NationStates Jolt Archive

Some reports sujest that the yield was verry low:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2395600.html

The bomb may only have had a yeild of 500 tones of tnt.

"And if MY calculations are correct, we're all going to die horribly! HA HA ha ha ha...."

Eh, at least we'll go out with a bang! :D Edit: Nice Futurama refrence.

u also have to think how south korea will react... i mean they have their families there only a few generations apart.

Nah, South Korea under the "Sunshine Policy" aims to suck up to the North, improve economic ties and open up to each other. They won't go apeshit yet.

Some reports sujest that the yield was verry low:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2395600.html

The bomb may only have had a yeild of 500 tones of tnt.

It is still a hostile action. Whether it be 500 tones or 1.5 million tones. It's still a hostile action and should be taken very seriously. I think it's time we stop fighting with kiddie gloves with Kim. If Kim wants to play with the big boys, then let him play with the big boys.

Nah, South Korea under the "Sunshine Policy" aims to suck up to the North, improve economic ties and open up to each other. They won't go apeshit yet.

Nah Seoul will have to be turned into radioactive dust before they do anything.

500 tonnes is verry low though. They couled have faked something that small with conventional expolsives. The instremnets used at the trinity test were calibrated with a 100 tonne explosion.

Note: I'm not in any way a conspiricy nut i'm just stateing that they could have potentialy faked it.

Just going to throw this out here.

What does anyone think would happen if China invaded NK? How would that sit with the US or South Korea, the world?

Nah Seoul will have to be turned into radioactive dust before they do anything.

Kinda what I said, no?

Just going to throw this out here.

What does anyone think would happen if China invaded NK? How would that sit with the US or South Korea, the world?

It'd probably be an "Oh, no, we really don't want you to do that!" During an invasion, but it would more depend on what China did with NK afterwards that causes a problem.

Just going to throw this out here.

What does anyone think would happen if China invaded NK? How would that sit with the US or South Korea, the world?

I'd think it would make the ROK's kinda scared, but the US and Japan would be quite appreciative to have that kleptocracy of Kim Jon Il out of power.

500 tonnes is verry low though. They couled have faked something that small with conventional expolsives. The instremnets used at the trinity test were calibrated with a 100 tonne explosion.

Note: I'm not in any way a conspiricy nut i'm just stateing that they could have potentialy faked it.

Well if it was faked, then I feel very sad for the people of N. Korea because of the stupid move that their leader made. I wonder if you can detect radioactivty from an underground test.

It is still a hostile action. Whether it be 500 tones or 1.5 million tones. It's still a hostile action and should be taken very seriously. I think it's time we stop fighting with kiddie gloves with Kim. If Kim wants to play with the big boys, then let him play with the big boys.
Like I said before, all this tough guy talk means squat. I don't see any US unilateral action here. That could create chaos. There has to be a resolve. Finding the resolve will not be easy.

Kinda what I said, no?

True.

Well if it was faked, then I feel very sad for the people of N. Korea because of the stupid move that their leader made. I wonder if you can detect radioactivty from an underground test.

It can leak, but I doubt it would from a small bomb.

Just going to throw this out here.

What does anyone think would happen if China invaded NK? How would that sit with the US or South Korea, the world?

I don't think it would affect USA. I think I'd rather have China there than N. Korea. South Korea would probably have the biggest concern because if China claims N. Korea what's to stop them from taking over the South.

Other than N. Korea being happy about the nukes I think Taiwan may be happy, too. N. Korea actions are going to ultimately distract and post pone China's actions to take control back over Taiwan.

Besides, it's just a matter of time before China and the USA take it head to head. If China were to take out Kim and control N. Korea would make it easier to hit the USA with the long range missles. Just a matter of time.

True.

:D

Like I said before, all this tough guy talk means squat. I don't see any US unilateral action here. That could create chaos. There has to be a resolve. Finding the resolve will not be easy.

Personally I blame all of this on Kim. He's the one who wanted Nukes, he's the one who lied to us about the intention of using the Nuclear material (of course did anyone really believe him?) he's the one who abandoned and boycotted talks to end it, and he's the one that's been making hostile gestures with the missile test and the nuclear test. So really, the ball is in Kim's court. What he does now will determine the fate of his country.

I'd think it would make the ROK's kinda scared, but the US and Japan would be quite appreciative to have that kleptocracy of Kim Jon Il out of power.
That was kinda my take on it.

Perhaps this is the time for the UN to step up to the plate and actually do something significant?

Personally I blame all of this on Kim. He's the one who wanted Nukes, he's the one who lied to us about the intention of using the Nuclear material (of course did anyone really believe him?) he's the one who abandoned and boycotted talks to end it, and he's the one that's been making hostile gestures with the missile test and the nuclear test. So really, the ball is in Kim's court. What he does now will determine the fate of his country.
That is not what you were stating earlier.

Personally speaking, I don't think continued bullying tactics will win the day. The only viable solution is a negotiated one.

I don't think it would affect USA. I think I'd rather have China there than N. Korea. South Korea would probably have the biggest concern because if China claims N. Korea what's to stop them from taking over the South.
The US army in South Korea.

Other than N. Korea being happy about the nukes I think Taiwan may be happy, too. N. Korea actions are going to ultimately distract and post pone China's actions to take control back over Taiwan.
China doesn't want Taiwan. China wants a bit of nationalistic dick waving to keep the people supporting the CCP. Obviously, China can't keep up the Socialistic/Maoistic dick waving anymore, so they play to nationalism.

Taiwan parobably doesn't care to be honest.

Besides, it's just a matter of time before China and the USA take it head to head. If China were to take out Kim and control N. Korea would make it easier to hit the USA with the long range missles. Just a matter of time.
Yes. Destroy your biggest trade partner. No, China isn't that stupid.

That is not what you were stating earlier.

Personally speaking, I don't think continued bullying tactics will win the day. The only viable solution is a negotiated one.

Yes, but Kim has boycotted all talks, he refuse to negotiate.

Like I said before, all this tough guy talk means squat. I don't see any US unilateral action here. That could create chaos. There has to be a resolve. Finding the resolve will not be easy.

Of course, there's three rather wealthy countries in the very close vicinity of the DPRK, who stand to lose a lot by the uncertainty that they inject into the region, and that's why I don't think there will be unilateral action on the part of the US. If something does happen, the US would play a support role, probably by launching counterforce strikes against suspected nuclear targets.

Yes, but Kim has boycotted all talks, he refuse to negotiate.

He demands to talk directly to the US, which is an absolutely ludicrous demand. This is a part of the world where multi-lateralism is unavoidable. He wants us to ignore the other involved parties and pay attention to him.

It'd probably be an "Oh, no, we really don't want you to do that!" During an invasion, but it would more depend on what China did with NK afterwards that causes a problem.
If NK doesn't want to co-operate, a Chinese invasion might be the only viable solution. And yeah, I think that might cause some regional concerns.

He demands to talk directly to the US, which is an absolutely ludicrous demand. This is a part of the world where multi-lateralism is unavoidable. He wants us to ignore the other involved parties and pay attention to him.

Exactly. What Kim is doing, doesn't just involve the US, well really it doesn't involved the US that much, however it does involve China, S. Korea, Japan, Tiwan, and basically every country in SE Asia. So I agree with you.

What China, and Japan could start doing is a militatry blockade.

I can picture this happening........China decides it has had enough with dealing with N. Korea...China sends in a mass soldier amount...China wins.

Couple years later, China decides that the time to take back the control of Taiwan and ultimately succeeds.

All the while setting up a staging in China controlled N. Korea to go on the offensive with the USA.

Now entering WW III.

China, Russia, France, Iran, Venzuala, Cuba (Castro finally died at age 120)
vs
USA, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India

Neutral: Spain, most of Africa, Pakistan(We would have taken Pakistan but we all know that Pakistan and India can't be on the same team, They'd shoot each other instead of the potential enemies of WW III) :D

If NK doesn't want to co-operate, a Chinese invasion might be the only viable solution. And yeah, I think that might cause some regional concerns.

One might assume that China would leave behind a puppet state undergoing "Socialism" with chinese charicteristics. To South Korea that might even be attractive. They'd rather reunify with a prosperous North than a shithole.

I can picture this happening........China decides it has had enough with dealing with N. Korea...China sends in a mass soldier amount...China wins.

Couple years later, China decides that the time to take back the control of Taiwan and ultimately succeeds.

All the while setting up a staging in China controlled N. Korea to go on the offensive with the USA.

Now entering WW III.

China, Russia, France, Iran, Venzuala, Cuba (Castro finally died at age 120)
vs
USA, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India

Neutral: Spain, most of Africa, Pakistan(We would have taken Pakistan but we all know that Pakistan and India can't be on the same team, They'd shoot each other instead of the potential enemies of WW III) :D
Can I have some of your Acid?

I can picture this happening........China decides it has had enough with dealing with N. Korea...China sends in a mass soldier amount...China wins.

Couple years later, China decides that the time to take back the control of Taiwan and ultimately succeeds.

All the while setting up a staging in China controlled N. Korea to go on the offensive with the USA.

Now entering WW III.

China, Russia, France, Iran, Venzuala, Cuba (Castro finally died at age 120)
vs
USA, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India

Neutral: Spain, most of Africa, Pakistan(We would have taken Pakistan but we all know that Pakistan and India can't be on the same team, They'd shoot each other instead of the potential enemies of WW III) :D

and I will be living in the Phillipines with beautiful women! :D

Yes, but Kim has boycotted all talks, he refuse to negotiate.
He has refused to talk because he cannot get the assurances that he needs. He is especially skeptical of the US, especially since Bush has adopted this tough guy approach. I really don't think Kim wants nor desires a confrontation with the US, but in the meantime, he will do whatever he feels necessary to protect his country from the US.

I can picture this happening........China decides it has had enough with dealing with N. Korea...China sends in a mass soldier amount...China wins.

Couple years later, China decides that the time to take back the control of Taiwan and ultimately succeeds.

All the while setting up a staging in China controlled N. Korea to go on the offensive with the USA.

Now entering WW III.

China, Russia, France, Iran, Venzuala, Cuba (Castro finally died at age 120)
vs
USA, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India

Neutral: Spain, most of Africa, Pakistan(We would have taken Pakistan but we all know that Pakistan and India can't be on the same team, They'd shoot each other instead of the potential enemies of WW III) :D
Ummm, I think you have been thinking too much. Turn off the computer and back away slowly. :p

Can I have some of your Acid?
Acid? That is more like a chemical cocktail. :D

He has refused to talk because he cannot get the assurances that he needs. He is especially skeptical of the US, especially since Bush has adopted this tough guy approach. I really don't think Kim wants nor desires a confrontation with the US, but in the meantime, he will do whatever he feels necessary to protect his country from the US.

Good let him do whatever he feels necessary to protect his country from the US. That'll make it a lot easier for China to sweep in. :D

You may not agree with the "tough guy approach" but the negotiations has obviously failed. So my question is.....Since the nice guy approach has failed and the tough guy approach is unacceptable by your terms, then what the hell is anybody to do? Just Ignore him? Turn our backs? What should we do?

One might assume that China would leave behind a puppet state undergoing "Socialism" with chinese charicteristics. To South Korea that might even be attractive. They'd rather reunify with a prosperous North than a shithole.
I think that if China takes over NK, it will be for keeps and the South might receive an invitation to join. But that is just my thoughts.

I think that if China takes over NK, it will be for keeps and the South might receive an invitation to join. But that is just my thoughts.

Wow, I think I agree with your thoughts on that matter. :D

Good let him do whatever he feels necessary to protect his country from the US. That'll make it a lot easier for China to sweep in. :D

You may not agree with the "tough guy approach" but the negotiations has obviously failed. So my question is.....Since the nice guy approach has failed and the tough guy approach is unacceptable by your terms, then what the hell is anybody to do? Just Ignore him? Turn our backs? What should we do?
Ideally, NK surrenders her nukes to the UN. In return, the UN provides humanitarian relief for the starving masses and assures the sovereignty of NK, with a view of Korean unification.

and I will be living in the Phillipines with beautiful women! :D

Same here. :D

Ideally, NK surrenders her nukes to the UN. In return, the UN provides humanitarian relief for the starving masses and assures the sovereignty of NK, with a view of Korean unification.

Ideally.........hmmm.......I suppose that is an idea, ideally leaning towards fantasia. :D

I can picture this happening........China decides it has had enough with dealing with N. Korea...China sends in a mass soldier amount...China wins.

Couple years later, China decides that the time to take back the control of Taiwan and ultimately succeeds.

All the while setting up a staging in China controlled N. Korea to go on the offensive with the USA.

Now entering WW III.

China, Russia, France, Iran, Venzuala, Cuba (Castro finally died at age 120)
vs
USA, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India

Neutral: Spain, most of Africa, Pakistan(We would have taken Pakistan but we all know that Pakistan and India can't be on the same team, They'd shoot each other instead of the potential enemies of WW III) :D
2 words -

Mega shite.

Ideally, NK surrenders her nukes to the UN. In return, the UN provides humanitarian relief for the starving masses and assures the sovereignty of NK, with a view of Korean unification.

Yes... then everyone would travel to fairyland to partake in some peace pie and magic mushrooms. :p

Just going to throw this out here.

What does anyone think would happen if China invaded NK? How would that sit with the US or South Korea, the world?

Given that Koreans have very bad memories of foreign occupation, the ROK would no doubt ve very unhappy with a Chinese occupation of the North. Talks of Korea being one nation aren't only rhetoric. South Koreans consider North Koreans to be the same people and the same nation as them; occupying North Korea would probably be seen as an aggressive move against the Korean peninsula as a whole.

The best thing for China to do now would be to completely cut off all ties with North Korea, no more aid, no more political contacts, nothing. Let's see how long Kim Jong Il can keep everything under control then.

As an added bonus - not sending north korean refugees back to north korea to face the firing squad would also be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

So much for "diplomacy."

Diplomacy only works when all the parties are sincere about reaching an agreement. That fat little orangutan with the dead rat on his head was never sincere about doing anything but going nuclear.

The time for talk has come and gone. Time for active measures. And the first thing to do is make it unmistakeably clear to China that they had better support vigorous action or we will take steps to eliminate their trade surplus with the US.

The regime of the "Dear Leader" :rolleyes: must be overthrown. South Korea, maybe it's time to move your capital to Busan.

Ideally, NK surrenders her nukes to the UN. In return, the UN provides humanitarian relief for the starving masses and assures the sovereignty of NK, with a view of Korean unification.

And ideally, Scarlet Johansen rides my face like the Kentucky Derby. The difference is, my ideal has a chance of being realized ;)

This whole situation is going to come to a bad end. And thank you, Harry Truman, for not bombing the Yalu River bridges. :headbang:

So much for "diplomacy."

Diplomacy only works when all the parties are sincere about reaching an agreement. That fat little orangutan with the dead rat on his head was never sincere about doing anything but going nuclear.

The time for talk has come and gone. Time for active measures. And the first thing to do is make it unmistakeably clear to China that they had better support vigorous action or we will take steps to eliminate their trade surplus with the US.

The regime of the "Dear Leader" :rolleyes: must be overthrown. South Korea, maybe it's time to move your capital to Busan.


And this would be dangerous at best. The reason no one wants to do 'active measures' is because the results would be potentially disastrous, even without the prospects of nuclear weapons. Certainly, a major recession would be an assured result, and neither China or South Korea would want to cope with the instability that would bring.

The only way to solve this sucessfully is through diplomacy. Anything else will be likely to have unintended and problematic consequences.

And this would be dangerous at best. The reason no one wants to do 'active measures' is because the results would be potentially disastrous, even without the prospects of nuclear weapons. Certainly, a major recession would be an assured result, and neither China or South Korea would want to cope with the instability that would bring.

The only way to solve this sucessfully is through diplomacy. Anything else will be likely to have unintended and problematic consequences.

I repeat: diplomacy requires sincerity. North Korea has proven time and again that is not sincere. Diplomacy has failed and will continue to fail.

I repeat: diplomacy requires sincerity. North Korea has proven time and again that is not sincere. Diplomacy has failed and will continue to fail.


The North has two goals in mind, both of which it has carried since the nation's inception. The first is recognition of its existence and sovereignty over the north. The second is assurance it will not be attacked. Since neither technically exists between the US and DPRK, it is hard to have any sincerity in dialogue.

And to respond in full, the North may not be sincere in all of its dealings but it will respond to incentives, especially those that allow the survival of its regime. The US should give it reassurance of non-aggression and the North's political sovereignty, in return for economic aid and complete disarmament, to be monitored closely via IAEA and US officials. This isn't the Bush administration's way- they hate the idea of dealing with dictators, but it solves both nation's problems and honestly is the most viable solution. It is certainly what the North wants out of its current brinkmanship since it views the US as its largest uncertainty factor.

And for the other nations involved... there really is no better option. Dialogue is the only way to get this solved without causing serious economic and political instability in the region. No one can afford a war or the collapse of the North's regime.

WARNING: This may not be suited for eveybody's viewing, if you are offended easily please look away NOW:eek:

I think it would be in everybody's best interest if the USA did a nuclear test too. Let's Nuke them first before they have a chance of nuking any of their neighbors first. 2 things would happen....1. No more Kim :D and 2. The people wouldn't be suffering of starvation and disease no more.


(Isn't intended to be taking seriously. Poor sense of sarcasm) :D

What does anyone think would happen if China invaded NK? How would that sit with the US or South Korea, the world?

I recognise that an invasion of North Korea would probably be one of the best outcomes here. But at the same time I'd rather that China was the one to actually do it. Perhaps China could enter the country, disarm the Regime and set about organising a Korean reunification, or perhaps Beijing and Seoul could organise a partition with half going towards a United Korea and half occupied by China? In a slightly worse case China could just march in, put a loyal sinocapitalist leader in charge and keep the nation under military occupation while liquidating Pyongyang's nuclear program.

Even in the worse case a Chinese occupation cannot be worse than rule under Kim Jong-Il, the Chinese would at least provide food, infrastructure and jobs.

I recognise that an invasion of North Korea would probably be one of the best outcomes here. But at the same time I'd rather that China was the one to actually do it. Perhaps China could enter the country, disarm the Regime and set about organising a Korean reunification, or perhaps Beijing and Seoul could organise a partition with half going towards a United Korea and half occupied by China? In a slightly worse case China could just march in, put a loyal sinocapitalist leader in charge and keep the nation under military occupation while liquidating Pyongyang's nuclear program.

Even in the worse case a Chinese occupation cannot be worse than rule under Kim Jong-Il, the Chinese would at least provide food, infrastructure and jobs.

I'm going to have to agree, a China invasion of N. Korea could be a good thing.

I can picture this happening........China decides it has had enough with dealing with N. Korea...China sends in a mass soldier amount...China wins.

Couple years later, China decides that the time to take back the control of Taiwan and ultimately succeeds.

All the while setting up a staging in China controlled N. Korea to go on the offensive with the USA.

Now entering WW III.

China, Russia, France, Iran, Venzuala, Cuba (Castro finally died at age 120)
vs
USA, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India

Neutral: Spain, most of Africa, Pakistan(We would have taken Pakistan but we all know that Pakistan and India can't be on the same team, They'd shoot each other instead of the potential enemies of WW III) :D

I think I may have to print this on a sign somewhere... somewhere in space, and on a sign so big that it is visible from the Earth: "THE PEOPLES' REPUBLIC OF CHINA IS NOT GOING TO DECLARE WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ANY TIME SOON. KTHNXBI!"

Any Imperialistic landgrab on behalf of China is not going to be seriously opposed by America, as overall, China has been a pretty good 'neighbour' recently, and furthermore, they realise that risking a war would result in Mutually Assured Economic Destruction.

I'm going to have to agree, a China invasion of N. Korea could be a good thing.
Exchange one dictatorship for another? I'd rather, if there is going to be a fated invasion of the North, it be the USA/Japan/South Korea with China's approval, or acceptance. At least that way the North will eventually be reunified and democratic.

Okay, seriously now, I feel we should leave N. Korea to China, Japan, and S. Korea to deal with. I'm hearing more and more as the day is progressing that China is getting more and more pissed off about it especially now their's speculation on N. Korea fixin to test yet another nuke.

USA needs to focus, diplomatically that is, with the UN and other allies to try and deter and persuade Iran that it is in their best interest to drop their nuke programs.

Exchange one dictatorship for another?

It's probably the best that can be done for now. I'm usually not one to say this, but I don't think the North Koreans are ready for democracy. As the only nation untouched by the internets, a nation where the instinct for critical thought has been almost entirely drilled out and a nation that has more immediate concerns with food and disease... I'm an idealist, but I'm not that idealistic.

I'd rather, if there is going to be a fated invasion of the North, it be the USA/Japan/South Korea with China's approval, or acceptance. At least that way the North will eventually be reunified and democratic.

Hmm... it would probably be preferable. But not all that practical. Besides, Reunification is no longer even very popular among the new generation of South Koreans who have heard all the shock stories from German Unification and imagine their situation being ten times worse.

Kim only stands 5' 2" tall, has a cellar filled with atleast 10,000 bottles of different liquours........and is currently testing Nukes.

I didn't think it was possible for the people of NSG to actually agree but I think, despite the poll percentages, that we all agree (or atleast the one posting) that this is a bad situation. An alcoholic holding the Nuke detonator/launcher....Oh my.

As for the poll results, I think the ones who claim it's a "non-event" clearly needs to have their heads re-examined.

...Pancakes.

Syrup and Myrth .

Ideally.........hmmm.......I suppose that is an idea, ideally leaning towards fantasia. :D
Perhaps you could learn a little bit more about NK, and her history, especially 35 years of Japanese occupation/oppression? Perhaps you might realize that a united Korea might not be as much of a fantasy as you claim it to be?

North Korea Nuclear Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554)

Perhaps you might learn that Kim, while somewhat eccentric, is not crazy, and that ultimately he is a nationalist?

Perhaps you could learn a little bit more about NK, and her history, especially 35 years of Japanese occupation/oppression? Perhaps you might realize that a united Korea might not be as much of a fantasy as you claim it to be?

North Korea Nuclear Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554)

Perhaps you might learn that Kim, while somewhat eccentric, is not crazy, and that ultimately he is a nationalist?



You are one of the most amusing posters I have ever read...:D


Thank you. My Myrth has overflowed...

Kim is Ghandi . Elvis Ghandi...and only wants to nuke gophers.:D


He's a nationalist....sure as long as he gets to be Supreme nationalist humungo leader of lacky slave dog imperialist pigboys and a few lesser midgets.

I want to unify Korea UNDER MY ENLIGHTENED RULE....sure guess that makes him a nationalist allright..

Shame he's as crazy as a bedbug with add and abad crack habit .

Do not be fooled this nuclear test is a Republican trick to keep control of congress.

Kim only stands 5' 2" tall, has a cellar filled with atleast 10,000 bottles of different liquours........and is currently testing Nukes.

I didn't think it was possible for the people of NSG to actually agree but I think, despite the poll percentages, that we all agree (or atleast the one posting) that this is a bad situation. An alcoholic holding the Nuke detonator/launcher....Oh my.

As for the poll results, I think the ones who claim it's a "non-event" clearly needs to have their heads re-examined.
You have a point. I've been drunk a lot and I can't tell you how many times I've want to nuke the shit out of stuff. To bad for N.Korea they, like me, have no method of delivery.

on an unrelated side note: are you in the 813, 727 perhaps?

Hmm... it would probably be preferable. But not all that practical. Besides, Reunification is no longer even very popular among the new generation of South Koreans who have heard all the shock stories from German Unification and imagine their situation being ten times worse.
Reunification not popular? Can you support that claim?

From what I understand, the new South Korean leader was elected with a view towards reunification, and if anything, they view the US's tough guy policy as a detriment to such an ideal.

U.S. angers Koreans as reunification stalls (http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/022803/022803h.htm)

I'm going to have to agree, a China invasion of N. Korea could be a good thing.

Having a full land-link to the South Korean market would be an excellent thing. China could build some gigantic highways, rail links, and airports to service the new market and everyone could make a lot of money...there's some huge investment potential for North Korea.

You are one of the most amusing posters I have ever read...:D

Thank you. My Myrth has overflowed...

Kim is Ghandi . Elvis Ghandi...and only wants to nuke gophers.:D

He's a nationalist....sure as long as he gets to be Supreme nationalist humungo leader of lacky slave dog imperialist pigboys and a few lesser midgets.

I want to unify Korea UNDER MY ENLIGHTENED RULE....sure guess that makes him a nationalist allright..

Shame he's as crazy as a bedbug with add and abad crack habit .
And your post is so enlightening. :rolleyes:

Do come back when you have some meaningful contribution to the discussion. :p

Do not be fooled this nuclear test is a Republican trick to keep control of congress.
If anything, it could be a backlash, in that the world is far more dangerous now than after 911. His war on terror is a failure and his tough guy stance against Iran and NK seems to be driving them to nuclear poliferation. Bush's foreign policy has been a nightmare.

USA needs to focus, diplomatically that is, with the UN and other allies to try and deter and persuade Iran that it is in their best interest to drop their nuke programs.
I really don't think that Iran will abandon nukes as long as Iran remains on Bush's "Axis of Evil" checklist. The same could be said for NK. They both saw what happened to Iraq.

Took the world long enough to realize that NK has nukes :rolleyes:

So much for "diplomacy."

Diplomacy only works when all the parties are sincere about reaching an agreement. That fat little orangutan with the dead rat on his head was never sincere about doing anything but going nuclear.

The time for talk has come and gone. Time for active measures. And the first thing to do is make it unmistakeably clear to China that they had better support vigorous action or we will take steps to eliminate their trade surplus with the US.

The regime of the "Dear Leader" :rolleyes: must be overthrown. South Korea, maybe it's time to move your capital to Busan.
More tough guy talk. That is all part of the bigger problem. Afghanistan and Iraq....we can see how well that has turned out. Now you want to go messing around in Asia.

BTW, China has $332 Billion in US treasury securities. I really don't envisage Bush playing tough guy with China.

And this would be dangerous at best. The reason no one wants to do 'active measures' is because the results would be potentially disastrous, even without the prospects of nuclear weapons. Certainly, a major recession would be an assured result, and neither China or South Korea would want to cope with the instability that would bring.

The only way to solve this sucessfully is through diplomacy. Anything else will be likely to have unintended and problematic consequences.
Hurray, a voice of reason. :)

I repeat: diplomacy requires sincerity. North Korea has proven time and again that is not sincere. Diplomacy has failed and will continue to fail.
If anything has failed, it is Bush's foreign policy. The get tough act has flopped. If you look at the video I posted earlier, you will see where the US has also failed in diplomacy. Put the Bushmaster Binoculars down and see the results of 6 years of failed foreign policy.

The North has two goals in mind, both of which it has carried since the nation's inception. The first is recognition of its existence and sovereignty over the north. The second is assurance it will not be attacked. Since neither technically exists between the US and DPRK, it is hard to have any sincerity in dialogue.

And to respond in full, the North may not be sincere in all of its dealings but it will respond to incentives, especially those that allow the survival of its regime. The US should give it reassurance of non-aggression and the North's political sovereignty, in return for economic aid and complete disarmament, to be monitored closely via IAEA and US officials. This isn't the Bush administration's way- they hate the idea of dealing with dictators, but it solves both nation's problems and honestly is the most viable solution. It is certainly what the North wants out of its current brinkmanship since it views the US as its largest uncertainty factor.

And for the other nations involved... there really is no better option. Dialogue is the only way to get this solved without causing serious economic and political instability in the region. No one can afford a war or the collapse of the North's regime.
More good stuff!! I agree!! :)

I recognise that an invasion of North Korea would probably be one of the best outcomes here. But at the same time I'd rather that China was the one to actually do it. Perhaps China could enter the country, disarm the Regime and set about organising a Korean reunification, or perhaps Beijing and Seoul could organise a partition with half going towards a United Korea and half occupied by China? In a slightly worse case China could just march in, put a loyal sinocapitalist leader in charge and keep the nation under military occupation while liquidating Pyongyang's nuclear program.

Even in the worse case a Chinese occupation cannot be worse than rule under Kim Jong-Il, the Chinese would at least provide food, infrastructure and jobs.
If NK refuses a UN negotiated settlement, complete with guarantees, it would appear that this would be the only viable option. However, there are always consequences for military actions, and the Chinese might not want to assume those consequences.

It's a song by Tom Lehrer. I pity you, because you evidently have no idea who Tom Lehrer is.

The first song of his I thought of was Who's Next?

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?

I find that this the only logical step for any nation with bad relations with the US, (the country with the biggest amount of nuke hence also threat to the concept of world peace) I find this natural, unfortunately.

In a near to perfect world none would have nukes, since some have them (and your enemy happens to have the biggest supply) everyone should have them. (and by everyone I mean nations or states not people)

Ideally, NK surrenders her nukes to the UN. In return, the UN provides humanitarian relief for the starving masses and assures the sovereignty of NK, with a view of Korean unification.

Surely that's a contradiction in terms, no?

Surely that's a contradiction in terms, no?
I don't see it as a contradiction at all. It would take a long time but a process is needed.

I don't see it as a contradiction at all. It would take a long time but a process is needed.

I know, but North Korea won't see it that way. In their idea Unification equals one Korea under Pyongyang.

How Korean reunification could happen really is a muddle. I don't see the North collapsing or voluntarily surrendering to the South. A military 'solution' would kill thousands, although I might add that thousands die of famine anyway.

I wonder if and how it will happen. I'll have to think about that one in a free tomorrow...

I know, but North Korea won't see it that way. In their idea Unification equals one Korea under Pyongyang.

How Korean reunification could happen really is a muddle. I don't see the North collapsing or voluntarily surrendering to the South. A military 'solution' would kill thousands, although I might add that thousands die of famine anyway.

I wonder if and how it will happen. I'll have to think about that one in a free tomorrow...
Watch this documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554). It is 45 minutes long, but it covers the history from early 1900's to present time. Right at the end, it discuss reunification and it makes sense.

If anything has failed, it is Bush's foreign policy. The get tough act has flopped. If you look at the video I posted earlier, you will see where the US has also failed in diplomacy. Put the Bushmaster Binoculars down and see the results of 6 years of failed foreign policy.

"Failed foreign policy"? You must be confusing the Bush Administration with the previous occupants of the White House.

Better get used to that "failed foreign policy", because it's going to be around through the next administration and for a long time to come. Think 2017 and beyond :D

If anything, it could be a backlash, in that the world is far more dangerous now than after 911. His war on terror is a failure and his tough guy stance against Iran and NK seems to be driving them to nuclear poliferation. Bush's foreign policy has been a nightmare.

They were heading that way during the Clinton administration, long before President Bush came along. Try getting your facts straight.

And the only ones having "nightmares" about President Bush's foreign policy are Saddamite dead-enders, Taliban dregs, international jihadists, America-haters and Democrats who hate to see anyone actually do anything against our enemies.

"Five years without an attack, free elections in Iraq!"

"Five years without an attack, free elections in Iraq!"

Wouldn't it be the clinton admin. who gave us that?

Wouldn't it be the clinton admin. who gave us that?

I don't recall the elections being free in Iraq. I mean, in a state where 280,000 people can be shot execution-style within a few months into steaming heaps with some of them buried while still alive...

"Five years without an attack, free elections in Iraq!"

We weren't attacked by terrorists during Nixon's presidency. OMFG HE MUST HAVE BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB!!!

I think now is the time for Japan to start up it's own militatry (I think they still use the US militatry on offense, they just use their militatry on defense. Then maybe consider making some Nuclear arms.

If you had been paying attention, you would have read that a. Japan's self defence force is limited in the role that it can play due to the (American written) constitution. It's not so much that is uses the US military for offensive, it's that they cannot do anything offensive.

Abe is attempting to change this, but he has one hell of an up hill fight in front of him for it.

B. It is going to take something major to get Japan to actually accept nukes. The only thing I can think of is if China starts pointing its nukes at Japan and the US declairs that it will no longer shield Japan under its nuclear umbrella and was withdrawing all military aid.

See, what I don't get is, why the hell can't Japan build up a huge military. If they change their constitution the US will still try to stop it, when we've already let the other former axis members of ww2 build up substainsal militaries. Perhaps there is a bit of racism or prejudice? let germany have a powerful army but not those Japanese. I think there is little chance Japan would attack pearl harbour again. We need Japan the be powerful to help us keep China and N. Korea in check.

See, what I don't get is, why the hell can't Japan build up a huge military.
CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

That's why.

If they change their constitution the US will still try to stop it, when we've already let the other former axis members of ww2 build up substainsal militaries.
Actually, the US is pushing for Japan to change or amend it right now. The US was the one that got Japan to violate it and create the SDF almost before the ink was dry.

The Japanese people now... THAT'S where the issue lies. About 65% of the population are for acknowledging that the SDF is Japan's military. They are even for allowing for collective self-defence, however the majority still does not want article 9 changed beyond that point. Meaning no offensives or pre-emptive strikes.

We need Japan the be powerful to help us keep China and N. Korea in check.
That's another can of worms. The Koreas and China have made it pretty plain that they are not happy to see the rise of a fully armed and operational Death Sta..., er, I mean, another Japanese Army and Navy (Imperial or not).

That's another can of worms. The Koreas and China have made it pretty plain that they are not happy to see the rise of a fully armed and operational Death Sta..., er, I mean, another Japanese Army and Navy (Imperial or not).

well i definetly agree with you their..:)

Somebody said that America wants to spead "Democracy". Who says they want to spread freedom and liberty? All they want to do is spread Democracy, and if that means taking over your country and making you all slaves, you are still democratic, as long as US people can get over there before a revolt.

"Failed foreign policy"? You must be confusing the Bush Administration with the previous occupants of the White House.
No, no confusion whatsoever. Afghanistan and Iraq disaster. Osama Bin Laden still at large. Worldwide terrorism has increased. Iran and NK increasing nuclear capabilities. Majority of US troops want to come home. Declining opinion of US worldwide. Failed roadmap to peace.

Better get used to that "failed foreign policy", because it's going to be around through the next administration and for a long time to come. Think 2017 and beyond :D
That would be disastrous for the US and the world. Hopefully, Congress will fall to the Democrats and that should help.

Not a chance in hell. We can take them conventionally, and nuking them would just make us look bad.

<<from the first page...>>

No we can't!

The entire ground combat tier of our military is rotating through Iraq right now. We have no troops, and even if we did, their stuff is broken. Four years in a desert will do that to a tank, even if you maintain it well. Stuff breaks, and it has.

Now, our navy and airforce are still going great though, we could sink all of North Korea's twelve frigates, or maybe blast up their Su-27s a bit...

(Please note, I voted Llamas/Pancakes)

Alright, I checked some places, and from what I gathered...

North Korea only has three frigates, although they have somewhere around 153 patrol craft and forty-something torpedo boats. Woo!

Also, the J-7, MiG-29, Q-5 and the Su-25 will make up most of their air arsenal. In case any of you don't know, that's not very good, especially compared to the F-22... All in all, they have somewhere around five-hundred aircraft.

Their ground forces unknown to me, but since we don't have any, I assume it's better. A T-72 could kick all of nothing's ass all up and down the block.

Alright, I checked some places, and from what I gathered...

North Korea only has three frigates, although they have somewhere around 153 patrol craft and forty-something torpedo boats. Woo!

Also, the J-7, MiG-29, Q-5 and the Su-25 will make up most of their air arsenal. In case any of you don't know, that's not very good, especially compared to the F-22... All in all, they have somewhere around five-hundred aircraft.

Their ground forces unknown to me, but since we don't have any, I assume it's better. A T-72 could kick all of nothing's ass all up and down the block.
The have better than a million men under arms. Now they may not have the best arms, but they are less than 30 miles away from Seoul.

They also have lots of missles. Again, they may not reach the US, but they can reach Japan and targets in South Korea. Seoul is the 2nd largest metropolitan area on the planet, Tokyo is the first. Both are well within reach of the North's technology. The casulties would be astronomical.

The have better than a million men under arms. Now they may not have the best arms, but they are less than 30 miles away from Seoul.

They also have lots of missles. Again, they may not reach the US, but they can reach Japan and targets in South Korea. Seoul is the 2nd largest metropolitan area on the planet, Tokyo is the first. Both are well within reach of the North's technology. The casulties would be astronomical.

Doesn't the North have some ludicrous amount of artillery within striking range of Seoul? 15,000 pieces is the number that keeps jumping to mind, but I don't know if that's correct.

How will this effect the world?

It won't. The world has already been effected, many million years ago. It may, however, affect it.

Thanks for clarifying that the world is static and that you don't believe in global warming, pollution, or of the climatatic impact of nuclear reactions.

Thanks for clarifying that the world is static and that you don't believe in global warming, pollution, or of the climatatic impact of nuclear reactions.

I think Arridia was just trying to point out the difference between "effect" and "affect".

And s/he did say the world can be affected.

The US is the defender of Democracy.

*falls off his chair laughing*

France, having had four failed Republics, having to be saved in two World Wars, and having to be backed in Viet Nam, is no one to laugh at someone else's being called the Defender of Democracy.
(While American policy in Nam sucked, at least they IMPROVED the place, whereas the French were trying to run it like an 1820s plantation.)

Doesn't the North have some ludicrous amount of artillery within striking range of Seoul? 15,000 pieces is the number that keeps jumping to mind, but I don't know if that's correct.

That's theoretically the number, it's probably pretty accurate though, although on the high and low ends I've heard 9,000 and 25,000.

I can picture this happening........China decides it has had enough with dealing with N. Korea...China sends in a mass soldier amount...China wins.

Couple years later, China decides that the time to take back the control of Taiwan and ultimately succeeds.

All the while setting up a staging in China controlled N. Korea to go on the offensive with the USA.

Now entering WW III.

China, Russia, France, Iran, Venzuala, Cuba (Castro finally died at age 120)
vs
USA, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India

Neutral: Spain, most of Africa, Pakistan(We would have taken Pakistan but we all know that Pakistan and India can't be on the same team, They'd shoot each other instead of the potential enemies of WW III) :D

You've got Russia, France, and China on he wrong sides for sure. No countries with McDonalds have ever fought each other.

I think Arridia was just trying to point out the difference between "effect" and "affect".

And s/he did say the world can be affected.

And I was pointing out that both are valid questions.

And I was pointing out that both are valid questions.

If you had asked "What will the effects be?" or "How will this affect the world?", it would have been a valid question.

"How will this effect the world?" invalid simply because you cannot "effect" anything. Effect isn't a verb and using it in that way is a grammatical mistake even a spellchecker can catch.

When did Clinton Nuke anyone?

he was too busy trying to bang interns to think about doing his job.

and i like clinton....but then again i like my drunk neighbor...but would not want him as president.

as far as nk goes...could go either way...the chinese best put a leash on lil kim..as he is their junk yard dog,and everyone knows it.

if not,us evil americans will have to do what is needed...or else japan and south korea will take matters into their own hands,and the chinese dont want that.

and dont kid yourselves...the us aint as stretched out as you would be led to believe,we are just playing nice right now...push comes to shove..you dont want what we have as far as war(total war) goes.

i aint some bragging cowboy,far from it..i think we should withdraw from the world,look out for our interest only,screw the rest of the world....trade,no problem...you got issues(famine,jerk dictators..whatever)knock on another door.

we cant win even when we play nice...so screw everyone is my attitude.

it would save innocent iraqis,americans..everyone

and i wont have to read about how america feeds every kid under 14 in north korea...and they repay us by detonating a bomb while we are hopefully trying to get democracy started in iraq.

i'll say it...10 iraqis aint worth 1 american to me...not if they are ungrateful or we are not wanted.
i say leave the shithole sandbox(and this is a change of attitude for me)and stop all foreign aid to everyone(they hate us anyhow)
let the jews and muslims kill eachother if that floats their boat....let the african dictators murder their own...it is beyond the pale that we are hated,and yet help so mant ...screw it is my default attitude.

let the french or brits help them..then they can maybe fix the mess they left us holding the bag for.

anyone gets frisky...like china.then we get frisky back.

They made thier own fissionables right? or did they by the urranium ore to enrich?

Yes they did. They currently mine their own Uranium.

The nuclear program can be traced back to about 1962, when the DPRK government committed itself to what it called "all-fortressization," which was the beginning of the hyper militarized North Korea of today. In the mid-1960s, it established a large-scale atomic energy research complex in Yongbyon and trained specialists from students who had studied in the Soviet Union. Under the cooperation agreement concluded between the USSR and the DPRK, a nuclear research center was constructed near the small town of Yongbyon. In 1965 a Soviet IRT-2M research reactor was assembled for this center. From 1965 through 1973 fuel (fuel elements) enriched to 10 percent was supplied to the DPRK for this reactor.

North Korea maintains uranium mines with four million tons of exploitable high-quality uranium.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

I think they would have enriched the Uranium enough to run a fast breeder reactor to activate U-238 to produce weapons-grade Plutonium, and then use that in a spherical compression bomb.
Check here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm) for the details.

I wonder if you can detect radioactivty from an underground test.

Depends on the test.

The regime of the "Dear Leader" :rolleyes: must be overthrown. South Korea, maybe it's time to move your capital to Busan.

The only appropriate answer here is a :rolleyes: right back at you.


Kim only stands 5' 2" tall, has a cellar filled with atleast 10,000 bottles of different liquours........and is currently testing Nukes.

I didn't think it was possible for the people of NSG to actually agree but I think, despite the poll percentages, that we all agree (or atleast the one posting) that this is a bad situation. An alcoholic holding the Nuke detonator/launcher....Oh my.

Oh goody! Can we start with the alcoholic with his finger on the button in Washington? (A "dry drunk (http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/literature/drydrunk.htm)" is probably more dangerous in that position...)

Took the world long enough to realize that NK has nukes :rolleyes:

Anyone who's been paying attention to the news in the last 3 years knows they say they have them.

I think now is the time for Japan to start up it's own militatry (I think they still use the US militatry on offense, they just use their militatry on defense. Then maybe consider making some Nuclear arms.
See, what I don't get is, why the hell can't Japan build up a huge military. If they change their constitution the US will still try to stop it, when we've already let the other former axis members of ww2 build up substainsal militaries. Perhaps there is a bit of racism or prejudice? let germany have a powerful army but not those Japanese. I think there is little chance Japan would attack pearl harbour again. We need Japan the be powerful to help us keep China and N. Korea in check.

:headbang:

Yo guys, pull your heads out of your buttss and pay attention to the world just a tiny tiny bit, please. Japan already has a substantial military - 160,000 personnel and 900 tanks in the GSDF; 46,000 personnel and 330 combat aircraft in the ASDF; and 44,400 personnel and 155 major combat vessels; including thirteen submarines, sixty-four destroyers and frigates, forty-three mine warfare ships and boats, eleven patrol craft, six amphibious ships, 205 fixed-wing aircraft and 134 helicopters in the MSDF.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/

(Sorry to be terse there, but I gedt tired of having to set people straight everytime the subject of the Japanese military comes up. Wilgrove, IIRC, this is the second time for you...)


<<from the first page...>>

No we can't!

The entire ground combat tier of our military is rotating through Iraq right now. We have no troops, and even if we did, their stuff is broken. Four years in a desert will do that to a tank, even if you maintain it well. Stuff breaks, and it has.

Indeed. Same goes for the other boogy man in Iran. Gee wasn't dropping the the "two war" strategy a good idea?

Their ground forces unknown to me, but since we don't have any, I assume it's better. A T-72 could kick all of nothing's ass all up and down the block.

The have better than a million men under arms. Now they may not have the best arms, but they are less than 30 miles away from Seoul.

They also have lots of missles. Again, they may not reach the US, but they can reach Japan and targets in South Korea. Seoul is the 2nd largest metropolitan area on the planet, Tokyo is the first. Both are well within reach of the North's technology. The casulties would be astronomical.

Doesn't the North have some ludicrous amount of artillery within striking range of Seoul? 15,000 pieces is the number that keeps jumping to mind, but I don't know if that's correct.

That's theoretically the number, it's probably pretty accurate though, although on the high and low ends I've heard 9,000 and 25,000.

North Korea continues to position forces into the area just north of the DMZ— in a position to threaten Combined Forces Command and all of Seoul with little warning. Seventy percent of their active force, including approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. This percentage continues to rise despite the June 2000 summit. Most of this force in the forward area is protected in over 4,000 underground facilities, out of over 11,000 nationwide. From their current locations, these forces can attack with minimal preparations or warning. The protracted southward deployment follows a tactic of “creeping normalcy”—a significant movement over a period of many years that would attract too much international attention if accomplished over weeks or months.

According to remarks made by General LaPorte, commander USFK, during congressional testimony in March 2003 North Korea has for the past 10 or 12 years adapted its military on what the military leadership perceives as the strengths of the United States military. The KPA has adapted in several ways. First in terms of communications the North Korean military has developed an indigenous, frequency-hopping radio that allows soldiers to communicate in a secure mode. Fiber optics have been installed between fixed facilities. And in attempt to protect its forces from US surveillance and air capabilities, the North Koreans have built a tremendous number of underground facilities throughout North Korea to protect leadership and critical forces.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm

No countries with McDonalds have ever fought each other.

Do we have to tear up that one again? Friedman's Golden Arches theory doesn't hold true. (That's one reason it was replaced by the Dell Theory.)

Countries that have fought or started wars when at least 1 McDonalds was operating in both countries during or just prior to the war:

USA-Panama
India-Pakistan
NATO-Yugoslavia
Israel-Lebanon

Damn them, lets hope China will be really pissed now and dump that maniac Kim.

and

They have. Openly. I think the Chinese have been pissed at Kim for a long, long time, and it's taken this to get them to be honest about it. China is North Korea's largest donor, in terms of capital and food, and is rapidly modernising economically. All it gets in return from backward North Korea is broken promises, political embrassment, and thousands of refugees.

For China, North Korea is a liability that has failed to move with the times. They would rather make money from North Korea, than spend it on them.

I am still surprised by the # of ppl buying that line of thinking.

China proliferated both the missiles and nukes (directly, before signing missile control and Non proliferation treaties and indirectly through Pakistan, its other proxy) that NK is brandishing now.

What in the world makes you guys think that China is against the NK regime? Their public announcements? Good lord...

The conservatives in the Diet may like the idea, but it is still a taboo subject with the Japanese population and I don't forsee the central government challenging the general population, especially as it's still trying to figure out where the people of Japan fit into things after Koizumi.

All Kim has to do is to lob a few missiles.

The nuke they have is most probably from Pakistan which has already demonstrated that it can be mated to the Ghauri missile - the NoDong of NKorea.

So the NKoreans have both the bomb and a credible means of delivery thru missiles.

Japan has no option but to eventually go nuclear (atleast have the US give them some with some sort of joint control).

The uber-asian mentality of Japanese can accept Chinese bomb, but not a Korean one.

What's the over/under on China doing something in the next 48 hours?

Japan might even do something here.Yeah, let's place bets! :Dactually doing something military?

here is my bets:

#1 Japan will cry a lot.. and do nothing.
#2 China will condem.. and do nothing.

what are your bets gentlemen?

World War 3 (not III, ruman numerals are so not this century) is coming.
Roman not Rumanian.;)

All Kim has to do is to lob a few missiles.

The nuke they have is most probably from Pakistan which has already demonstrated that it can be mated to the Ghauri missile - the NoDong of NKorea.
Since they seem to have built this themselves, nothing I have seen says they have anything that can fit onto a missile. Missiles over Japan peviously have not been enough to change the country's mind on nukes.

Japan has no option but to eventually go nuclear (atleast have the US give them some with some sort of joint control).
This ignores the extream anti-nuclear poistion in the general Japanese population. To do so would be to commit poltical suicide.

The uber-asian mentality of Japanese can accept Chinese bomb, but not a Korean one.
What the hell is an uber-asian mentality?

Yuck it up, twit. :p
OMG a Eutrusca!

Now they want to fire a nuclear missile if we don't do what they want.

Since they did the nuke test because we didn't do what they want, I'm sure they'll do this.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20556854-601,00.html

A NORTH Korean official has warned the communist nation could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the US acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang, a South Korean news agency has reported.

"We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," the unnamed official said, according to a Yonhap report from Beijing.

"That depends on how the US will act."

Now they want to fire a nuclear missile if we don't do what they want.


And China still considers the military option unthinkable. I think Kim feels stronger than ever, since he now has the capacity (or so he makes everyone else believe) to take out Seoul, Tokyo and even Beijing in a single strike. Whatever move is made against him it won't be quick enough to stop these cities from being destroyed.

He might even do it just 'cuz.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6036595.stm

Fact is that China doesn't want any more instability than there already is. If they don't react strong enough, the DPRK will slip out of their hands even more, and that will destabilise the region, and could even prove a threat to China itself. If they react too strongly on the other hand, the DPRK might collapse, leaving China with a serious job on its hands.

Neither is an attractive option. It will be quite interesting to see how they will handle it, because this time it forces China to take a real stance on an international issue, which they don't often do.

Do we have to tear up that one again? Friedman's Golden Arches theory doesn't hold true. (That's one reason it was replaced by the Dell Theory.)

Countries that have fought or started wars when at least 1 McDonalds was operating in both countries during or just prior to the war:

USA-Panama
India-Pakistan
NATO-Yugoslavia
Israel-Lebanon
first, israel didn't fought the lebannese army or forces, thus didn't fight lebanon. israel fought hizbulla although it was in lebanon area.
second, friedman's theory is clearly an alegory. as capitalist and globalitionist, I guess he see mcdonalds as agreement to the west and his values. those points are arguable, butit still better attack them, than the mcdonalds part.

as capitalist and globalitionist, I guess he see mcdonalds as agreement to the west and his values.
But it isn't.

Even countries that these days are very heavily focussed on business and economic growth and are willing to make use of all sorts of Western ways of doing things don't necessarily accept any of the West's values.

But it isn't.

Even countries that these days are very heavily focussed on business and economic growth and are willing to make use of all sorts of Western ways of doing things don't necessarily accept any of the West's values.
anyway it better attack him on that, on not about mcdonalds.
there is another option of understanding him, as "countries economically related won't endangre their economies in war", but since that part already proven wrong in WW2, I didn't thought it worthy to mention.

Clinton started out, as mentioned before, trying to altogether ignore some eminent problems brewing in North Korea. In his Essay "Clinton's Foreign Policy in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and North Korea", Thomas H. Henriksen gives a detailed account of the events that shaped Clinton's early policy towards North Korea. He mentions that Clinton never made any talk about North Korea during his first presidential campaign in 1992. However, Clinton very quickly figured out he would have to deal with North Korea when fears starting to arise that they were generating materials for nuclear weapons with their small nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. Clinton, in response to these fears, decided to start military training exercises, known as Team Spirit, in South Korea. This flexing of military muscle prompted North Korea to threaten to pull out of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). After some negotiations North Korea agreed to pull back on their threat of withdrawing from the NPT. This led Clinton to reward North Korea for its reversal by not considering any trade sanction or military actions against the DPRK. Things started growing worse though as the fear that North Korea had nuclear capabilities grew. Leading the fears along was the fact that the dictator of North Korea at the time, Kim Il Sung, was blocking nuclear inspectors from reaching the nuclear reactors they wanted to inspect. Furthermore, it was later concluded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that North Korea did indeed have nuclear capabilities. These new developments brought the United States to the brink of war with North Korea. Before shots, or rockets in this case, could be fired an agreement known as the Agreed Framework was signed on October 21, 1994. Among other things in this treaty, North Korea agreed to shutdown their old reactor and submit to inspections by the IAEA. In return the United States would help fund the building of two so-called light water reactors, which do not produce as much plutonium as the older reactors that the DPRK had. Also the Unites States would ship oil to North Korea until the new reactors were completed in order to compensate for the loss of power after shutting down the old reactor (previous paragraph came from Henriksen, 29-38).

The events that transpired between the United States and the DPRK early in Clinton's administration are rich in Foreign Policy decision making. One can pick out many examples of ideas such as bilateral diplomacy. In his book, American Foreign Policy: Past, Present, and Future, Glenn P. Hastedt mentions that bilateral diplomacy is, "[a] form of diplomacy in which two states interact directly with one another" (291). From this definition it is apparent that in fact much of the dealings with North Korea during the Clinton years were of a bilateral-diplomatic form. Additionally, a form of military coercion is also apparent, although the effectiveness can be debated. This apparent coercion came in the form of Clinton's resumption of the Team Spirit training exercises. Clearly these training exercises, which took place along the borders of North Korea, were meant to intimidate the DPRK; attempting to show North Korea that if they tried anything we would be ready to attack. Yet the only effect these training exercises lead to was the threat from the DPRK to withdraw from the NPT. This threat made it clear to the United States that a show of aggression would only provoke the leader of the DPRK to do something drastic, and hence the military coercion was not an effective policy.

As a result of the failure of a coercive approach, the United States had to turn to different approaches. Namely, the United States would have to move away from military unilateralism and more towards economic multilateralism. The United States did just that. As Henriksen reports, the United States along with Japan and South Korea persuaded the DPRK to not consider dropping the NPT. The United States then rewarded North Korea for this decision by not imposing any trade sanctions (31). This last action is an obvious example of economic reward. This approach of essentially rewarding good behavior would come in handy again. This time it was in the crowning achievement of Clinton's dealings with North Korea, the agreed framework treaty. In this case the United States rewarded North Korea for turning off their old nuclear reactors by building them new reactors and shipping oil to them (Henriksen, 34). It can be argued though if this is really a reward. The reactors the United States would help build are too compensate the DPRK for closing their older reactors, and the oil is only being shipped until the reactors are up and working. This would appear to be, in short, something that the United States agreed to do in compensation, and not as a reward. However, the U.S. could have just as easily demanded that North Korea stop their reactors without any compensation (but what are the chances that North Korea would agree to that). Perhaps then this end of the agreement can be thought of as more of an incentive than a reward.



My question is this back in 1992 and in 1998 when NK was making Clinton their bitch ...did he have to stand on a milk crate to give him the what for ?


**** Note when dealing with stalanist type dictators of closed societies include a YOU LIE YOU DIE CLAUSE**********

And China still considers the military option unthinkable. I think Kim feels stronger than ever, since he now has the capacity (or so he makes everyone else believe) to take out Seoul, Tokyo and even Beijing in a single strike. Whatever move is made against him it won't be quick enough to stop these cities from being destroyed.

He might even do it just 'cuz.


Ummm he cant even get his missiles to actually fly ...and still has to figure out HOW to stick one of the crude devices he managed to cobble toghether on a missile ..and then actually have the missile take off and not come back .

WTF are you smoking ?


At any rate China could destroy NK in less than 20 minutes. Kim -ill bung wouldnt have time for one Elvis song before he died .


Hey coool I noticed at least 21 insane people in the poll ! I love this place !!

My question is this back in 1992 and in 1998 when NK was making Clinton their bitch ...did he have to stand on a milk crate to give him the what for ?


**** Note when dealing with stalanist type dictators of closed societies include a YOU LIE YOU DIE CLAUSE**********
*yawns* Yes, yes, yes, Clinton is the boogey man and is caused for 9/11, North Korea, Foley, and possibly the death of a small black dog.

You have a point. I've been drunk a lot and I can't tell you how many times I've want to nuke the shit out of stuff. To bad for N.Korea they, like me, have no method of delivery.

on an unrelated side note: are you in the 813, 727 perhaps?
I would be in the 727 :D

*yawns* Yes, yes, yes, Clinton is the boogey man and is caused for 9/11, North Korea, Foley, and possibly the death of a small black dog.


What a small matter like facts upset you ?


address the issue ?? Why wasnt it handled ? Why are we dealing with the midget now when it would have been easier in 1992 0r 1998 ?


Hey I know...lets do the same thing with Iran !:D

what a concept...hey Democrats ...come back...hurry we got Nuke problems...bring your lube !!! :p


Clinton got rooked...bent over and done up real good....thats a fact Jack.

too bad about the Dog though.

Don't think he had much in common with Foley...except when he was dealing with NK and his other great foriegn poloicy gigs...:D

What a small matter like facts upset you ?


address the issue ?? Why wasnt it handled ? Why are we dealing with the midget now when it would have been easier in 1992 0r 1998 ?


Hey I know...lets do the same thing with Iran !:D

what a concept...hey Democrats ...come back...hurry we got Nuke problems...bring your lube !!! :p


Clinton got rooked...bent over and done up real good....thats a fact Jack.

too bad about the Dog though.

Don't think he had much in common with Foley...except when he was dealing with NK and his other great foriegn poloicy gigs...:D
Yes, try a small fact that Clinton knew and Bush now knows, even without nukes North Korea could cause some spectacular damage to South Korea.

But, you're so busy trying to find a way to blaim Clinton (who, you know, actually engaged North Korea as opposed to just ignoring it for 6 years because Bush wanted to play in Iraq) and so busy hoping for ANOTHER war that you fail to see this.

Sad, really.

One of two things is happening on this forum: Either the number of trolls and puppets are on a steep climb, or people are just getting stupid at an alarming rate.

Scary situation, regardless.

*yawns* Yes, yes, yes, Clinton is the boogey man and is caused for 9/11, North Korea, Foley, and possibly the death of a small black dog.

What do Republicans check under their bed for at night? Bill Clinton.

You've got Russia, France, and China on he wrong sides for sure. No countries with McDonalds have ever fought each other.

I threw France in because, I'll be honest, I don't really like them, their government, or their attitudes, Russia can't be trusted (I wouldn't want them to be on our side and then start shooting us in the backs), China because they really are against the West and Democracy as a whole.

And now for something compleatly different, actual news.

China has issued strong warnings to the North and has noted that relations with it's ally are extreamly tense.

Japan has announced that it will NOT consider nukes. Prime Minister Abe has reafirmed Japan's strict no-nuclear policy.

South Korea has stated that it will not santion war against the North, but will back other means to convince the North to return to the 6th party talks.

Russia is annoyed.

Ambassador Bolton says military options are on the table, however President Bush wants a diplomatic solution.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/10/international/i050720D22.DTL

And that answers just about all the questions floating on this thread, except how this is gonna change the world.

Sure.... Just as Clinton began his presidency, George W. Bush also started out with a policy of indifference towards North Korea. When the 2000 elections rolled around in November North Korea was not an issue at all. It was not a thought in anyone's mind, and the first 9 months of Bush's administration seemed to be no different from his campaign as far North Korea is concerned. That all changed on September 11, 2001 when terrorists crashed large jets into the both towers of the World Trade Center and also into the pentagon. In a speech that Bush made to Congress in the weeks after the fateful day, he made reference to what he called an axis of evil. This so-called axis of evil was the states that bush identified as threats to the United States. As you may have guessed, North Korea was included in this group.



Unlike you I pay attention.


And I can tell the diffence between 9 months and eight years .

Then North Korea dropped a bombshell when, on October 16, North Korea admitted that it had an active nuclear program (Sanger, 1). About a month later, the Bush Administration decided to halt the oil shipments, which were part of the agreed framework, starting with the December shipment. The administration however, under pressure from South Korea and Japan, allowed the November shipment, which was already en-route, to proceed to the DPRK (Dao, 1).

From the short time that the Bush administration has been in power, a trend of multilateralism can be seen. For instance, in its dealings with North Korea, the Bush Administration has, as it seems, gone out of their way to make it clear that they want to work with other player states such as Japan and South Korea, and maintain what the administration calls a "Unified front" (Dao, 2). South Korea and Japan have a particular interest in dealing with South Korea because they are so close to Japan, and have been targets of North Korean aggression in the past. According to James Dao in his New York Times article "Bush Administration Halts Payments to Send Oil to North Korea," the two states have been particularly adamant about maintaining open lines of communications with North Korea, contending that "engagement is the best way to change its behavior" (1). Another trend that can be seen early on in the Bush Administration's policy is that of economic punishment. Bush's plan to halt oil shipments, and to stop construction on the two light water reactors (both part of the AAgreed Framework), will economically hurt the DPRK. North Korea depends on the oil shipments for its energy needs, and the building of the reactors gives jobs to many North Koreans. If the United States pulls funding for the reactor and simultaneously cuts off the oil shipments, it could be disastrous for North Korea.




And as you can see there hass BEEN continouse engagement with NK ..and CHINA and the rest of the concerned parties ..SOMETHING CLINTON did not do...could be why he had to take it in the rear ...


So Mr Partisan apologist song ssinging member of the left wing club of see no evil....


What now ?


A few more versus of the Evil bush song please ....humm a few bars ...

Yes, try a small fact that Clinton knew and Bush now knows, even without nukes North Korea could cause some spectacular damage to South Korea.

But, you're so busy trying to find a way to blaim Clinton (who, you know, actually engaged North Korea as opposed to just ignoring it for 6 years because Bush wanted to play in Iraq) and so busy hoping for ANOTHER war that you fail to see this.

Sad, really.


Your whats SAD ..you cant read...or you only read what you want to see.

Clinton started out, as mentioned before, trying to altogether ignore some eminent problems brewing in North Korea. In his Essay "Clinton's Foreign Policy in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and North Korea", Thomas H. Henriksen gives a detailed account of the events that shaped Clinton's early policy towards North Korea. He mentions that Clinton never made any talk about North Korea during his first presidential campaign in 1992.

And whats even sadder ...you wont except the fact that he made a HUGE blunder and failed miserably...instead you throw out some slop about ...Ohhh the bad NK might hurt someone...

See BACK THEN they could have hurt someone but NOT WITH A FUCKING NUKE .

Its different now ...

Much easier to take the damage without the Nukes ...

cripes why do I bother .

Your whats SAD ..you cant read...or you only read what you want to see.



And whats even sadder ...you wont except the fact that he made a HUGE blunder and failed miserably...instead you throw out some slop about ...Ohhh the bad NK might hurt someone...

See BACK THEN they could have hurt someone but NOT WITH A FUCKING NUKE .

Its different now ...

Much easier to take the damage without the Nukes ...

cripes why do I bother .

Shit, why stop there? Why not blame it on whoever was president during the Korean War? It was his responsibility to wipe those commie bastards off the planet and he failed!

Heaven forbid we blame the person who, through six years of office, has completely IGNORED both the Iranian and NoKo threat in lieu of a false threat from Iraq, not only failing to create a democracy there, but plunging it into civil war and increasing overall terrorism in the middle-east!

Yeah, totally not his fault.

Sure he has only had continuing negotiations since 2001...


WAY TO INGNORE DUDE !



You get a medal for being so blinded to hate and your predudice that you can actually now ignore reality completely ..:rolleyes:

Shit, why stop there? Why not blame it on whoever was president during the Korean War? It was his responsibility to wipe those commie bastards off the planet and he failed!

Heaven forbid we blame the person who, through six years of office, has completely IGNORED both the Iranian and NoKo threat in lieu of a false threat from Iraq, not only failing to create a democracy there, but plunging it into civil war and increasing overall terrorism in the middle-east!

Yeah, totally not his fault.

If you wish to blame one person then go right ahead. Don't you feel that people need to take responsibility and accountability for their actions. Did Bush tell bin Laden and the other terrorists "I'm going in Iraq, gonna blow it up, Now you got a reason for terror, be my guest go blow things up, wrap bombs around your kids and send em to the bus, who cares if you blow up innocent men, women, and children. With Iraq, you now have a reason for Terror" give me a fucking break.........

N. Korea just feels left out. They see the middle east is getting all of the attention, so this is their way of getting the attention turned.

Which I do feel will ultimately help the Republicans maintain control.

Hmmm.......maybe this is a trick of the Republicans.....maybe they secretly have special arrangements which the terrorists and dictators.

Ummm he cant even get his missiles to actually fly

He can't get his latest generation of long range missiles to fly, that doesn't mean he doesn't have medium and short range missiles that can.

...and still has to figure out HOW to stick one of the crude devices he managed to cobble toghether on a missile ..and then actually have the missile take off and not come back .

Oh, no, intractable problems that I'm sure no one in NK has been thinking about until right this moment. Oh, forget it, surely they'll never make it.

WTF are you smoking ?

Obviously nothing as good as your stuff.


At any rate China could destroy NK in less than 20 minutes. Kim -ill bung wouldnt have time for one Elvis song before he died .

Hellooooo! Anybody in there? Kim can destroy Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul inside those 20 minutes too! Were you paying attention?

It doesn't matter if they can take him off quickly, however quick they can do it they still can have a nuclear explosion in Beijing. Do you think the Chinese are so stupid they'll risk that?

N. Korea just feels left out. They see the middle east is getting all of the attention, so this is their way of getting the attention turned.

except of the part that most countries which comitted crime against humanity, develope WMDs, abuse their citizens and build their power- prefer the global attention will be on someone else. at least until they will be in a point when you can't stop them from achieve their goals.

if Kim just want attention, there many psichologists who can handle it.

Sure he has only had continuing negotiations since 2001...


WAY TO INGNORE DUDE !



You get a medal for being so blinded to hate and your predudice that you can actually now ignore reality completely ..:rolleyes:

Oh yeah, how'd that work out? Not very well, apparently! The talks solved nothing. During the 2004 election, Kerry campaigned to bring in other countries to talk with them as well, but Bush - in his 'stay the course' mindset - insisted that we had to have 1 on 1 talks, no other countries involving themselves. So Bush won. The talks did nothing. NoKo has nukes now. We obviously went the wrong route, and since Bush was controlling that route, it would prove to logic that it was in fact *drumroll please* Bush's fault, for the majority.

Also I find it funny how up until now the defense was "Please, Clinton fucked it all up long before Bush had a chance to!" and now once I point out the stupidity of that backtracking argument (seeing as how you'd have to go all the way back to the Korean War to find the initial responsibility, or if you're in a joking mood, back to Feudal Japan and keep them and China from colonizing Korea in the first place) the defense has suddenly changed to "Why are you so narrowminded? The blame can't just be one person's fault! Silly Bushbasher."

Oh yeah, how'd that work out? Not very well, apparently! The talks solved nothing. During the 2004 election, Kerry campaigned to bring in other countries to talk with them as well, but Bush - in his 'stay the course' mindset - insisted that we had to have 1 on 1 talks, no other countries involving themselves.

Actually I think it was the other way around. The US wanted multilateral talks, while NK wanted one on one talks with the US.

Not that I think anything would have worked out, mind you. Nothing that Clinton or Bush could do to turn North Korea, because while Seoul remains vulnerable to attack NK will have the upper hand. And since Seoul won't be moving anywhere soon...

This is one case where sanctions could actually work. If I were in charge I would first of all remind N. Korea that their successful test of a nuclear weapon means our use of nuclear weapons against them is now a real option. Then I would make sure that any nation trading with or even delivering aid, food, fuel, or medicine, to the North would no longer be able to do business with the USA. China and S. Korea won't risk losing billions of dollars in trade to bail out Kim. Kim can't even feed his nation without outside help. It would drive him to the bargaining table.

Actually I think it was the other way around. The US wanted multilateral talks, while NK wanted one on one talks with the US.

Not that I think anything would have worked out, mind you. Nothing that Clinton or Bush could do to turn North Korea, because while Seoul remains vulnerable to attack NK will have the upper hand. And since Seoul won't be moving anywhere soon...

No, I quite clearly remember the two opposing sides. I'm not sure what NoKo wanted, but I remember that Bush wanted unilateral while Kerry was pushing for multilateral talks.

China and S. Korea won't risk losing billions of dollars in trade to bail out Kim.

Problem is the US can't afford to lose the billions of dollars of trade with China and SK either.

A real pickle this one, the world's powers have very little wiggle room. Not really the US fault, it's been that way for a long time now.

Maybe if they had listened to McArthur... but the risk of war against China and the Soviet Union was too big.

This is one case where sanctions could actually work. If I were in charge I would first of all remind N. Korea that their successful test of a nuclear weapon means our use of nuclear weapons against them is now a real option. Then I would make sure that any nation trading with or even delivering aid, food, fuel, or medicine, to the North would no longer be able to do business with the USA. China and S. Korea won't risk losing billions of dollars in trade to bail out Kim. Kim can't even feed his nation without outside help. It would drive him to the bargaining table.

Hopefully that'd be enough. Though we could come at a standstill if he refuses to back down with the threat of retaliation to such sanctions being nukes to nearby countries. I wonder who those nearby countries would back more? Hard to say, when you've got a nuke to your face.

This is one case where sanctions could actually work. If I were in charge I would first of all remind N. Korea that their successful test of a nuclear weapon means our use of nuclear weapons against them is now a real option. Then I would make sure that any nation trading with or even delivering aid, food, fuel, or medicine, to the North would no longer be able to do business with the USA. China and S. Korea won't risk losing billions of dollars in trade to bail out Kim. Kim can't even feed his nation without outside help. It would drive him to the bargaining table.

I think Kim said he want to bargain on status "favorited trading countrey" while his nukes kept as threat.
maybe he didn't thought it well.

Oh yeah, how'd that work out? Not very well, apparently! The talks solved nothing. During the 2004 election, Kerry campaigned to bring in other countries to talk with them as well, but Bush - in his 'stay the course' mindset - insisted that we had to have 1 on 1 talks, no other countries involving themselves. So Bush won. The talks did nothing. NoKo has nukes now. We obviously went the wrong route, and since Bush was controlling that route, it would prove to logic that it was in fact *drumroll please* Bush's fault, for the majority.

Also I find it funny how up until now the defense was "Please, Clinton fucked it all up long before Bush had a chance to!" and now once I point out the stupidity of that backtracking argument (seeing as how you'd have to go all the way back to the Korean War to find the initial responsibility, or if you're in a joking mood, back to Feudal Japan and keep them and China from colonizing Korea in the first place) the defense has suddenly changed to "Why are you so narrowminded? The blame can't just be one person's fault! Silly Bushbasher."

That bold print line seems to be pretty accurate.....Thank you for bringing out the facts. As for the talks of being one on one, why do I continually hear about a "six party talks" http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm331.cfm
and not to mention the UN has also been working for many years on the issue of N. Korea.

Fact is is you cannot factually blame one person for N. Korea's behavior regarding Nukes.

Also, note that it is N. Korea who wanted to deal one on one with the USA and that N. Korea was against the six party talks. That the USA did their damnest to tell N. Korea that the six party talks must take place.

This is one case where sanctions could actually work. If I were in charge I would first of all remind N. Korea that their successful test of a nuclear weapon means our use of nuclear weapons against them is now a real option. Then I would make sure that any nation trading with or even delivering aid, food, fuel, or medicine, to the North would no longer be able to do business with the USA. China and S. Korea won't risk losing billions of dollars in trade to bail out Kim. Kim can't even feed his nation without outside help. It would drive him to the bargaining table.

I'm not to sure if it would help considering Kim doesn't care about the well-being of his own people. He only cares about his alcohol, fast cars, nukes, and having his military standing by.

That bold print line seems to be pretty accurate.....Thank you for bringing out the facts. As for the talks of being one on one, why do I continually hear about a "six party talks" http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm331.cfm
and not to mention the UN has also been working for many years on the issue of N. Korea.

Fact is is you cannot factually blame one person for N. Korea's behavior regarding Nukes.

Also, note that it is N. Korea who wanted to deal one on one with the USA and that N. Korea was against the six party talks. That the USA did their damnest to tell N. Korea that the six party talks must take place.

True, I can't blame just one person. I blame Kim, I blame Bush, I blame the UN, I blame WW2, I blame the Korean War, I even blame Clinton just a little bit, but most of the blame goes on Bush in my mind because he acted like he knew what he was doing and most certainly did not. He didn't have a clue. He led us to believe that he had a plan to keep this shit from happening, the same old lullaby "I'll make everything alright" bullshit we keep hearing from this administration. It's the anvil that broke the camel's back.

I'm not to sure if it would help considering Kim doesn't care about the well-being of his own people. He only cares about his alcohol, fast cars, nukes, and having his military standing by.

Well, he can only keep control if the people think they have something to lose. When they're faced with the prospect of starving to death anyway, being shot in a revolution doesn't seem like all that bad of an option. At least it's quicker.

This is one case where sanctions could actually work. If I were in charge I would first of all remind N. Korea that their successful test of a nuclear weapon means our use of nuclear weapons against them is now a real option. Then I would make sure that any nation trading with or even delivering aid, food, fuel, or medicine, to the North would no longer be able to do business with the USA. China and S. Korea won't risk losing billions of dollars in trade to bail out Kim. Kim can't even feed his nation without outside help. It would drive him to the bargaining table.

In my opinion, sanction would mainly hurt the people most. I'm under the impression the people of North Korea are opressed and they know it-I dont think they have any love for their government.
I'm worried sanctions will hurt them most, starvation will be worse than it is and the people may actually start to unite under their glorious leader-rather than against him and again, the US will be the bad guy that keeps food from their children's mouths.

True, I can't blame just one person. I blame Kim, I blame Bush, I blame the UN, I blame WW2, I blame the Korean War, I even blame Clinton just a little bit, but most of the blame goes on Bush in my mind because he acted like he knew what he was doing and most certainly did not. He didn't have a clue. He led us to believe that he had a plan to keep this shit from happening, the same old lullaby "I'll make everything alright" bullshit we keep hearing from this administration. It's the anvil that broke the camel's back.

I feel that you are still in anger over our presidential election Bush vs Kerry. It's time to move on.

By saying that Bush is "mostly to blame", is quite ridiculous. Was Bush with Kim helping put the nukes together? For as much as you blame Bush that's what it sounds like.

True, I can't blame just one person. I blame Kim, I blame Bush, I blame the UN, I blame WW2, I blame the Korean War, I even blame Clinton just a little bit, but most of the blame goes on Bush in my mind because he acted like he knew what he was doing and most certainly did not. He didn't have a clue. He led us to believe that he had a plan to keep this shit from happening, the same old lullaby "I'll make everything alright" bullshit we keep hearing from this administration. It's the anvil that broke the camel's back.

The blame should rest solely on Kim Jong Il. Blaming the president of one country for not stopping him, which could only be done with an invasion, is folly. Kim will do anything to retain his power. You must be naive to think that you would be able to talk him out of a goal he has had since before the Bush administration.

The development of their nuclear program was to quote Kim (from Team America): "In...in...inevitable."

I feel that you are still in anger over our presidential election Bush vs Kerry. It's time to move on.

By saying that Bush is "mostly to blame", is quite ridiculous. Was Bush with Kim helping put the nukes together? For as much as you blame Bush that's what it sounds like.

He might as well have been. He diverted attention from what was really needed over to a useless war in Iraq that he didn't even execute properly.

Yes, I'm still pissed off about the 2004 election. And the 2000 election. And any other time when the Bush rhetoric had a significant negative impact on our country as a whole - of course I'm still pissed off.

The blame should rest solely on Kim Jong Il. Blaming the president of one country for not stopping him, which could only be done with an invasion, is folly. Kim will do anything to retain his power. You must be naive to think that you would be able to talk him out of a goal he has had since before the Bush administration.

The development of their nuclear program was to quote Kim (from Team America): "In...in...inevitable."

Quite so, the talks would most likely have done nothing, regardless. My point being, with Bush at the helm for the last six years, we've done nothing productive in the ways of deterring this from happening - in fact, we've allowed it to happen by stretching our military so thin and using it so ineffectively that we have no bargaining power other than that which is the only thing Bush is worse at than using military strategy: using diplomatic strategy.

Quite so, the talks would most likely have done nothing, regardless. My point being, with Bush at the helm for the last six years, we've done nothing productive in the ways of deterring this from happening - in fact, we've allowed it to happen by stretching our military so thin and using it so ineffectively that we have no bargaining power other than that which is the only thing Bush is worse at than using military strategy: using diplomatic strategy.

Likewise, your strong hateful resentment does nothing productive.

I just heard that China despite their history of sanctions involving N. Korea will support "strong" sanctions against N. Korea. All the while N. Korea continues their threat directed to the USA by launching a nuke tipped missle towards an interest of the USA.

I'm sure that our defence system is preparing just in case the threat becomes a reality. I'm sure we have our elite Navy on the move. That would be the absolute last thing N. Korea would ever be able to do.

Likewise, your strong hateful resentment does nothing productive.

Untrue - my hateful resentment of the current administration is exactly what this country needs. The government needs to be criticized and speculated on as much as possible to keep them in check - seems the US has forgotten that and is now reaping the whirlwind, so to speak.

You want an objective view? Or are you happy just singing Bush is Satan and Clinton is El polo Diablo ?


Read this ..

http://www.people.umass.edu/mray/essays/northkorea.html


Of course the dudes wrote this before the nukes got tested so they got a few things wrong ...but they list all the steps and compare them for you...by both presidents..


YOU decide who did what ..we know Clinton got screwed on his deal.

Read all about how and why...its never a good idea to trust a crazy dictator...but at the time it was considered " PEACE IN OUR TIME "

We just found out better...oct 2001 when Kim ill bung went .".nah nah nah

Lacky imperialist dogs I screwed you good now pay me "...


hehehehehe

Monday, December 16, 2002 Posted: 8:40 AM EST (1340 GMT)



Clinton said North Korea might be tempted to sell nuclear weapons to anyone willing to pay


CNN's Christiane Amanpour talks to Mohamed ElBaradei about possible nuclear facilities in Iran, Iraq and North Korea. (Part 1)


ROTTERDAM, The Netherlands -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton says he had plans in the early 1990s to attack and destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities after the secretive communist state was found to be producing weapons-grade plutonium.

At the time, he said, North Korea had plans to produce between six and eight nuclear weapons per year.

"We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and to destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program," Clinton told a security forum in the Dutch port city of Rotterdam Sunday.

"We were in a very intense situation," he said.

His statement came days after North Korea announced that it planned to restart its nuclear reactor after Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, announced he was halting supplies of fuel oil to the country.

The United States had been providing North Korea with the oil under the terms of a 1994 agreement, ending the first crisis over the North's suspected weapons program.

Under the deal, known as the Agreed Framework, the North had agreed to mothball its reactor and abandon efforts to construct nuclear weapons, pending the construction of two advanced reactors that do not produce weapons-grade material.

However, in October North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation they had continued with their weapons program in contravention of the deal.

Highest bidder



Former U.S. President Bill Clinton says he had plans in the early 1990s


Here read some FACTS....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB164/

I fail to see the problem with North Korea performing nuclear tests. :confused:

I fail to see the problem with North Korea performing nuclear tests. :confused:

Let's weigh some stuff out.....buying food for the starving mass population or by warheads and ingredients for nuke and the research for nukes.

I think that's the number one reason...

Enables N. Korea to Nuke S. Korea, Japan, and yes even possibly the USA or its interests.

Kim is a crazy fat little dictator who has allowed is people to become very oppressed and doesn't mind them starving to death....

the list goes on and on

China even is pretty pissed off about the Nuke testing too, so that says a lot right there.

You want an objective view? Or are you happy just singing Bush is Satan and Clinton is El polo Diablo ?


Read this ..

http://www.people.umass.edu/mray/essays/northkorea.html


Of course the dudes wrote this before the nukes got tested so they got a few things wrong ...but they list all the steps and compare them for you...by both presidents..


YOU decide who did what ..we know Clinton got screwed on his deal.

Read all about how and why...its never a good idea to trust a crazy dictator...but at the time it was considered " PEACE IN OUR TIME "

We just found out better...oct 2001 when Kim ill bung went .".nah nah nah

Lacky imperialist dogs I screwed you good now pay me "...


hehehehehe





[b]


Here read some FACTS....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB164/

*shrugs* That says nothing about the faulty judgement or decision-making by the Bush administration. It says there's some blame to be spent in Clinton's direction, and I agree. Anyone in any country with the ability to prevent this is to blame to some degree, I just place most of that blame onto Bush for reasons you seem to not acknowledge.

I fail to see the problem with North Korea performing nuclear tests. :confused:

Everything Bush said about an "axis of evil" was utter bullshit, period. But that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as an evil dicatatorship, and North Korea fits perfectly into that category. Hell, at least mostpeople don't starve in China so they can spend 25% of their GDP on the military.

So basically, do you want an unstable, Stalinist, one-man dictatorship to have Nukes when they are still technically at war with their (democratic) Southern partner?

Don't get me wrong, for all the good it could do, I think invading the place is the wrong answer. But, we leed less nukes in the world, not more, and especially not in Korea.

Let's weigh some stuff out.....buying food for the starving mass population or by warheads and ingredients for nuke and the research for nukes.

I think that's the number one reason...

Enables N. Korea to Nuke S. Korea, Japan, and yes even possibly the USA or its interests.

Kim is a crazy fat little dictator who has allowed is people to become very oppressed and doesn't mind them starving to death....

the list goes on and on

China even is pretty pissed off about the Nuke testing too, so that says a lot right there.

OK, I can see that channelling funds away from the starving masses is wrong, but then again over we're spending money on helicopters that don't work instead of education, health-care and transport everyone does it!!!

America has been able to more or less turn the planet into a radioactive rubble heap for decades, and I know they aren't as bad as Kim but there are some really trigger-happy people in America.

OK, I can see that channelling funds away from the starving masses is wrong, but then again over we're spending money on helicopters that don't work instead of education, health-care and transport everyone does it!!!

America has been able to more or less turn the planet into a radioactive rubble heap for decades, and I know they aren't as bad as Kim but there are some really trigger-happy people in America.

Aw crap this idiot forgot about Russia again.

DOH!

OK, I can see that channelling funds away from the starving masses is wrong, but then again over we're spending money on helicopters that don't work instead of education, health-care and transport everyone does it!!!

America has been able to more or less turn the planet into a radioactive rubble heap for decades, and I know they aren't as bad as Kim but there are some really trigger-happy people in America.

Yeah, but America isn't going to use them because one man says so. If Bush wanted to nuke Canada and go after Albertan oil, there would be plenty of people in the NSC, Cabinet, military and possibly the CIA to quietly tap him on the shoulder and make sure he knew it was a bad idea. Heck, even Congress might have something to say about it.

In short, Bush isn't going to nuke Canada.

Let's look at North Korea. It's at war with South Korea, and every so often they squabble about something. Sometimes they even end up shooting shots over the border or the odd maritime shootout. And if something small happened that could be interpreted badly by North Korea wrongly, KJI could order a nuke on top of Seoul, no questions asked. I wouldn't put it past him.

Do you want to risk that? I know I don't.

Plus, there's the moral argument. If we can persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and spend money on a little more cognac for bureaurats or army rations or even (shock) ordinary Korean workers we should. Period.

And finally, if North Korea wants to start a little dick waving and play silly buggers, there's no reason why we can't play too, right?:D

apanese can accept Chinese bomb, but not a Korean one.
What the hell is an uber-asian mentality?

I'm going to have to concur... WTF are you on about?

first, israel didn't fought the lebannese army or forces, thus didn't fight lebanon. israel fought hizbulla although it was in lebanon area.

Wrong.

1) McDonalds was established in Lebanon and Israel (1992 and 1998, IIRC) before Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.
2) Don't even try and tell me Hezbollah isn't Lebanese. (Hezbollah had an 80% support rate among Lebanese in this summer's war. [1 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html)]. Not to mention their holding official government positions.)
3) Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for the Hezbollah attacks.
4) Lebanese forces were involved in this summers war as well.
5) None of this addresses the other examples.

second, friedman's theory is clearly an alegory.

Err... no. An allegory is a symbolic narriative - Piers Plowman for example. The Golden Arches Theory - that no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war - is a theory based on a demonstrably false Urban Legend. It is not symbolic, a narriative, nor correct.

as capitalist and globalitionist, I guess he see mcdonalds as agreement to the west and his values. those points are arguable, butit still better attack them, than the mcdonalds part.

If one wants to argue that, then one ought to argue that instead of making a specious and factually incorrect argument.

anyway it better attack him on that, on not about mcdonalds.

I disregard the Goldern Arches Theory on factual grounds. If the facts show that several countries with McDonalds have indeed gone to war, then one cannot reasonably claim the opposite. One can attempt to disopute the facts, but you have yet to convince me that the facts I presented above are in error.

there is another option of understanding him, as "countries economically related won't endangre their economies in war", but since that part already proven wrong in WW2, I didn't thought it worthy to mention.

As you yourself say, that theory (and indeed, most variants of the Democratic peace theory) is demonstrably false. If it were stated as a probability instead of an absolute, it'd work a lot better.


*yawns* Yes, yes, yes, Clinton is the boogey man and is caused for 9/11, North Korea, Foley, and possibly the death of a small black dog.

Not to mention this really painful hangnail I got last week....

What do Republicans check under their bed for at night? Bill Clinton.

I check under my futon for cute Japanese ladies and i tend to vote GOP.... Does that count? ;)

And now for something compleatly different, actual news.

China has issued strong warnings to the North and has noted that relations with it's ally are extreamly tense.

Japan has announced that it will NOT consider nukes. Prime Minister Abe has reafirmed Japan's strict no-nuclear policy.

South Korea has stated that it will not santion war against the North, but will back other means to convince the North to return to the 6th party talks.

Russia is annoyed.

Ambassador Bolton says military options are on the table, however President Bush wants a diplomatic solution.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/10/international/i050720D22.DTL

And that answers just about all the questions floating on this thread, except how this is gonna change the world.

Good, good.

I fail to see the problem with North Korea performing nuclear tests. :confused:

In which case, you fail PoliSci 101. Please enroll in Remedial Reality Check 101 down the hall.

In short, Bush isn't going to nuke Canada.

Really?!? Well CRUD! :(

N Korea has nukes, so? The test merely confirmed what we already knew.

What can be done about it? nothing. No country has the military ability to do anything about it. Russia, China and the USA would be defeated by the N Koreans in a conventional war, US forces in S Korea would be neutralized in a matter of hours. A dedicated well equiped military of over a million men with another 5-6 million trained reserves, not even China will dare take them on.
Any attack on Korea would bring on a total war, chem/bio or nukes will be used as needed, N Koreans will use whatever they need to. No Iraq here the US will get it's arse handed to it on a platter should it attack N Korea.

The world has to accept another country has joined the Nuke club and deal with it.



"Axis of evil" and the invasion of Iraq just confirmed to every country in the world that if you have nukes, the US will never invade you. Well done George.

Really?!? Well CRUD! :(

Sure he won't. Canada's cool, eh?

back to the op .
Why not?
Why not?

OK, I can see that channelling funds away from the starving masses is wrong, but then again over we're spending money on helicopters that don't work instead of education, health-care and transport everyone does it!!!

Yeah, but people still have food, clean water, electricity medical care and schools. Kim's people can't even get enough food to keep themselves alive and healthy, and many of them have no power because the infrastructure is falling apart or lacks the equipment and fuel to keep it operating.

The poorest people in the US still have it better than the average North Korean...the situation there is that bad.

I'm just gonna geek out for a minute here and recall a series of episodes from Dragonball Z where Vegeta and Nappa were just sitting there waiting for Goku to appear so they could fight someone worth fighting. There was a cease-fire for the duration.

This is kinda like what North and South Korea are doing now. NoKo is waving its power around, blatantly asking to be kicked in the ass by someone who has the balls and ability to do so, while SoKo pretty much twiddles its thumbs and looks around for Goku.

[/totalgeek]

ffs.

"It's bush's fault!", "It's clinton's fault!"

Here's an idea - why don't you strict liberals and conservatives come to a compromise and agree that overall it's the fault of the US....

:rolleyes:

In all seriousness, I doubt there is much the US could've done over the years under any administration bar starting a 2nd Korean war... and by now I hope we all have learnt just how messy such 'pre-emptive strikes' are.

Anywho, regarding what should be done full sanctions are in order. Yes, the people are starving, and yes it is likely ol'Kimmy will simply let the economic blow fall directly on the already starving masses rather than his precious military but eventually something has to crack. It has too. People can only be oppressed so much before they decide enough is enough, even if they have been brainwashed for the past sixty-odd years. Sooner or later the lack of funds is going to hit the military and hopefully cause some discontent.

Nobody in the region really wants NKorea to collapse due to the mess that will need to be cleaned up after the smoke has cleared. But when you think about it, the place is already a mess and I doubt Kim Jong Il or any of his successors are going to do anything to improve matters in the future - especially when the military is they're only means of holding power. If you want things to improve you have to get the Kimmy regime out of power and to do that you have to deal with the military.

So what is it going to be? Would you rather confront the world's fourth largest military head on or would you rather it turned on itself? Both will result in a mess - but the only other option is the continued existance of the DPRK. Kim knows this - he's a smart man you know - that's why he's testing nukes, as this increases the possible size of said messes mentioned earlier. He want's the third option. :p

Sure he won't. Canada's cool, eh?

One of my good friends here is Canadian. We have an ongoing conversation about the merits of each others home countries. He's ahead on points after pointing out hockey, decriminalised pot, hockey, beer, hockey, this year's Miss Canada (very much my type), and hockey.... ;)

in democracie elected people represent the people

ffs.

"It's bush's fault!", "It's clinton's fault!"

Here's an idea - why don't you strict liberals and conservatives come to a compromise and agree that overall it's the fault of the US....

:rolleyes:

In all seriousness, I doubt there is much the US could've done over the years under any administration bar starting a 2nd Korean war... and by now I hope we all have learnt just how messy such 'pre-emptive strikes' are.

Anywho, regarding what should be done full sanctions are in order. Yes, the people are starving, and yes it is likely ol'Kimmy will simply let the economic blow fall directly on the already starving masses rather than his precious military but eventually something has to crack. It has too. People can only be oppressed so much before they decide enough is enough, even if they have been brainwashed for the past sixty-odd years. Sooner or later the lack of funds is going to hit the military and hopefully cause some discontent.

Nobody in the region really wants NKorea to collapse due to the mess that will need to be cleaned up after the smoke has cleared. But when you think about it, the place is already a mess and I doubt Kim Jong Il or any of his successors are going to do anything to improve matters in the future - especially when the military is they're only means of holding power. If you want things to improve you have to get the Kimmy regime out of power and to do that you have to deal with the military.

So what is it going to be? Would you rather confront the world's fourth largest military head on or would you rather it turned on itself? Both will result in a mess - but the only other option is the continued existance of the DPRK. Kim knows this - he's a smart man you know - that's why he's testing nukes, as this increases the possible size of said messes mentioned earlier. He want's the third option. :p

Well, basically what happened in DBZ was that Vegeta and Nappa got bored and sent their little green henchmen after the other team. Yamcha died, and my memory gets fuzzy beyond that but the ceasefire was broken and Gohan ended up going head-on with Nappa while losing badly - Krillin jumped in to help at one point, and later on Picollo died after taking a full blast to save Gohan. Somewhere inbetween those events, Chau-Su goes kamikaze and blows himself up while holding onto Nappa's back - it doesn't do much to Nappa, but Chau-Su dies. Tien also dies, though I can't remember how, exactly. Soon after that, Goku arrives and 'makes sport' of Nappa, whooping his ass to kingdom come. Vegeta becomes disgusted with how weak Nappa's being and kills him, then goes one-on-one with Goku.

After a long and brutal battle including what one might interpret to be metaphors for nukes, Vegeta crawls away from the battle, defeated and spared by Goku.

Within the next couple storylines, Vegeta becomes a full-fledged good guy.


Not sure how this relates, but things usually mirror eachother. I'm a tarot reader, but instead of cards I have DBZ.

[/fuckingdorkleaveusalone]

ffs.

"It's bush's fault!", "It's clinton's fault!"

Here's an idea - why don't you strict liberals and conservatives come to a compromise and agree that overall it's the fault of the US....

:rolleyes:

In all seriousness, I doubt there is much the US could've done over the years under any administration bar starting a 2nd Korean war... and by now I hope we all have learnt just how messy such 'pre-emptive strikes' are.

Anywho, regarding what should be done full sanctions are in order. Yes, the people are starving, and yes it is likely ol'Kimmy will simply let the economic blow fall directly on the already starving masses rather than his precious military but eventually something has to crack. It has too. People can only be oppressed so much before they decide enough is enough, even if they have been brainwashed for the past sixty-odd years. Sooner or later the lack of funds is going to hit the military and hopefully cause some discontent.

Nobody in the region really wants NKorea to collapse due to the mess that will need to be cleaned up after the smoke has cleared. But when you think about it, the place is already a mess and I doubt Kim Jong Il or any of his successors are going to do anything to improve matters in the future - especially when the military is they're only means of holding power. If you want things to improve you have to get the Kimmy regime out of power and to do that you have to deal with the military.

So what is it going to be? Would you rather confront the world's fourth largest military head on or would you rather it turned on itself? Both will result in a mess - but the only other option is the continued existance of the DPRK. Kim knows this - he's a smart man you know - that's why he's testing nukes, as this increases the possible size of said messes mentioned earlier. He want's the third option. :p

good post, Kim Il is made out to be crazy, but he is crazy like a fox he's out manovered everyone.
He plays to those who keep him in power, the military. Nothing will change Kim Il will win this cold war.

good post, Kim Il is made out to be crazy, but he is crazy like a fox he's out manovered everyone.
He plays to those who keep him in power, the military. Nothing will change Kim Il will win this cold war.

you surely know about the coud war.
you knew it was there before you were born.
yes you knew about aftghanistan,and vietnam.
even LA

you knew about it.

You also knew the marshal plan was best
:fluffle:

Wrong.

1) McDonalds was established in Lebanon and Israel (1992 and 1998, IIRC) before Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.
2) Don't even try and tell me Hezbollah isn't Lebanese. (Hezbollah had an 80% support rate among Lebanese in this summer's war. [1 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html)]. Not to mention their holding official government positions.)
3) Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for the Hezbollah attacks.
4) Lebanese forces were involved in this summers war as well.
5) None of this addresses the other examples.

1)I didn't argue against the existance of mcdonalds
2)hizbulla didn't fight for the interests of lebanon, but for iran and syria. the fact they were lebannese wasn't made them representors of lebanon. also, by poll from the war above 70% of greece support the hizbulla. it wasn't made the hizbulla greeks.
in addition, most of the lebannese goverment were against the actions of hizbulla, so I don't think they represent the official policy of lebanon.
3)no, israel held the lebaneese goverment responsible for lack of action against the hizbulla, thus made israel to act. unlike what you said we consider them as different from the hizbulla and didn't take direct action against them.
4)the lebaneese army was in the north of lebanon, while the fighting was in the south. they didn't fought us.
5)nor did I tried. you simply can't take that statement as it reads.
Err... no. An allegory is a symbolic narriative - Piers Plowman for example. The Golden Arches Theory - that no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war - is a theory based on a demonstrably false Urban Legend. It is not symbolic, a narriative, nor correct. unlike waht you may think, mcdonalds isn't the important part her. you can replace it with "drink coca-cola", and the idea will be as same.
it isn't fact, but statement.


If one wants to argue that, then one ought to argue that instead of making a specious and factually incorrect argument.since you aren't supposed to take that statement as it reads, and the fact that I didn't read is book were he probably clear the issue, I can make speculations about the meaning.
anyway, you can suggest another meaning, but you can't deny it wasn't supposed to be used as fact.


I disregard the Goldern Arches Theory on factual grounds. If the facts show that several countries with McDonalds have indeed gone to war, then one cannot reasonably claim the opposite. One can attempt to disopute the facts, but you have yet to convince me that the facts I presented above are in error.

As you yourself say, that theory (and indeed, most variants of the Democratic peace theory) is demonstrably false. If it were stated as a probability instead of an absolute, it'd work a lot better.

this statement was over used, and probably change a bit while it happened.
when I firstly saw it the warding was: "2 countries with mcdonalds usually don't fight eachother", which is more reasonable.

Since they seem to have built this themselves,

How did u figure "they seem to have built it themselves"?

Explain the C-130 plane trips from Pakistan to NK carrying nuke material and the missile for nukes exchange between Pak and NK (this was admitted to by the then PM Benazir Bhutto).

Explain the mismatch between NKs technological capabilities and scientific output when it comes to every other thing, other than missiles and nukes, for which we have clear evidence of proliferation from China and Pak.

"indigeneous"....yeah right...:rolleyes:

nothing I have seen says they have anything that can fit onto a missile.

NoDong = Ghauri of Pak. Ghauri is nuke capable and has been mated with nuke warheads. After these tests, C-130 planes carried nuke materials from Pak to NK. Hence it is both possible and probable that NK can mate its NoDongs with nuke warheads.

1+1 = 2.

Missiles over Japan peviously have not been enough to change the country's mind on nukes.

But those were not nuke capable then. They are now.

This ignores the extream anti-nuclear poistion in the general Japanese population. To do so would be to commit poltical suicide.

lol.

To not counter NK's nuke capability is committing actual suicide.


What the hell is an uber-asian mentality?

The notion of racial superiorty over other Asians.


I'm going to have to concur... WTF are you on about?

See above.

Australia imposed sanctions on NK today...they said the rest of the world is welcome to join them...


AUSTRALIA .....way to go guys...enough bullshit ...at least some action.

NK says that if the US doesn't start negotiating an unfortunate Nuke may be fired in our direction...:D :D :D :D


These dudes are REALLY sane...:D

NK says that if the US doesn't start negotiating an unfortunate Nuke may be fired in our direction...:D :D :D :D

But do the Koreans really have the means to fire off a Nuke that could reach America?

As far as I've heard their most advanced carrying system is a Bike.
With three wheels.

they didn't bomb nagazakl?so what's the trick?

I threw France in because, I'll be honest, I don't really like them, their government, or their attitudes, Russia can't be trusted (I wouldn't want them to be on our side and then start shooting us in the backs), China because they really are against the West and Democracy as a whole.

Those arent very convincing reasons, IMO. I'm not a fan of France, but they're not going to fight against the rest of their own allies. Russia wont fight against the Occidental world, either.
China also doesn't want to lose its export market and has nothing to gain.

The others? Sure. :)

But do the Koreans really have the means to fire off a Nuke that could reach America?

As far as I've heard their most advanced carrying system is a Bike.
With three wheels.

The missile that they tested a few months ago was reported to have been heading for the seas around Hawaii before it..errm... "Malfunctioned".

But do the Koreans really have the means to fire off a Nuke that could reach America?

As far as I've heard their most advanced carrying system is a Bike.
With three wheels.


They have wheels ???

Do we have to tear up that one again? Friedman's Golden Arches theory doesn't hold true. (That's one reason it was replaced by the Dell Theory.)

Countries that have fought or started wars when at least 1 McDonalds was operating in both countries during or just prior to the war:

USA-Panama
India-Pakistan
NATO-Yugoslavia
Israel-Lebanon


USA-Panama: Damn! (Yes, you're right. That's an exception.)

India-Pakistan: Nope. They haven't had a war since 1971. India got a McD's in October 1996, Pakistan in 1998.

NATO-Yugoslavia: Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule: the war ended quickly, he argued, partly because the Serbian population did not want to lose their place in a global system "symbolised by McDonald's" (Friedman 2000: 252–253). It should be noted that Friedman framed this theory in terms of McDonald's Golden Arches "with tongue slightly in cheek" (Friedman 2005). :D

Israel-Lebanon: It's unclear if Israel fought Lebanon or Hezbollah. While Hezbollah is a party in Lebanon, it's no more the same as going to war against Lebanon than the US went to war with Columbia when sending in advisors to fight against FARC.

Ten minutes ago, South Korea claimed that North Korea has tested its first nuclear weapon.

How will this effect the world?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15190745/

A few more dead and disfigured babies and a large cloud of nuclear dust.

Mmm.

Long term North Korea having nukes means that the dear leader, who is getting on in years and is lets face it psychotic, is going to beat george bush and tony blair in the race to cause armageddon

Wow.

New record. Must be. :D

http://homepage.swissonline.ch/Stargate_SG-1/images/golf.JPG

A few more dead and disfigured babies and a large cloud of nuclear dust.

Mmm.

Long term North Korea having nukes means that the dear leader, who is getting on in years and is lets face it psychotic, is going to beat george bush and tony blair in the race to cause armageddonhe's not psychotic to believe that is dangerous.

here some of the options and dangers

1-USA/Georgeswallows some pride agrees to bi-lateral talks, disaster averted world accepts another member to Nuke club.

2-USA leads an embargo against the North forcing it to attack S Korea and then Japan and USA-very bad, nukes are likely as US/S Korea will not win the conventional war.

3-N Korea realizes it's strength with Nukes, knows the US can do nothing to stop them invades S Korea anyways.

2-USA leads an embargo against the North forcing it to attack S Korea and then Japan and USA-very bad, nukes are likely as US/S Korea will not win the conventional war.


Oh? Where do you glean this information from?

Oh? Where do you glean this information from?I read alot, common sense, watching the gamesmenship going on between the powers. N Korea is striong is there is nothing anyone can do about it short of nuking them off the map.

I read alot, common sense, watching the gamesmenship going on between the powers. N Korea is striong is there is nothing anyone can do about it short of nuking them off the map.

You think it's possible that North Korea could successfully invade the South?

That, friend, is crazy talk.

You think it's possible that North Korea could successfully invade the South?

That, friend, is crazy talk.

No, but they could certainly make a mess of things, and kill a lot of people trying.

It's not only possible that they would try, I believe it's likely.

You think it's possible that North Korea could successfully invade the South?

That, friend, is crazy talk.US military doesn't think so, they can occupy the entire south in 30 days,one General said the US forces there are toast in as little as 3 hrs. Neither the S Koreans or USA has the forces to stop them. 1,200,000 men another 5-6million reserves armed to the teeth with weapons that can do the job. Despite what propaganda you have been led to believe the N Korean military is very capable. Not even the Chinese will take them on in a land battle.

No, but they could certainly make a mess of things, and kill a lot of people trying.

It's not only possible that they would try, I believe it's likely.of course estimates vary from one source to another, one source has US casualties at 20 thousand in the first month up to 100,000 by the end of hostilities and millons of civilians on both sides.

US military doesn't think so, they can occupy the entire south in 30 days,one General said the US forces there are toast in as little as 3 hrs. Neither the S Koreans or USA has the forces to stop them. 1,200,000 men another 5-6million reserves armed to the teeth with weapons that can do the job. Despite what propaganda you have been led to believe the N Korean military is very capable. Not even the Chinese will take them on in a land battle.

Riiiiight...capible.

Is it the 8,000 nigh obsolete tanks which the US Air force has shown great competence in killing in large numbers?

Is it the airforce that has 20, TWENTY, modern fighters?

Airpower is King. The U.S. has much of it. North Korea has none of it.

Well, just in case the alarmists haven't heard, CNN has had a report up for a few hours saying that, in fact, the test failed.

That has got to smart...

Well, just in case the alarmists haven't heard, CNN has had a report up for a few hours saying that, in fact, the test failed.

That has got to smart...

That's great - aren't you so glad they're trying to make it work? Makes me feel better already... :rolleyes:

Well, just in case the alarmists haven't heard, CNN has had a report up for a few hours saying that, in fact, the test failed.
Yeah, apparently it was meant to be 4kt, but the test was less than one, according to the US. The South Koreans agree.

The Russians say it was bigger than that.

Either way, it doesn't change the facts. Indeed, it just means that they'll do it again.

India-Pakistan: Nope. They haven't had a war since 1971. India got a McD's in October 1996, Pakistan in 1998.

Kargil, 1999.

Well Japan is now saying that N. Korea has done a second Nuclear test, but S. Korea isn't confirming this. Also, N. Korea also wants to put nuclear warheads on missles.


Me thinkth we won't be seeing N. Korea as a country much longer.

How did u figure "they seem to have built it themselves"?

Explain the C-130 plane trips from Pakistan to NK carrying nuke material and the missile for nukes exchange between Pak and NK (this was admitted to by the then PM Benazir Bhutto).

Explain the mismatch between NKs technological capabilities and scientific output when it comes to every other thing, other than missiles and nukes, for which we have clear evidence of proliferation from China and Pak.

"indigeneous"....yeah right...:rolleyes:

NoDong = Ghauri of Pak. Ghauri is nuke capable and has been mated with nuke warheads. After these tests, C-130 planes carried nuke materials from Pak to NK. Hence it is both possible and probable that NK can mate its NoDongs with nuke warheads.

1+1 = 2.
No, you're attempting to go from A to B to Z without the beifit of the other letters. Where is your proof? Were are the statements from anyone? You really think that if this wasn't the case, given past actions and compliants against Pakistan, China, and North Korea the US wouldn't be screaming from the roof tops about this?

If not the US, South Korea and Japan?

No, instead we see report after report that North Korea is devloping their own bomb. This is highly in line with previous efforts from the North. They may have a missmash of technology from other countries in there, but I do not see anything to say that anyone mailed Dear Leader a compleat Nuclear Erector Set for Christmas one year.

What I am seeing, given you past post history, is yet more willingness to blaim Pakistan and China... hmm... I wonder why?

But those were not nuke capable then. They are now.
Even the US isn't taking the nuclear tipped missile threat seriously.

lol.

To not counter NK's nuke capability is committing actual suicide.
"Possession of nuclear arms is not an option at all for our country. I want to state clearly that there will be no change at all in our three non-nuclear principles." -Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo in a speech to the Japanese Diet on October 10th.

The notion of racial superiorty over other Asians.
何だHell? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Riiiiight...capible.

Is it the 8,000 nigh obsolete tanks which the US Air force has shown great competence in killing in large numbers?

Is it the airforce that has 20, TWENTY, modern fighters?

Airpower is King. The U.S. has much of it. North Korea has none of it.

the truth is the USA has very little idea what the N Koreans have. N Korean have tanks that are considerably modified from older designs. Silly to think that a country that develop a nuke and a delivery system can't develop a better tank. And suspicion is that they have some of the thickest armoured tanks on the planet with guns to match.

Koreans will not have to defeat the US airforce merely keep them occupied and unlike the Iraqi's who hid their planes, the Koreans will attack. North Korea has a large number of ground-to-air missiles. It has SA-2 and SA-3 missiles against low-flying enemy planes, and SA-5 missiles for high-altitude planes. SA-5 missiles have an effective range of 250 km. SA-5 missiles can hit enemy planes flying over the middle of South Korea.

North Korea has 2 artillery corps and 30 artillery brigades equipped with 120mm self-propelled guns, 152mm self-propelled mortars, 170mm guns with a range of 50 km, 240 mm multiple rocket launchers with a range of 45 km, and other heavy guns. North Korea has about 18,000 heavy guns. North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world. These guns can lob shells as far south as Suwon miles beyond Seoul. The big guns are hidden in caves. Many of them are mounted on rails and can fire in all directions. They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter of hours.


North Korea has reengineered US shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles captured in Vietnam, and designed its own missile, wha-sung. North Korea began to manufacture wha-sung missiles in 1980. Wha-sung comes in two models: SA-7 that has an effective range of 5 km and SA-16 with 10 km range. North Korea has more than 15,000 wha-sung missiles in place.

Throw in 120,000 speacial forces the most of any country that will behind US and S korean lines to create havoc, attacking infrastructure targets and military bases. Many are already in S Korea awaiting orders.

This isn't Iraq-these people are motivated and have been preparing for war for 50yrs. Forget about "shock and awe" their weapons troops and supplies are buried under granite, the US has nothing that can reach them other then nukes.

Hopefully N Korea will be reasonable otherwise expect casualties...a lot of them.

Okay, enough of the weeny wagging. What do the key players want to be done about this?

From China:

Asked whether his country would back sanctions, China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said that "the door to solve this issue from a diplomatic point of view is still open."

While senior U.S. officials said there appeared to be "substantial" support for "strong sanctions," it remains unclear whether Russia and China -- which hold veto power on the Security Council and have voiced opposition to UN sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program -- would go along with a very tough punishment for North Korea.

From South Korea:

The South Korean Prime Minister, Han Myung-sook, said Tuesday that Seoul would not support a resolution including a threat of military force.

From Russia:

Russia said Tuesday it was ready to take part in joint efforts to arrive at a "peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the situation".

From Japan:

There were concerns that the reported nuclear test would prompt Japan to build its own bomb, but Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told lawmakers Japan's anti-nuclear policy would remain unchanged. "There will be no change in our non-nuclear arms principles," Abe said Tuesday.

From the US, more weeny wagging:

America's lead negotiator on North Korean issues urged sanctions that are tough enough to show North Korea's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il, that he made a "very, very costly" mistake if a test was indeed carried out.

"He is going to really rue the day that he made this decision," said Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill Monday in an interview with CNN.

Yea George:

However, Bush insisted the United States "remains committed to diplomacy" to settle the dispute.

That's great - aren't you so glad they're trying to make it work? Makes me feel better already... :rolleyes:

Indeed, it does make me feel better, because it gives us a chance to topple Kim Jong-Il by starving him out without the risk of his using nuclear weapons.

But do the Koreans really have the means to fire off a Nuke that could reach America?

As far as I've heard their most advanced carrying system is a Bike.
With three wheels.

The NKorean indigeneous capacity has nothing to do with their actual capability which they have and can get by proliferation.

Their NoDong missile was proliferated to Pakistan which painted green on it and called it Ghauri. That missile was nuke capable, so we have to assume that NoDong is also nuke capable.

http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/05/ghauri2.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/missile/hatf-5.htm

The Ghauri/NoDong version has a range of 1,350-1,500 Kms. That's < 1000 miles.

But the Taepo'Dong of NK which has a longer range 2000 Kms, may have already been proliferated to Pakistan, since Pakistan announced that it is working on a 2000 Km range missile called "Ghaznavi". So, worst case scenario is 2000 Kms. But definitely the NKoreans have a credible means to deliver nukes via missiles at the range of Ghauri/NoDong (assuming, they had only one warhead and they detonated that during their "test"...:P)

-snip-
http://militaryminds.tribe.net/thread/8a4d0b57-0aa5-4451-8be9-e6fe190231ac

Read the response by "Jordan". Says pretty much everything that was needed to be said, except that North Korean units better be good on their feet, because they'll run out of fuel mighty quick when the little fuel they do have in stock is blown to bits.

http://militaryminds.tribe.net/thread/8a4d0b57-0aa5-4451-8be9-e6fe190231ac

Read the response by "Jordan". Says pretty much everything that was needed to be said, except that North Korean units better be good on their feet, because they'll run out of fuel mighty quick when the little fuel they do have in stock is blown to bits.

an estimated 1.46 million tons of fuel buried underground, deeper than bunker busters can reach. The thing is about the N Korea is that they are so secretive using fibre optics for communication and other methods that there is no way to be sure of what they have. Some sources say they have only 6-8 nukes which is still enought to destroy Seoul and Tokyo and maybe L.A. (f they can get it there) but other sources say they could have as many as 100. What's the truth? They're playing poker are they bluffing? Who wants to call their bluff?

Speaking of North Korea, this made my day

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

Okay, enough of the weeny wagging. What do the key players want to be done about this?

From China:

Quote:
Asked whether his country would back sanctions, China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said that "the door to solve this issue from a diplomatic point of view is still open."

While senior U.S. officials said there appeared to be "substantial" support for "strong sanctions," it remains unclear whether Russia and China -- which hold veto power on the Security Council and have voiced opposition to UN sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program -- would go along with a very tough punishment for North Korea.

From South Korea:

Quote:
The South Korean Prime Minister, Han Myung-sook, said Tuesday that Seoul would not support a resolution including a threat of military force.

From Russia:

Quote:
Russia said Tuesday it was ready to take part in joint efforts to arrive at a "peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the situation".

From Japan:

Quote:
There were concerns that the reported nuclear test would prompt Japan to build its own bomb, but Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told lawmakers Japan's anti-nuclear policy would remain unchanged. "There will be no change in our non-nuclear arms principles," Abe said Tuesday.

From the US, more weeny wagging:

Quote:
America's lead negotiator on North Korean issues urged sanctions that are tough enough to show North Korea's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il, that he made a "very, very costly" mistake if a test was indeed carried out.

"He is going to really rue the day that he made this decision," said Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill Monday in an interview with CNN.

Yea George:

Quote:
However, Bush insisted the United States "remains committed to diplomacy" to settle the dispute.

Ok so read between the lines, no one wants to call Kim Il's bluff. They all think he has the means to deliver nukes and the will to use them. And no one wants to go toe to toe in a conventional war with Korea either.

Who wants to call their bluff?
Okay, I know the GDR isn't the DPRK...but both were communists states who thought they were under threat and needed to defend themselves. The DPRK does devote a lot more resources, but that's not the point - the point is that it is still a communists helper-state's military.

Even if the designs are any good (which they wouldn't be, as Jordan rightly points out), they'd be of poor quality manufacturing. Maintenance would be a nightmare, hundreds if not thousands of thanks, guns and missiles would just be left on the ground because they don't work. Look at the recent missile test, or now the nuke test: It's the DPRK's best and most prestigious military technology, but nothing works properly. If they can't make their internationally observed missile test work, why would you think their tanks could operate properly for even a few days?

Even if they did have that much fuel buried somewhere - buried fuel doesn't fuel trucks or tanks. They need to get it to the frontline, which is impossible.

The one thing they can do is rain artillery grenades and missiles on civilians. That's why I am against a war with the DPRK. But don't think for a second that a committed alliance of NATO, the ROK and maybe even Japan couldn't absolutely wipe the floor with the North Korean military.

Speaking of North Korea, this made my day

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm
The only comment I can make is that talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. Afghanistan, Iraq.....Mission Accomplished!! Cue jet landing .... :rolleyes:

Okay, I know the GDR isn't the DPRK...but both were communists states who thought they were under threat and needed to defend themselves. The DPRK does devote a lot more resources, but that's not the point - the point is that it is still a communists helper-state's military.

Even if the designs are any good (which they wouldn't be, as Jordan rightly points out), they'd be of poor quality manufacturing. Maintenance would be a nightmare, hundreds if not thousands of thanks, guns and missiles would just be left on the ground because they don't work. Look at the recent missile test, or now the nuke test: It's the DPRK's best and most prestigious military technology, but nothing works properly. If they can't make their internationally observed missile test work, why would you think their tanks could operate properly for even a few days?

Even if they did have that much fuel buried somewhere - buried fuel doesn't fuel trucks or tanks. They need to get it to the frontline, which is impossible.

The one thing they can do is rain artillery grenades and missiles on civilians. That's why I am against a war with the DPRK. But don't think for a second that a committed alliance of NATO, the ROK and maybe even Japan couldn't absolutely wipe the floor with the North Korean military.we can debate back and forth on the ability of the N Korean military but I know what I see, the US military is very concerned with N Korea's ability, if they are so should everyone else.

But don't think for a second that a committed alliance of NATO, the ROK and maybe even Japan couldn't absolutely wipe the floor with the North Korean military.

You forgot Poland. :p












Yes, I know, Poland is part of NATO. I'm just being dumb. :p

The only comment I can make is that talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. Afghanistan, Iraq.....Mission Accomplished!! Cue jet landing .... :rolleyes:wasn't the NATO chief in Afganistan the other day that said they have 6 months to defeat the Taliban or it's all over. The locals will switch sides and the Taliban will win.

Well, we should be looking at Israel to lose their nuclear weapons, before North Korea. Israel seems more aggressive than NK.

Kargil, 1999.

A small skirmish. I don't consider 3 months of conflict that wasn't declared a war by either side as a war.

wasn't the NATO chief in Afganistan the other day that said they have 6 months to defeat the Taliban or it's all over. The locals will switch sides and the Taliban will win.
I didn't hear that, but it does seem to have gotten much worse. If the US hadn't run off to Iraq with most of the troops to create a civil war there, perhaps the Taliban might have been defeated by now.

Hopefully, Bush will in fact take a better shot at diplomacy with NK, or things could get worse all over the place.

we can debate back and forth on the ability of the N Korean military but I know what I see, the US military is very concerned with N Korea's ability, if they are so should everyone else.

We're concerned because we only have 37,000 soldiers on the peninsula; in the event of a war we might suffer huge casualties due to the sheer numbers of NK troops attacking us. They've got their entire military ready to deploy at a moment's notice; they're going to fall apart fairly quickly, but that's still a possible 30,000 or more US casualties (not to mention South Korean troops) that could be lost before additional forces arrive.

We're going to win, but that's still 30,000 or more dead/wounded US soldiers in the immediate outbreak of war. And if they can keep up the momentum long enough to reach Seoul...God help those people because it will be a massacre, even if the NK troops don't intentionally target civilians.

We're concerned because we only have 37,000 soldiers on the peninsula; in the event of a war we might suffer huge casualties due to the sheer numbers of NK troops attacking us. They've got their entire military ready to deploy at a moment's notice; they're going to fall apart fairly quickly, but that's still a possible 30,000 or more US casualties (not to mention South Korean troops) that could be lost before additional forces arrive.

We're going to win, but that's still 30,000 or more dead/wounded US soldiers in the immediate outbreak of war. And if they can keep up the momentum long enough to reach Seoul...God help those people because it will be a massacre, even if the NK troops don't intentionally target civilians.if the USA suffers 30,000 casualties from the 37,000 in S Korea the war will have been lost and the S Korean army destroyed as well. There is no way the US can replace 30,000 troops and their equipment quickly enough to save the situation. Either the NK's are stopped at the DMZ or the war is lost.

I don't buy into this idea that the N Koreans will fall apart or run however you want to describe it, these people are commited to their leader not unlike the Vietnamese, only better armed. Motivation and dedication is hard to measure, judging by the reports of N Korean soldiers/sailors who have commited suicide rather than be taken prisoner S Korea over the last decade I would suspect they are highly motivated.

Speaking of North Korea, this made my day

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

That was pretty funny.

Like, the fact that anyone in their right mind would take any of the tripe that drudge posts seriously. Or the fact that he thought that add was actually serious (if it was, the people at Scary Movie may want to practice being serious, because that smelled of deadpan).

A small skirmish. I don't consider 3 months of conflict that wasn't declared a war by either side as a war.

Just because it was not declared to be a war (for political/diplomatic purposes) does not mean that it was not a war. Both nations awarded their highest military award (Nishan-e-Pakistan and Param Veer Chakra) which they only award during wartime. Legalese and technicalities can only go so far. NK and SK are technically still at war. But are they actually at war now?

We're concerned because we only have 37,000 soldiers on the peninsula; in the event of a war we might suffer huge casualties due to the sheer numbers of NK troops attacking us. They've got their entire military ready to deploy at a moment's notice; they're going to fall apart fairly quickly, but that's still a possible 30,000 or more US casualties (not to mention South Korean troops) that could be lost before additional forces arrive.

We're going to win, but that's still 30,000 or more dead/wounded US soldiers in the immediate outbreak of war. And if they can keep up the momentum long enough to reach Seoul...God help those people because it will be a massacre, even if the NK troops don't intentionally target civilians.

Point of order: Actually, they do. That's why Kim Jong Il's big enforcer thus far has been a series of rocket emplacements aimed to wipe out most of the land between the DMZ and Seoul.

if the USA suffers 30,000 casualties from the 37,000 in S Korea the war will have been lost and the S Korean army destroyed as well. There is no way the US can replace 30,000 troops and their equipment quickly enough to save the situation. Either the NK's are stopped at the DMZ or the war is lost.

Well, there's still the million or so men in the South Korean army....North Korea has no chance of making real progress past the DMZ with their forces. Obviously, I'm hoping our massive air and naval forces will be able to destroy much of the North Korean military well before they make any real progress on their invasion, but we'd still face a lot of casualties regardless. Any attack on North Korea would have to be preemptive.

I don't buy into this idea that the N Koreans will fall apart or run however you want to describe it, these people are commited to their leader not unlike the Vietnamese, only better armed. Motivation and dedication is hard to measure, judging by the reports of N Korean soldiers/sailors who have commited suicide rather than be taken prisoner S Korea over the last decade I would suspect they are highly motivated.

We don't need to occupy North Korea...after their attacks fail, they will collapse in on themselves economically almost immediately; their military is the only thing that can be considered somewhat functional other than the few joint enterprises with South Korea or a few of the Special Administrative Regions near the border (which will be incapacitated by the US in short order). North Korea will be utterly routed in conventional war, so their only viable option is to fight using guerrilla tactics. Instead of occupying them, we can just pull back and let the country implode on itself and then get the other Asian countries to put together a peacekeeping force.

We can pound their infrastructure with air and sea forces until their resistance collapses and simply keep our troops on the DMZ. They're totally broke, with no real allies, no domestic sources of oil/gas, a collapsing electrical and transportation infrastructure, and insufficient food production to support their current population with current resources, let alone after the little they have left is destroyed by the war. North Korea's insurgents are not going to be anywhere near as strong as the Vietnamese were or even the Iraqis, and their ability to enter South Korea will be limited. Also, unlike Vietnam or the (First?) Korean War China and Russia aren't going to give them a dime of hard currency, troops, or any supplies like they did back in 1951, especially considering how North Korea has stabbed them in the back multiple times in the past and now may have jeopardized China's influence in the region both by defying their demands and by triggering a possible regional arms race.

I'm sure China would love to take advantage of a new market and land link to South Korea, and there's plenty of investment opportunity rebuilding their battered economy and infrastructure...there's a lot for them to gain from siding with a regime change in North Korea.

Well, there's still the million or so men in the South Korean army....North Korea has no chance of making real progress past the DMZ with their forces. Obviously, I'm hoping our massive air and naval forces will be able to destroy much of the North Korean military well before they make any real progress on their invasion, but we'd still face a lot of casualties regardless. Any attack on North Korea would have to be preemptive.
You've got it bass-akwards. North Korea has the million man army, South Korea does not have anything close to that.

And the North has been spending years buring things just so it will not be vunerable to air attack.

I'm sure China would love to take advantage of a new market and land link to South Korea, and there's plenty of investment opportunity rebuilding their battered economy and infrastructure...there's a lot for them to gain from siding with a regime change in North Korea.
No, China wants the North right where it is, providing a buffer zone to keep it from being surrounded by the United States. It's a little un-nerving when a country that keeps saying that you'll be the next big enemy has large bases all around you and a really nice land road right into your country.

Point of order: Actually, they do. That's why Kim Jong Il's big enforcer thus far has been a series of rocket emplacements aimed to wipe out most of the land between the DMZ and Seoul.

Yeah, and that's why we have to avoid a war unless absolutely necessary and then strike first. A lot of soldiers and innocent people will die if we make the wrong move early on.

This is a glorius toward world communism! all bow befor drpks mite and ask them kindly to get rid of ther nukular boms ad retirn to a lief in natur as natue entendid.

1)I didn't argue against the existance of mcdonalds

Well then your case is busted, unless you nopw want to deny Israel and Lebanon were at war between 1998 and 2000.

2)hizbulla didn't fight for the interests of lebanon, but for iran and syria. the fact they were lebannese wasn't made them representors of lebanon. also, by poll from the war above 70% of greece support the hizbulla. it wasn't made the hizbulla greeks.
in addition, most of the lebannese goverment were against the actions of hizbulla, so I don't think they represent the official policy of lebanon.
3)no, israel held the lebaneese goverment responsible for lack of action against the hizbulla, thus made israel to act. unlike what you said we consider them as different from the hizbulla and didn't take direct action against them.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. As far as I'm concerned, you cannot separate Hezbollah and Lebanon.

4)the lebaneese army was in the north of lebanon, while the fighting was in the south. they didn't fought us.

Lebanese military forces were indeed involved in the fighting.

Hezbollah said its guerrillas and Lebanese soldiers repelled the assault by Israeli commandos, killing one of the raiders. It did not comment on its own casualties.

Israeli officials said eight commandos were wounded in the wound, two of them seriously. They said an Israeli soldier was killed, but in ground fighting elsewhere in Lebanon.

Lebanese military officials said the commandos landed near an orange grove, cut through a barbed wire fence and attacked the second floor of an apartment building.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-04-mideast-fighting_x.htm

5)nor did I tried.

I gave 4 examples demonstrating that Markreich's claim was false. You addressed one, leaving the other three as disproof.

you simply can't take that statement as it reads.

I take it exactly as it reads.

unlike waht you may think, mcdonalds isn't the important part her. you can replace it with "drink coca-cola", and the idea will be as same.

No. If that were the case, it would be the Coca-Cola Theory.

it isn't fact, but statement.

"No countries with McDonalds have ever fought each other", the original statement that was made (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11786080&postcount=348) is demonstrably a factually incorrect statement. Period.

since you aren't supposed to take that statement as it reads, and the fact that I didn't read is book were he probably clear the issue, I can make speculations about the meaning.
anyway, you can suggest another meaning, but you can't deny it wasn't supposed to be used as fact.

You can speculate all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

I understand you're trying to argue that the underlying theory is good. But I'm not saying it is or it isn't here. I'm simply addressing an irritating Urban Legend. (I don't think it works out as well as it's being sold, but we can address that elsewhere, OK?.)

this statement was over used, and probably change a bit while it happened.

It has been abused a great deal. Like most Urban Legends, this ioffends my sensibilities, which is why I've been objecting to it so stenuously.

when I firstly saw it the warding was: "2 countries with mcdonalds usually don't fight eachother", which is more reasonable.

Indeed you did hear an incorrect version. The original, stated by Friedman in
The Lexus and the Olive Tree reads:
No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's.

As I've been saying, this is untrue.



Do we have to tear up that one again? Friedman's Golden Arches theory doesn't hold true. (That's one reason it was replaced by the Dell Theory.)

Countries that have fought or started wars when at least 1 McDonalds was operating in both countries during or just prior to the war:

USA-Panama
India-Pakistan
NATO-Yugoslavia
Israel-Lebanon


USA-Panama: Damn! (Yes, you're right. That's an exception.)

Indeed. :D

India-Pakistan: Nope. They haven't had a war since 1971. India got a McD's in October 1996, Pakistan in 1998.Kargil, 1999.

Bingo. And that's not to mention the ongoing low level fighting.

NATO-Yugoslavia: Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule: the war ended quickly, he argued, partly because the Serbian population did not want to lose their place in a global system "symbolised by McDonald's" (Friedman 2000: 252–253). It should be noted that Friedman framed this theory in terms of McDonald's Golden Arches "with tongue slightly in cheek" (Friedman 2005).

You might want to source that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches_theory ;)

Also, you left out the part about it being updated to the Dell Theory.

It might have been tounge in cheek, but it has legs as an Urban Legend, and that's what annoys me so much.

Israel-Lebanon: It's unclear if Israel fought Lebanon or Hezbollah. While Hezbollah is a party in Lebanon, it's no more the same as going to war against Lebanon than the US went to war with Columbia when sending in advisors to fight against FARC.

FARC doesn't have significant representation in the government of Colombia. Nor did the Colombian military engage US forces.

No, China wants the North right where it is, providing a buffer zone to keep it from being surrounded by the United States. It's a little un-nerving when a country that keeps saying that you'll be the next big enemy has large bases all around you and a really nice land road right into your country.


Remember the current North Korean border is only 3 hundred miles to Beijing by road. Imagine if Washington D.C was 300 miles from Cuba, and filled with potential hostile forces. It'd be constant high-tension.

You've got it bass-akwards. North Korea has the million man army, South Korea does not have anything close to that.

They've got nearly 600,000 active and millions more in reserve, and their armed forces are a lot more modern, well-equipped, and well trained than North Korea's. They also have the economic infrastructure to support and supply their troops, whereas North Korea can barely feed them or operate their outdated equipment.

And the North has been spending years buring things just so it will not be vunerable to air attack.

The problem is, the things they need to keep fighting can't be buried; most of their infrastructure is above-ground, their industrial plants are above ground, and their agriculture is above ground. That's a lot to lose even if they can sustain fairly productive subterranean military capacity.

No, China wants the North right where it is, providing a buffer zone to keep it from being surrounded by the United States. It's a little un-nerving when a country that keeps saying that you'll be the next big enemy has large bases all around you and a really nice land road right into your country.

I don't know; I could see China as wanting to make a move on North Korea to take advantage of its strategic and economic value and to move itself closer to the US. After all, several NK cities could become a major port for Russian energy and raw materials and they could build road links to take advantage of more markets.

Of course, you'd probably know the workings of the region better since you live in Japan as opposed to me living in Ohio.;)

Remember the current North Korean border is only 3 hundred miles to Beijing by road. Imagine if Washington D.C was 300 miles from Cuba, and filled with potential hostile forces. It'd be constant high-tension.
I didn't say it was a BAD thing, I just said why China was doing that. :D

They've got nearly 600,000 active and millions more in reserve, and their armed forces are a lot more modern, well-equipped, and well trained than North Korea's. They also have the economic infrastructure to support and supply their troops, whereas North Korea can barely feed them or operate their outdated equipment.
But the North does have over a million men active right now, and they also get the best of what the country has. They're fanatical (thanks to the cult of personality Kim has made), and apparently they have a large number of special ops troops.

The problem is, the things they need to keep fighting can't be buried; most of their infrastructure is above-ground, their industrial plants are above ground, and their agriculture is above ground. That's a lot to lose even if they can sustain fairly productive subterranean military capacity.
Their command and control is burried though.

I don't know; I could see China as wanting to make a move on North Korea to take advantage of its strategic and economic value and to move itself closer to the US. After all, several NK cities could become a major port for Russian energy and raw materials and they could build road links to take advantage of more markets.
They'd be butting heads with the US, something they REALLY don't want.

Of course, you'd probably know the workings of the region better since you live in Japan as opposed to me living in Ohio.;)
That's what the board is for, a chance to air all theories. ;)

Yeah, and that's why we have to avoid a war unless absolutely necessary and then strike first. A lot of soldiers and innocent people will die if we make the wrong move early on.strike first-do some research they entire army with food, fuel and supplies deep underground, there is no 1st strike option, much of their airforce and nvay is also buried, as are artillery rockets and anything else you can think of. They have Tunnels under the DMZ waiting to spew forth 15,000 men per hr there are an estimated 700,000 on the front line ready to go immediately with no build -up. S korea has 600,000 men the north 1.2 million plus another 5-7million reserves and 120,000 elite speacial forces.

No government in it's right mind will attack N Korea, if there is a war the NK's will start it.

Pyong-Yang claim to have set off a nuclear explosion. Seismic studies show that if it was even nuclear, it was pretty lame. 15% of Hiroshima. The US and Russia have nukes which are 15 times as powerful as Hiroshima, you do the maths.

North Korea is a joke, they can't even feed the army without foreign aid, nevermind wage an offensive against any powerful nation. Let them try out their toy nukes and see what happens when they splash into the Pacific.

We're concerned because we only have 37,000 soldiers on the peninsula; in the event of a war we might suffer huge casualties due to the sheer numbers of NK troops attacking us. They've got their entire military ready to deploy at a moment's notice; they're going to fall apart fairly quickly, but that's still a possible 30,000 or more US casualties (not to mention South Korean troops) that could be lost before additional forces arrive.

We're going to win, but that's still 30,000 or more dead/wounded US soldiers in the immediate outbreak of war. And if they can keep up the momentum long enough to reach Seoul...God help those people because it will be a massacre, even if the NK troops don't intentionally target civilians.
Another scary thing to consider is the the NK's consider chemical weapons as part of their warfare. At least according to this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554).

A small skirmish. I don't consider 3 months of conflict that wasn't declared a war by either side as a war.
Just because it was not declared to be a war (for political/diplomatic purposes) does not mean that it was not a war. Both nations awarded their highest military award (Nishan-e-Pakistan and Param Veer Chakra) which they only award during wartime. Legalese and technicalities can only go so far. NK and SK are technically still at war. But are they actually at war now?

Indeed. How can you even consider almost 2000 KIAs a "small skirmish"? Note, some claims go much higher...
In a rare reference to Kargil, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has disputed deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's account that more Pakistani soldiers were killed during the conflict than the previous two wars against India, claiming New Delhi suffered more casualties than Islamabad.

"It hurts me when an ex-premier undermines his own forces," Musharraf said while responding to Sharif's comments made in an interview to an Indian weekly that Pakistan lost more soldiers in Kargil conflict that the 1965 and the 1971 wars put together.
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=34665

And like I said above, there is the ongoing low level violent conflict.

North Korea's insurgents are not going to be anywhere near as strong as the Vietnamese were or even the Iraqis, and their ability to enter South Korea will be limited.there are many NK's insurgents operating in S Korea now, and I've never heard of many Iraqi's or Vietnamese commiting suicide rather than be captured these people are fanatical, it's still 1953 in their minds.

Pyong-Yang claim to have set off a nuclear explosion. Seismic studies show that if it was even nuclear, it was pretty lame. 15% of Hiroshima. The US and Russia have nukes which are 15 times as powerful as Hiroshima, you do the maths.

North Korea is a joke, they can't even feed the army without foreign aid, nevermind wage an offensive against any powerful nation. Let them try out their toy nukes and see what happens when they splash into the Pacific.flawed resoning, many bombs the USA drops on enemies also fail to explode, patriot missles also fail, some nukes can also be expected to fail.
even if they have only 10 nukes and eight fail to work which cities are you willing to sacrifice to the two that work? If you are the President are you willing to take that risk with Seoul, Tokyo or LA,; are you sure their missles don't work? or did they destroy them deliberately?
so what if USA and Russia have nukes 15 or 100 times as big as Hiroshima you'll be just as dead with a little Hiroshima bomb

No, China wants the North right where it is, providing a buffer zone to keep it from being surrounded by the United States. It's a little un-nerving when a country that keeps saying that you'll be the next big enemy has large bases all around you and a really nice land road right into your country.
But just assuming that either a war breaks out and Kim's government is destroyed, or it collapses on its own...I'd be surprised if the Chinese wouldn't move in. They don't want total anarchy across their border, and they especially don't want millions of refugees.

Maybe they'd just set up a new North Korean government, which listens to them more than the current one does.

But just assuming that either a war breaks out and Kim's government is destroyed, or it collapses on its own...I'd be surprised if the Chinese wouldn't move in. They don't want total anarchy across their border, and they especially don't want millions of refugees.

Maybe they'd just set up a new North Korean government, which listens to them more than the current one does.
In that case, yes, but I do not see China moving in first.

Pyong-Yang claim to have set off a nuclear explosion. Seismic studies show that if it was even nuclear, it was pretty lame. 15% of Hiroshima. The US and Russia have nukes which are 15 times as powerful as Hiroshima, you do the maths.
US and Russia have (or in case of the latter had) arsenals designed to bomb all enemies down into the nineteenth century, and to continue operation. Part of these arsenals was always aimed at enemy's nukes for preemptive strikes. These are offensive armies, not defensive .
Nuclear arsenals of any country in the Western Europe - including UK and France - look like toys compared to the major two. Why? Because they are purely deterrence forces. Even combined they would not hold back invading army, but they can deter other countries from taking them over as easy targets. Pretty much the same with NK.

North Korea is a joke, they can't even feed the army without foreign aid, nevermind wage an offensive against any powerful nation. Let them try out their toy nukes and see what happens when they splash into the Pacific.
Would you like to try out these nukes yourself?
Living in Scotland, you actually won't have to, but it's quite plausible in US, and certain in Japan.

You forgot Poland. :p
Yes, I know, Poland is part of NATO. I'm just being dumb. :p

Yes, here on NS, we always forget Poland.

Funny..

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2006/10/10/cartoon.jpg

Indeed. How can you even consider almost 2000 KIAs a "small skirmish"? Note, some claims go much higher...

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=34665

And like I said above, there is the ongoing low level violent conflict.

Sense of scale. Compared to most 20th century conflicts, 2000KIA *is* quite small.

Sense of scale. Compared to most 20th century conflicts, 2000KIA *is* quite small.
Hmm quite true, actually.

Another scary thing to consider is the the NK's consider chemical weapons as part of their warfare. At least according to this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554).

That's the concern. We would win against them, but there are millions of people in the area that could be killed or wounded before that victory on both sides.

Nukes are the best deterrent there is - A true weapon of peace.

A good sized arsenal of nuclear warheads and ICBMs makes any country immune to large scale war waged by another country: Consider the fact that there has never been a country with considerable arsenal of public nukes which has been unlawfully attacked and seriously threatened by another country.

Nuclear Proliferation is the road to global peace as nuclear weapons can't be used as offensive weapons against a country with equal or greater number of such weapons: Nukes were the one thing that kept cold war as cold peace.

What's even better is that nukes are the 'safest' - target, fire & forget - of WMDs: The radius of the immediate effect and long term effects are relatively well known* as opposed to chemical or biological weapons which can get out of hand.

* See Linear no-threshold model & Radiation Hormesis for dispute.

A good sized arsenal of nuclear warheads and ICBMs makes any country immune to large scale war waged by another country: Consider the fact that there has never been a country with considerable arsenal of public nukes which has been unlawfully attacked and seriously threatened by another country.

Nuclear Proliferation is the road to global peace as nuclear weapons can't be used as offensive weapons against a country with equal or greater number of such weapons: Nukes were the one thing that kept cold war as cold peace.



This makes the terrible assumption all national leaders must be rational actors. This has long since been proven not to be the case.

Also, this assumes everyone has perfect knowledge of what other national actors are doing. This is hardly ever the case, especially with regards to dictatorships. A nice example would be in 1991 when Russia nearly launched its nuclear missiles against the US because it mistook a weather balloon for a nuclear harbringer. It was averted last minute. Now multiply this situation across various other nations and you have a nuclear disaster waiting to happen.

Excellent...now us llamas will survive the resulting nuclear holocaust, emerge from our bunkers, enslave the remainder of the human race, and then...well, we'll let you speculate.