. PH3AR!

Perhaps it wan't the best phrasing I could have used but the guy got under my skin.

I retract the sentence about the darkies but the rest stands as a valid question.

Ahhh, so a war started over the death of 3500 people which has to date claimed well over 10 times that number of civilians in other countries is just media spin? Or do they just not matter because they're only darkies and sand-niggers?

How about liberating 50 million people you call "sand niggers". I thought you lefties were not racists??? ( actually I know many lefties are)

How about REDUCING the violent deaths in Iraq from 55,000 a year under Saddam to less than 20,000. (and that is using the HIGH estimate from Iraq body count, and only 4 or 5 KNOWN instances under Saddam). You also neglect to realize that the majority of the innocents were killed by the terrorists, not by Amercican, British or other coalition forces.

How about the illegal detention of those people at Gitmo? Was SCOTUS being horribly left wing when it told dear Georgie that he was being very naughty with his decisions over that?


Yes they were.

I've got a buddy in Air Defense Artillery. Guess where he's going? S. Korea. Got another buddy doing maintenance on A-10s. Guess where he's going? Yep, S. Korea. Not fun.


Yes, I am a United States Army Infantryman. It's just another place to send me. I've already seen Iraq. I wouldn't mind going, hell, I volunteered for Iraq. Just was curious.


I still don't see the North Koreans or US starting a military conflict. All NK really can do is show off militarily. What would they have to gain by any sort of invasion, backed by missiles that may not even work and even so, can possibly be shot down by the US. They can arty Seoul to the ground, but that would just make the international community really mad.

Yes they were.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

Lancet has the figure for deaths as a direct result of the invasion in Iraq alone at 100,000.

Where did you get your figure for civilian deaths under Saddam?

i will talk them out of it and if that didnt work ill send this:sniper: to attack the president and these:mp5: to destroy the missiles

I still don't see the North Koreans or US starting a military conflict. All NK really can do is show off militarily. What would they have to gain by any sort of invasion, backed by missiles that may not even work and even so, can possibly be shot down by the US. They can arty Seoul to the ground, but that would just make the international community really mad.
No one usually starts wars like this... they just kind of happen, as people slide over a brink, one inch at a time.

Anyway, that's NOT the most likely scenario.

What's happening, even now, I bet, is both sides posture, let their stands known, and many people scurry through backrooms, cutting deals. DPRK has stood for collision, the US CANNOT be the "chicken" and pull away (foreign policy). So, as always in these situations, there will be backroom dealings (although less smokey than in past decades). In a few days/weeks, there will be a sudden breakthrough, or more likely, DPRK will fade from the news. A deal will be cut, that all sides can agree on, and the situation will simmer down until the next time someone steps on someone's toes, or Kim Jong-Il's Napolean complex flares up.

The risk is, that the DPRK might overplay their hand, and force the US/Allies into an extreme hard line. Firing more missiles would be under this heading. If no deal can be cut, then the situation becomes more dangerous.

Not likely, but more possible right now than since 1998 (last DPRK missile tests).

To those who liked my analysis: thanks for the kudos!
To those who didn't: Nyah! *tongue sticks out, sulks in corner*

EDIT: Gyah! Must work! TTFN!

It works. I hope we dont have a fact finding test of it.

They have a million troops waiting for the order to invade the South. And conventional and Chemical artilary in range of S Korean population centers.

A conservative estimate is that 10000s of casualties on both sides. And a really pissed off China on millions of starving North Koreas flooding northern provinces. And Japan may reconceder its curent defence strategy and rebuild its military. It will not be a healthy situation.

I hope nothing happends. Although the current US response is valid concedering the threat to set the US on fire, or something like that. We have to deploy the capability to stop missles when theyre launched.

A conservative estimate is that 10000s of casualties on both sides. And a really pissed off China on millions of starving North Koreas flooding northern provinces. And Japan may reconceder its curent defence strategy and rebuild its military. It will not be a healthy situation.



Japan is allowed only a 'defensive' force. WW2 treaty.

And whoever said the Aegis ships aren't an offensive weapon, you are technically correct BUT, by reducing the effects of an enemy weapon they decrease their effect on actual offensive forces which will then go in. It's kinda how the Star Wars initiative would have destroyed the MAD balance.

Japan is allowed only a 'defensive' force. WW2 treaty.

Japan's been streching Clause 9 ever since it was written - mainly with US encouragement to help provide for a Pacific defence against the USSR. The Self-Defense Forces are fighting in Iraq - it may be as peacekeepers, but it's still hardly self-defense.

However, if NK wants to play brinkmanship, let's give them something to play brinkmanship with. Only fair, no?

... <.< >.>

So...

We're going to start shooting down their test missiles?

Close. What we're actually going to do is test shooting down their test missiles, so we look good, in hopes of making everyone's favorite tinpot dictator negotiate.

He'll probably just throw a tantrum.

The other nice benefit to having the missile cruisers is that we could theoretically eliminate a large portion of the installments pointed a seoul, if we wanted first strike in a land war.

Not that we have the men to do that or anything, given the fact that the military is tied up elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

Lancet has the figure for deaths as a direct result of the invasion in Iraq alone at 100,000.




Where did you get your figure for civilian deaths under Saddam?


The Lancet???? Oh my! That is a JOKE! It is absolutely and utterly discredited.

Here is a piece from a left-center publication that debunks that entirely. (and it is not even complete in disclosing the lunacy of the lancet study)

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

I got my estimate of Iraqi deaths in the current war from Iraq Body Count - another anti-war site. (I used their high-end estimate)

I only used a couple of instances for the Saddam Era deaths.

The Anfal campaign where 182,000 were murdered.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

The Iran- Iraq war where a million or so lost their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll

The uprisings that took place after we left Iraq in 1991 where 30,000 to 60,000 were killed by Saddam's troops and chemical weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm

There were approximately 400,000 people who have disappeared forever in Saddam's prisons.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf


Just those four examples show that 71,000 PLUS were killed annually by Saddam. I cut it down significantly from there.



Here are some other links:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mass_graves_in_Iraq

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/iraq/

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

Sure beats fighting a land war in Asia.

Everything beats fighting a land war in Asia. ;)

Forgive me for not reading the last 4 pages, but what does Saddam killing people in his own prisons have to do with the human cost of a land invasion of North Korea?

You are right.


We got sidetracked when Fartsniffage tried to draw a moral equivalence between N.Korea and the United States. She then went on to list the deaths in the current Iraq situation as evidence that the US is evil.

Japan's been streching Clause 9 ever since it was written - mainly with US encouragement to help provide for a Pacific defence against the USSR. The Self-Defense Forces are fighting in Iraq - it may be as peacekeepers, but it's still hardly self-defense.

However, if NK wants to play brinkmanship, let's give them something to play brinkmanship with. Only fair, no?

Not fighting. They only sent logistics troops.

Not fighting. They only sent logistics troops.

Yeah, but that's not self-defense though, is it? I'm not saying it's wrong, but, without being an lawyer/attorney, it looks illigal under the Japanese Constitution. The idea behind the SDF is that they lacked overseas capabilities.

Now, if only AEGIS could shoot down artillery shells.

... <.< >.>

So...

We're going to start shooting down their test missiles?



This is Nort Korea we are dealing with. Are you willing to bet YOUR life on the fact they are test missiles ?

Only one has to be a nuke ...you going to help bury the hundreds of thousands of bodies ?

Close. What we're actually going to do is test shooting down their test missiles, so we look good, in hopes of making everyone's favorite tinpot dictator negotiate.

He'll probably just throw a tantrum.

The other nice benefit to having the missile cruisers is that we could theoretically eliminate a large portion of the installments pointed a seoul, if we wanted first strike in a land war.

Not that we have the men to do that or anything, given the fact that the military is tied up elsewhere.


There are about 300,000 or more troops available for North Korea..without touching anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan. Including all services.

So what are talking about ? you do know the in both places there are only about 150, 000 troops ...what do you think the US military is a big as France's ?


At any rate as the last three wars have shown a large land force is NOT NEEDED . Not when most of the military targets it would face have been OBLITERATED ..by air and missile forces . Conventional type...why do people keep going with the fallacie that you need a large infanrty and armor force on the ground to fight ?

All North Korea's military represents is a large amount of targets to be destroyed in a short amount of time ...then you land a hundred thousand troops to run around cleaning up , the rather large mess you made .

what insane person would EVER fight on the enemies terms ? The US just stands back and anhilates every piece of military equipment and military formation in place ...then when the military in no longer a cohesive fighting force it sends in some Abrams and some bradleys with infantry to mop up .

North Korea is a threat to SK and Japan...they are a target rich enviroment to the US .

This is Nort Korea we are dealing with. Are you willing to bet YOUR life on the fact they are test missiles ?

Only one has to be a nuke ...you going to help bury the hundreds of thousands of bodies ?


Exactly.

I would make it VERY clear to Mr. Il that if he so much as THINKS about launching another missile toward our nation, we will obliterate his launching sites and every piece of military armament we see.

Forgive me for not reading the last 4 pages, but what does Saddam killing people in his own prisons have to do with the human cost of a land invasion of North Korea?
Nothing at all, welcome to Nationstates: General where totally unrelated things define the topic.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/08/international/i044221D19.DTL

Now there are eight AEGIS cruisers equipped with the SM-3 anti-ballistic missile system in Japan.

Considering that each carries up to 80 missiles in vertical launch cells, and can ripple fire them one every half-second under completely automated battle management by the computer (faster than any human can plan and react), and has demonstrated its ability to shoot down ballistic missile in mid-course as well as last-second intercepts of warheads coming down, I don't think that a better response to North Korean missile antics could be had.

Sure, they can fire missiles. And we can practice shooting them down.

No harm, no foul. Sure beats fighting a land war in Asia.
Time to pull out "Team America" and have a laugh at Kim's expense.

Japan is allowed only a 'defensive' force. WW2 treaty.

And whoever said the Aegis ships aren't an offensive weapon, you are technically correct BUT, by reducing the effects of an enemy weapon they decrease their effect on actual offensive forces which will then go in. It's kinda how the Star Wars initiative would have destroyed the MAD balance.
I don't fully get your wording.

There are about 300,000 or more troops available for North Korea..without touching anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan. Including all services.

So what are talking about ? you do know the in both places there are only about 150, 000 troops ...what do you think the US military is a big as France's ?


At any rate as the last three wars have shown a large land force is NOT NEEDED . Not when most of the military targets it would face have been OBLITERATED ..by air and missile forces . Conventional type...why do people keep going with the fallacie that you need a large infanrty and armor force on the ground to fight ?

All North Korea's military represents is a large amount of targets to be destroyed in a short amount of time ...then you land a hundred thousand troops to run around cleaning up , the rather large mess you made .

what insane person would EVER fight on the enemies terms ? The US just stands back and anhilates every piece of military equipment and military formation in place ...then when the military in no longer a cohesive fighting force it sends in some Abrams and some bradleys with infantry to mop up .

North Korea is a threat to SK and Japan...they are a target rich enviroment to the US .

Oh, so the fact that Generals have said that our military forces are being pushed beyond their abilities because they are spread too thin should be ignored then. There are few actual hard targets in NK. The only way to win a war in NK is to starve them out with the threat that if they try anything, we'll shoot it out of the sky.

Oh, so the fact that Generals have said that our military forces are being pushed beyond their abilities because they are spread too thin should be ignored then. There are few actual hard targets in NK. The only way to win a war in NK is to starve them out with the threat that if they try anything, we'll shoot it out of the sky.

The DPRK is already starving...

The DPRK is already starving...

Their military isn't.

Well, now it is, because Japan cut off food shipments from the US in response to the missle stuff, but it wasn't before. Basically, it's going to get more desperate for Kim Jong Il from here on in. Assuming, of course, that someone doesn't crack and start feeding him again (China).

Their military isn't.

Well, now it is, because Japan cut off food shipments from the US in response to the missle stuff, but it wasn't before. Basically, it's going to get more desperate for Kim Jong Il from here on in. Assuming, of course, that someone doesn't crack and start feeding him again (China).

I reckon they won't crack. If I were Hu Jinto, I'd see North Korea as a liability who could worsen much-needed relations with the west, not as an ally. But that's my crazy opinion.

Other than getting upset, I can't see much happenning if someone did.

The difference here is that the US would probably know it was intercepted.

The North Koreans probably don't know what happens to their missiles once they head downrange, especially if the telemetry is jammed (which is likely, since it makes their development program incredible difficult).

If we don't say we shot it down, there isn't any proof. We could just say, "your missile blew up 45 seconds downrange... I wonder why..."


Had this exact discussion with a buddy that lives in Honolulu. He was trying to figure out the best spot on oahu to be in case of a nuclear blast. I told him to take the underwater submarine tour. Most likely the best spot at that point. I do believe the scenerio you described would work. Only the Russians and perhaps maybe the Chinese would know what happened. N Koreans would just be scratching there heads. I think we should shoot down every long and medium range rockets they launch. I would presume at this point that the N Korean intentions are hostile. I also wonder if in fact we did knock down the long range ICBM.

I reckon they won't crack. If I were Hu Jinto, I'd see North Korea as a liability who could worsen much-needed relations with the west, not as an ally. But that's my crazy opinion.

Well.. Just as an FYI Hu Jintao is basically a puppet ruler.

Beyond that, the problem is that North Korea acts as a buffer between South Korea (and by extension, the US), and China. It's value is purely tactical. That said, NK has managed to piss off the powers-that-be in Beijing something terrible, so I don't foresee any support coming from there.

Well.. Just as an FYI Hu Jintao is basically a puppet ruler.

Beyond that, the problem is that North Korea acts as a buffer between South Korea (and by extension, the US), and China. It's value is purely tactical. That said, NK has managed to piss off the powers-that-be in Beijing something terrible, so I don't foresee any support coming from there.

We need to reinforce with the Chinese leadership that unless they reign in Little Kim, they will see MILLIONS of refugees fleeing the havoc we will bring to N. Korea.

I still don't know why the USA hasn't simply threatened to turn that shithole into nuclear wasteland if the Norkies don't sit down, STFU, and destroy their missile production facilities under inspections by US, Japanese and South Korean troops. What's the point of maintaining a giant nuclear arsenal if you aren't going to use it? Sheesh.

Could it be because the NKorean nukes are not NKorean to begin with, and it is not the North Koreans, but the Chinese who are talking through their proxies?

And since the Chinese have demonstrated in the Sino-US Korean war and the later Sino-Soviet war that they are not intimidated by the superpowerdom of the US and USSR, and coupled with their ICBM capabilities to nuke US mainland, the US can do jack all about Chinese proxy of N.Korea except hem and haw about six party talks which will lead nowhere.

Yeah I know, most of them think Castro and Chavez ar benevolent.
Yes, that's because they are.
Stalin was a kindly old man and Pol Pot was misunderstood also.
I don't think anyone would ever say that.

I've yet to find a communist that supported the Kmher Rouge's actions.

I reckon they won't crack. If I were Hu Jinto, I'd see North Korea as a liability who could worsen much-needed relations with the west, not as an ally. But that's my crazy opinion.

Where do people get this notion that the Chicoms are against NKorean capabilities and its behavior when it is the Chicom proliferation of nukes and missiles to NKorea that is causing Nkorea to behave like it is doing ? :headbang:

Oh, so the fact that Generals have said that our military forces are being pushed beyond their abilities because they are spread too thin should be ignored then. There are few actual hard targets in NK. The only way to win a war in NK is to starve them out with the threat that if they try anything, we'll shoot it out of the sky.
Yes, it worked so well in Vietnam.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml
excerpts.
North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.

Beijing elected to covertly aid its North Asian ally by proliferation. China allowed Pakistan to send nuclear technology purchased from Beijing to North Korea in exchange for No Dong missile technology.

Beijing provided Pakistan with its nuclear weapons technology, including an operational atomic bomb design. Pakistan is now providing North Korea with equipment and engineering to assist in its bomb-making efforts.

The fact remains that North Korea acquired some key equipment for its nuclear weapons program from Pakistan in 1998. The key equipment, including a working gas centrifuge used to enrich uranium, was shipped to Pyongyang in the coffin of the murdered wife of a North Korean diplomat.

Beijing's indirect assistance includes allowing Pakistani C-130 cargo flights over China to Pyongyang that carry key equipment for nuclear weapons production. The flights return to Pakistan with North Korean No Dong missile parts.

Missiles for Nukes

Pakistan also benefited from the trade in weaponry. The missiles-for-nukes trade gave Pakistan an operational means to deliver its atomic bombs.

Pakistan has since successfully test-fired and deployed its own version of the No Dong missile, called the Ghauri. The North Korean-designed missile has a range of nearly 900 miles and can cover virtually all of India, Pakistan's rival in Southwest Asia.

The ultimate irony here is that the North Korean No Dong and Tae Po Dong missiles are based on technology given to Pyongyang by China. In 1994, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Chinese-made CSS-2 missile technology had found its way into North Korean hands.

China has also allowed North Korea to ship SCUD missiles through its territory for Middle Eastern customers. According to a Canadian undercover operative, North Korean agents moved dismantled SCUD missiles through China into Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

The allegations proved to be correct because U.S. satellites were able to follow Chinese-made M-11 missiles bound for Pakistan over the same land route in 2000. The illegal export of M-11 missiles brought swift sanctions against Beijing by the Bush administration.

In recent months China has been much more overt about assisting Pyongyang with its nuclear weapons program. In 2002, China sold Pyongyang a large shipment of tributyl phosphate, a key chemical used to extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel rods for atomic bombs.

Lots of info and references on the subject in this link

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume12/komerath.html#_ednref11
A New Dawn For Korea



Narayanan Komerath and Jose Gonzalez

Executive Summary

The evolution of the DPRK crisis is examined in the context of the national interests of DPRK’s immediate neighbors. The role of the PRC is highlighted, considering its history, geopolitical interests and perceptions of strategic opportunities. A strategic direction based on the eventual goal of reunification is conceptualized. It is argued that taking this route would avoid the grave dangers that attend possible PRC exploitation of recent U.S. policies. Current U.S. moves provide encouraging signs along such a direction.

Contents
Introduction
Background
DPRK’s Neighbors and Their Interests

* Russia
* Japan
Japanese Concerns and Scenarios
* South Korea
* The US Position in the DPRK “Crisis”
* PRC Interests in the DPRK/US Dispute

The Pedigree of North Korean Weapons
Present PRC interests
PRC Strategic Opportunities in DPRK/US Dispute
Policy Concept: New Dawn for Korea

* Protect ROK and Japan: Security Guarantees
* Render DPRK nukes irrelevant and a liability: Doctrine of Source Responsibility
* Return to Bilateral Negotiations – Between the ROK and DPRK
* Announce a Roadmap to Re-Unification
* Withdraw US Forces from Korea
* Post Re-Unification: Implications

Discussion
Vertex A: No DPRK Nukes
Vertex B: No Collapse
Vertex C: No War
Vertex D: No collapse of the US-ROK alliance
Summary
About the authors
References and Footnotes

Bulshit. The lies the left has perpetrated have no bearing on whether or not we are justified in claiming the moral high ground. To make any comparison to a dictator that has enslaved an entire country is pure, unadulterated lunacy.

One does wonder what the native americans think about that.....

Or, ya know...would, if most of them weren't dead.

Could it be because the NKorean nukes are not NKorean to begin with, and it is not the North Koreans, but the Chinese who are talking through their proxies?

And since the Chinese have demonstrated in the Sino-US Korean war and the later Sino-Soviet war that they are not intimidated by the superpowerdom of the US and USSR, and coupled with their ICBM capabilities to nuke US mainland, the US can do jack all about Chinese proxy of N.Korea except hem and haw about six party talks which will lead nowhere.


But you forget a lot of the chinese economy is tied up with the US, Europe and Japan, they depend far more on us than they do North Korea. and with the right prodding and bribery, the chinese could be convinced not to get involved in any war in North Korea.

Of more serious concern, is Japan's sanctions against North Korea as the regime relies of money sent home from koreans in Japan , and South Korea's decision to suspend food aid, since the north relies on this to feed its army (and some lucky civilians).

This has the beginnings of a crisis that could spin violently out of control resulting in the deaths of 1000's of South Koreans and 100 000's of North Koreans

El-Presidente Boris

'every new day, a new human rights violation'

Where do people get this notion that the Chicoms are against NKorean capabilities and its behavior when it is the Chicom proliferation of nukes and missiles to NKorea that is causing Nkorea to behave like it is doing ? :headbang:

Sorry, you can't make any wild claims like that without a source. Back it up.

But you forget a lot of the chinese economy is tied up with the US, Europe and Japan, they depend far more on us than they do North Korea. and with the right prodding and bribery, the chinese could be convinced not to get involved in any war in North Korea.

You miss the larger picture. It is the Chinese view that the Far East is their sphere of influence. There is the concept of big powers using proxies/client states to achieve their interests instead of getting involved directly..gives them plausible deniability and all that..

I find it amusing that many postors here persist with the notion that China is somehow against the NKorean behavior when it is the Chinese policy of proliferation to NKorea that is causing the very same behavior.

The NKorean belligerence is because of Chinese proliferation and this has to be viewed in the context of the Chinese policy of decreasing and eventually displacing US influence in the Far East region, which like I said b4, the Chinese view as their backyard.

That the Chinese economy thrives and depends on exports to US and is dependant on the US market is another issue. They have been remarkably pragmatic about policy shifts. Not even two decades after fighting a brutal war with the US, they allied with the US after the Sino-Soviet split. It is quite common for major powers to have converging interests in one area and conflicting interests in another.

In the past coupla decades, it has been the Chinese strategy to not engage in direct conflicts with US, but to create enough headaches to keep US occupied and use the distraction to displace American influence in its neighborhood and near abroad (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma etc) while increasing influence in other areas (read up on increasing Chinese presence in Africa and South America).

Yes, you can convince China not to enter a war if US invades NKorea. That would involve the Chinese extracting their pound of flesh.....which I suspect is the whole idea behind this latest drama.

... <.< >.>

So...

We're going to start shooting down their test missiles?

Maybe when they can make them fly

Yes, that's because they are.



Yeah they sure are! That is why people are literally risking their lives to flee Cuba the boat trip over is only half of the story.


And Chavez is just a peach also!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKIl0xJMjg


Since I know you won't like that, here are a FEW articles from Human Rights Watch.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/venezu9864.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/05/venezu10423.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/30/venezu9754.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/venezuela0604/

I don't think anyone would ever say that.

I've yet to find a communist that supported the Kmher Rouge's actions.

The press and the leftists here in America sure did!

As for the Kmher Rouge, have you read Chomsky??? I have.

Sorry, you can't make any wild claims like that without a source. Back it up.

lol.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/pdf/060321.pdf
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/30781.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/CIB/1999-2000/2000cib01.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/research/congress/testim/testlsp.htm

Basically China proliferated missiles to NKorea (earlier SCUD B and then the taepedong which is a derivative of Chinese CSS-2) and proliferated nukes to Pakistan (both the HEU type as proved by the Chinese markings on the design and material given to the Libyans by the Pakistanis and the involvement of China in Pu production in Pakistan) and then facilitated an exchange of these between Pak and NKorea (the C-130 planes carrying parts were even refuelled at PLAF aribases).

And just because you do not read news, articles, etc does not make these claims wild.

Yes, it worked so well in Vietnam.

Well

A) China was supplying North Vietnam with food. China has since cut off supplies to NK over this.

and

B) There's a shit ton less support for Kim Jong Il in South Korea than there was for the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam.

and, I suppose

C) South Korea is significantly more militarily capable of defending themselves, and significantly less likely to undermine it's own support by random execution than was South Vietnam.

that and

D) We kinda gave up on Vietnam and tried to fight a war instead. Nothing keeps a foe a foe like giving him a tangible enemy to fight against.

A) China was supplying North Vietnam with food. China has since cut off supplies to NK over this.
That might change in wartime situations.
B) There's a shit ton less support for Kim Jong Il in South Korea than there was for the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam.
At the moment.
C) South Korea is significantly more militarily capable of defending themselves, and significantly less likely to undermine it's own support by random execution than was South Vietnam.
At the fall of Saigon, South Vietnam had the 4th largest airforce in the world, and weapons-a-plenty.

That didn't stop government corruption making them lose.

You can arm people up, but if they can't be arsed to fight, then they won't.
D) We kinda gave up on Vietnam and tried to fight a war instead. Nothing keeps a foe a foe like giving him a tangible enemy to fight against.
Urmm... eh?

A) China was supplying North Vietnam with food. China has since cut off supplies to NK over this.
That might change in wartime situations.
B) There's a shit ton less support for Kim Jong Il in South Korea than there was for the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam.
At the moment.
C) South Korea is significantly more militarily capable of defending themselves, and significantly less likely to undermine it's own support by random execution than was South Vietnam.
At the fall of Saigon, South Vietnam had the 4th largest airforce in the world, and weapons-a-plenty.

That didn't stop government corruption making them lose.

You can arm people up, but if they can't be arsed to fight, then they won't.
D) We kinda gave up on Vietnam and tried to fight a war instead. Nothing keeps a foe a foe like giving him a tangible enemy to fight against.
Urmm... eh?

One does wonder what the native americans think about that.....

Or, ya know...would, if most of them weren't dead.

Of course they warred amongst themselves LONG before we got here! But that little point is a bit too inconvenient to mention - as is the fact that you could make any such claim against just about every country in existance today.

as a side note, the greeks warred against the spartans, does that mean greece cannot ever claim the high ground also??? How long do you have to wait before you can claim your moral position is moral???